Jump to content

Obituary: Dianne Feinstein, trailblazing senator who defied CIA and White House


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know much about her, but IMO it's an abomination that anyone could spend 3 decades sucking large off the taxpayer to sit in congress, and especially that they did it till age 90. It's not like it's a real job, is it?

 

I'd like a 3 term or 10 years maximum for any politician in any country.

 

The very valid reason is the saying "power corrupts".

Like you admit yourself, you don’t know a lot about her.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

One other comment on her career. She was way, way off base on her CIA allegations and persecution. They might have used torture from time to time. But, it was rarely on innocents. 

Edited by spidermike007
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

One other comment on her career. She was way, way off base on her CIA allegations and persecution. They might have used torture from time to time. But, it was rarely on innocents. 

It was never acceptable.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was never acceptable.

I felt that way too, until I spent alot of time researching it. They used it on very few, and they did extract alot of valuable intel. It is unlikely they would have had the opportunity to waste Bin Laden by being nice guys. So, what is the trade off?

 

They were planning on blowing up 10 passengers jets on the same day, until they killed one of the terrorists, who was the mastermind. A fair trade off? For 3,000 innocent lives? I think so. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess this is based on what people justifying having tortured or authorized torture claim.

 

The value of torture in interrogation was debunked decades ago:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

CIA and FBI Go Online to Edit Wikipedia

The official refuse to confirm

https://news.softpedia.com/news/CIA-And-FBI-Go-Online-To-Edit-Wikipedia-62990.shtml

 

https://www.wired.com/2007/08/wiki-tracker/

Posted
Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

And your point is?

Linking Wikipedia as evidence that CIA torture isn't effective is pretty funny when the CIA has been editing Wikipedia since way before 2010.

 

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
Just now, impulse said:

Linking Wikipedia as evidence that CIA torture isn't effective is pretty funny when the CIA has been editing Wikipedia since way before 2010.

 

But I didn’t link to Wikipedia as evidence that CIA torture isn’t effective.

 

I linked to an Wikipedia article on a Nazi interrogator who is recognized for the effectiveness of his methods that did not include torture.

 

The Wikipedia article also includes references to the impact of his methods on modern interrogation techniques.

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But I didn’t link to Wikipedia as evidence that CIA torture isn’t effective.

 

I linked to an Wikipedia article on a Nazi interrogator who is recognized for the effectiveness of his methods that did not include torture.

 

The Wikipedia article also includes references to the impact of his methods on modern interrogation techniques.

The topic of discussion is CIA torture.  Your claim is that it's not effective.  Your linked evidence is Wikipedia.

 

QED.

 

Posted
5 hours ago, TooPoopedToPop said:

Legend indeed... for all the wrong reasons.

"Yet her career was full of historic moments, of which her Senate election was only one".

It was the only one if you judge her by any standards other than those of the left-wing loons who have ruined her city, her state, and now hard at work on destroying her country.

Hey TooPooped...reads as if you've POPPED???? ????

Posted
2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

She was an effective politician, and got things done. I do not want to rain on her parade, but the major issue I had with her, is the same one I have with Pelosi, McConnell and a few others. They just serve for too long. They do not know when to quit. There should be both term limits (I would suggest no more than 2 terms) and age limits ( I would suggest 75 at the oldest). We should not have to wait for them to die, for their term to expire.

Further, there's good reasons for ensuring that new blood comes into any type of organization* from time to time. And IMHO that includes politicians and their new thinking regularly taking the popium.

 

I was a regional director of a multi-national for 2 decades, my own support team were required to keep me well informed of many items of data (1 example; for each operating company how long since a vacant middle / senior manager / snr supevisor position had been filled by a person from outside (to prevent the organization from ignoring new ideas / processes happening in the outer business environment and to prevent becoming a stale internally focused m'ment team.

 

And I also informed my i'national board of directors they should move me, I had been in the same position for too long.

 

They listened, created a roving CEO performance monitoring position and I did that for 4 years before retiring. In that 4 years I appointed 3 new operating company CEOs from outside, all deliberate.

Posted

If she challenged the CIA, that would be enough to give her national honours. America is the first to use questionnable tactics serving it's own interests. But when it comes to other nations doing similar, they butt in and start giving lessons of morale. Very rarewly works both ways with those bureaucrats in Washington. No hard feelings as this is about the absurd politics and not a judgement of the american people who are just as fed up with their governance.

  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...