UofMstateU
Legend
Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
|
|
05-21-2020 12:04 PM |
|
JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1721
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
|
Ratcliffe Confirmed
Yup.
In a few short weeks Ambassador Grinnell handed them their asss so many times I’m surprised the vote by dims wasn’t unanimous for Ratcliffe.
Now, don’t let up. Hammer down. Hammer time
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2020 12:27 PM by JMUDunk.)
|
|
05-21-2020 12:27 PM |
|
Redwingtom
Progressive filth
Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
And yet again, the Senate cedes their responsibility and the law and confirms an unqualified hack. Heckuva job Mitchy!
Quote:It wasn’t just that Ratcliffe would have been the least qualified DNI in the position’s short history, dating back to post-9/11 intelligence-community reforms; it was that even the weak résumé he did have was embellished. Nominating qualified candidates is a good idea in general, but in the case of the DNI, it’s required by law: “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” Not only did Ratcliffe not have that, but he’d overstated what he did have. He claimed that as a U.S. Attorney in eastern Texas he had tried suspects who funneled money to Hamas, but he had not; he hadn’t even been a confirmed U.S. Attorney, and his claims to have overseen terrorism prosecutions didn’t hold up.
The First Nomination as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2020 01:17 PM by Redwingtom.)
|
|
05-21-2020 01:17 PM |
|
appst89
Herding Cats
Posts: 2,816
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 484
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location:
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And yet again, the Senate cedes their responsibility and the law and confirms an unqualified hack. Heckuva job Mitchy!
Quote:It wasn’t just that Ratcliffe would have been the least qualified DNI in the position’s short history, dating back to post-9/11 intelligence-community reforms; it was that even the weak résumé he did have was embellished. Nominating qualified candidates is a good idea in general, but in the case of the DNI, it’s required by law: “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” Not only did Ratcliffe not have that, but he’d overstated what he did have. He claimed that as a U.S. Attorney in eastern Texas he had tried suspects who funneled money to Hamas, but he had not; he hadn’t even been a confirmed U.S. Attorney, and his claims to have overseen terrorism prosecutions didn’t hold up.
The First Nomination as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
Okay, Karen.
|
|
05-21-2020 01:21 PM |
|
UofMstateU
Legend
Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And yet again, the Senate cedes their responsibility and the law and confirms an unqualified hack. Heckuva job Mitchy!
Quote:It wasn’t just that Ratcliffe would have been the least qualified DNI in the position’s short history, dating back to post-9/11 intelligence-community reforms; it was that even the weak résumé he did have was embellished. Nominating qualified candidates is a good idea in general, but in the case of the DNI, it’s required by law: “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” Not only did Ratcliffe not have that, but he’d overstated what he did have. He claimed that as a U.S. Attorney in eastern Texas he had tried suspects who funneled money to Hamas, but he had not; he hadn’t even been a confirmed U.S. Attorney, and his claims to have overseen terrorism prosecutions didn’t hold up.
The First Nomination as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
The fact that TOm and the ATlantic are on their knees blowing Dan Coates is all I need to know that he was a bad apple. The fact that Grennell declassified and released documents that Coates could have done more than a year ago is also proof.
|
|
05-21-2020 01:33 PM |
|
SoMs Eagle
Heisman
Posts: 8,998
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 683
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And yet again, the Senate cedes their responsibility and the law and confirms an unqualified hack. Heckuva job Mitchy!
Quote:It wasn’t just that Ratcliffe would have been the least qualified DNI in the position’s short history, dating back to post-9/11 intelligence-community reforms; it was that even the weak résumé he did have was embellished. Nominating qualified candidates is a good idea in general, but in the case of the DNI, it’s required by law: “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” Not only did Ratcliffe not have that, but he’d overstated what he did have. He claimed that as a U.S. Attorney in eastern Texas he had tried suspects who funneled money to Hamas, but he had not; he hadn’t even been a confirmed U.S. Attorney, and his claims to have overseen terrorism prosecutions didn’t hold up.
The First Nomination as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
Now remind me again who was Barry’s DNI? Highly qualified at spying on political opponents is not what I would call ‘properly qualified’.
|
|
05-21-2020 01:52 PM |
|
olliebaba
Legend
Posts: 28,102
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2151
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
I would have preferred that Grennel would have remained as THE DNI head. Why he wasn't nominated is a mystery to me. But, that's no problem, if Grennel remained as Assistant he could still keep doing what he's doing. There's no reason it can't be done. Do it!
|
|
05-21-2020 02:07 PM |
|
JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1721
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: And yet again, the Senate cedes their responsibility and the law and confirms an unqualified hack. Heckuva job Mitchy!
Quote:It wasn’t just that Ratcliffe would have been the least qualified DNI in the position’s short history, dating back to post-9/11 intelligence-community reforms; it was that even the weak résumé he did have was embellished. Nominating qualified candidates is a good idea in general, but in the case of the DNI, it’s required by law: “Any individual nominated for appointment as Director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security expertise.” Not only did Ratcliffe not have that, but he’d overstated what he did have. He claimed that as a U.S. Attorney in eastern Texas he had tried suspects who funneled money to Hamas, but he had not; he hadn’t even been a confirmed U.S. Attorney, and his claims to have overseen terrorism prosecutions didn’t hold up.
The First Nomination as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
I'm not as concerned about his potential nominees not being qualified, moreso that Sloe himself clearly isn't fit.
That obvious point aside, do you honestly believe that the Clapper was a good DNI? A straight shooter?
And, of course, to point out another obvious fact, it's the Atlantic. A rags, rag since at least 1978 or so.
|
|
05-21-2020 02:31 PM |
|
olliebaba
Legend
Posts: 28,102
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2151
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
It's amazing to me that just because people read an article about politics that they will believe what is told to them. What...don't writers have biases? Just because a writer can join words together to make a sentence does not make that writer a genius and his comments believable above others. I tend to make my own judgments. Believing everything that is spoon fed doesn't make me any smarter than my neighbors who are way too sick with TDS. These people believe everything the late night "comedians" and The View tell them. The husband for one reads at a fifth grade level if that. I don't argue with them as it would be tantamount to arguing with a drunkard, you won't get anywhere.
|
|
05-21-2020 06:59 PM |
|
MileHighBronco
Legend
Posts: 34,302
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 1727
I Root For: Broncos
Location: Forgotten Time Zone
|
RE: Ratcliffe Confirmed
(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Can't wait for the gnashing of teeth should Biden somehow keep it together enough pull off a victory in November, when all his nominees will suddenly all be unqualified.
Congratulations!
Should that unlikely scenario take place, Biden's victory speech would be almost required viewing. He can no longer talk off the top of his head, can barely read a teleprompter and might wonder out loud what all the people were there to celebrate.
It won't happen though.
|
|
05-21-2020 07:39 PM |
|