Free Republic

Just to be certain, here is just a link. It says it is copyright 1963 by Truman, but it isn't from the Washington Post. At least it's their headache:

http://pvnm.com/hst

The funniest part of all this is, if you look at the history, the CIA was created specifically to 'solve' the problem of politicized intelligence.

It seems that Truman was distressed that he would get conflicting reports from State and Defense (and everyone else), all of them describing the situation from their own point of view (much like the fable of the blind men and the elephant).

He wanted a single agency to collect raw, unfiltered data.

While that is a noble goal, I doubt that it can really happen (at least, not for longer than four years, and most likely not longer than two).

He was already disgusted with his creation less than twenty years after he signed it into existance.

How do I know? Cause I have a copy of his op-ed from December 1963 where he wishes aloud that he could un-sign their charter (because they started going into black ops instead of just collecting intelligence).

I suspect that the timing of this op-ed has something to do with events the previous month, but that is merely noticing the timing, not anything concrete.

I would be happy to post it here, but I only know how to reply so far, and I am not sure whether protocol would be that I put it here in a reply, or start its own thread.

In the interim, just look for it on google. Search for: "The Washington Post December 22, 1963 - page A11"

I agree. The Honduran embassy was reportedly the largest CIA installation in the world outside of Langley.

Ok, I'm new here (today) and I don't think I'm a 'troll' (yet).

I came here from another article that I read that was a tangent from this topic on another server (the Stephen Colbert press corps dinner story), but I did see this story earlier, and it was actually the original topic I was following (who is this Hoekstra guy?).

I heard it on the radio this morning on Democracy Now! Here is the story they read (from http://democracynow.org)

GOP Rep. Criticizes Bush Admin Over Intelligence Secrecy
Here in the United States, a Congressionally ally of the Bush administration has revealed the White House is concealing at least one major intelligence operation. Congressmember Peter Hoekstra, a Republican of Michigan who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, says he learned of the operation from government whistleblowers concerned the White House had not briefed Congress as it is required to do on under federal law. Hoekstra wrote a letter to the Bush administration in May that says: "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies." Hoekstra has been a vocal supporter of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping and financial spying.

I read the PDF, and the quotes you picked, and I am flabbergasted that DNow!, you guys, and the MSM ALL picked the wrong quotes.

Here is the germane topic:

If, as Rep. Hoekstra says, Porter Goss' mission was to de-politicize the department, and Steve Kappas really did quit when Goss was appointed, AND he quit because he was finding new ways to politicize the CIA, WHY is the administration putting him up as the deputy?

I somewhat agree, somewhat disagree with both of you on the composition of Colbert's humor.

While I would agree with HHFi's statement that he is a "character or concept comedian", I would say that his style is more akin to Andy Kaufman than Bobcat Goldthwait. In specific, his presentation is so 'in character', that for many people it is difficult to see that it is, in fact, just a character.

I disagree that the stereotype is false. I would say without question that it is a stereotype, and it wouldn't apply to (most) conservatives, but there are enough who fit the mold to make it a stereotype.

For example, when I was still a registered Libertarian (and actually a candidate for NM Senate for a while), I could make jokes about the far fringes of that party (you know them, the ones who want to put their own toll-booths on their own streets to pay for fixing their potholes themselves).

The fact that I could joke about it meant the stereotype was valid. The fact that (some of) the other Libs found it funny meant they personally didn't fit the stereotype. The fact that my candidacy stopped at the state convention meant there were more of the stereotype types there than I previously thought;)

If, instead of joking about it, I had done as Colbert does, and made my speech at the convention skewering the topic facetiously by proposing it as a plank in my platform tongue-in-cheek, they probably would have nominated me.

So, for at least some of us, those of which are far enough away from the stereotypical conservative stance he lampoons, find that the "self-deprecating humor that makes the comic look ridiculous" and which "is actually an attack on people he doesn't like" doesn't come across as "merely nasty" at all.

It is freakin' hilarious.

After having read all about this, I went out and got a copy of the video (intact, not the edited version--24 mins. 16 secs.). I saw all the 'funny/unfunny' posts (not just here), I wanted to examine it for myself.

I watched it, and the only two jokes without a noticable response from the audience were two on which the timing was off (it took a second or so to get the joke and he was already tallking again).

I think the audience thought that his performance was funny. I don't think they got too enthusiastic about it, but this wasn't a comedy club, its a freakin' state dinner with armed men in sunglasses walking around at night.

I think that HHFi's comment at the end is really the point on which his interpretation diverges from mine. He says: "Good topical humor is not blindly partisan: it skewers hypocrisy wherever it is found."

I think you missed the point on Colbert. He doesn't do topical humor. The topic is merely the day's springboard for his character (while your job is exactly the opposite--making good generic jokes for ANY character on a given topic).

He really is like Andy Kaufmann. I think (personally) he is brilliant, and has perfectly captured the arrogant ignorance personna.

I would suppose that the ire he raises in viewers would be directly proportional to the viewer's own resemblence to his character.

The ire he raises on his show with liberal guests is pretty funny, too. Even though he is acting, I've seen a lot of people almost come unglued from the questions he asks them. The ones who are prepped aren't as funny.

And you have to note as well that Tom DeLay was completely fooled, thinking that Colbert was supporting him (apparently, his staff posted a segment where Colbert interviewed Robert Greenwald on his 'defenddelay.com' website before they realized Colbert was a parody).

Since I come to conservatism from a different place than many others, I find it pretty interesting, and I watch his show often.

BTW, the show which is on just before, "The Daily Show", is really the topical humor show. Colbert used to be just a character on that show before they decided to spin him off to his own half-hour.