History Channel's "documentary is a turkey!
I just watched a “documentary” on the history channel. This is one of the features of the History Channel’s “Conspiracy?” series.
Anyway, this particular show's main point was that the U.S. employed ex-Nazis to spy on the Soviets after WWII. The show explained that we did it because we had almost no intelligence assets in the Soviet Union and the Nazis did. OK. Sound's prudent to me.
Then, in the documentary, I saw various sanctimonious twits professing to be scandalized by the U.S. exploiting war criminals during our post-WWII struggles with the Soviets. I watched in disbelieve as these nitwits intoned how using war criminals “stained” the U.S. in some way.
Please. These folks interviewed for this documentary must have popcorn instead of brains. This documentary's producers also evidently were educated beyond their intelligence: they let these stupid comments go unchallenged.
Since the producers of this documentary evidently cannot process simple tasks like unraveling string, emptying the urine from their boots before stepping into them or noticing the obvious mitigating factors that might make it profitable for the U.S. to employ war criminals then I guess I’ll have to do it for them.
First, I must puncture their the critics’ annoying sanctimoniousness. Every single nitwit—they all happen to be 100% Democrats whenever their party was specified, naturally—all were upset that the U.S. hired spies who were ex-Nazis. One nitwit emitted clouds of pious platitudes regarding that we hired people that worked for the government that some of our soldiers died fighting so as to spy on a country that many people—at least in the years immediately following WW II—expected to be fighting in the near future: the USSR. This, in her words, "made a mockery" out of our soldier's deaths.
Now I hope that it doesn’t come as a shock to anybody’s nervous system but the one purpose of intelligence—among other things—is to ensure that we lose the fewest number of soldiers before and during hostilities. For example, the successful attack on Pearl Harbor was a symptom of a thing called in some quarters an intelligence failure. We were hiring ex-Nazis because we needed intelligence on Stalin actions in eastern Europe.
Second, Not one of these same critics care even one whit that during the war both the U.S. and Britain allied with Stalin, who much more heinous than any of these small fry war criminals. I believe they revel their sympathies when acquiesce to working with Stalin to protect ourselves—an coincidently, help Stalin in his death struggle with Hitler—and simultaneously freaking out over hiring ex-Nazis in pursuit of defending ourselves against Stalin. This is the equilivent of swallowing something bigger than your head whole (i.e., the U.S. allying with Stalin) while proceding to choke on a gant (e.g., these Nazi generals were hired).
Third, these same critics complained that the U.S. was hiring war criminals and people with human rights problems. Of course the USSR’s human rights violations were well documented before WWII but this didn’t cause any of these critics to complain about the U.S. allying herself with Stalin for the purpose of winning a war against Hitler.
Oh by the way, one of the reasons why we don’t have any human intelligence sources within al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization prior to 9/11 is because the Deutch rules, forced on the CIA by Democratic Senator Torricelli prohibited the CIA from hiring spies that had “human rights problems”. Of course this rule is dysfunctional because it means that we can never recruit a spy from within terrorist organizations because there is nobody inside terrorist organizations except terrorists.
Listen closely to today’s Democratic complainers and—sometimes—you will hear echoes of the same complainers, that we hired certain members of the old Iraqi regime because they’re useful to us.
Isn’t it nice to know that some things never change?
Fourth, these critics were upset we hired the ex-members of an defeated government tin pursuit of defending ourselves against a hostile government that was still undefeated. SO? The ex-members of a defeated government are in no position to attack us! The USSR is!
Anyway, this particular show's main point was that the U.S. employed ex-Nazis to spy on the Soviets after WWII. The show explained that we did it because we had almost no intelligence assets in the Soviet Union and the Nazis did. OK. Sound's prudent to me.
Then, in the documentary, I saw various sanctimonious twits professing to be scandalized by the U.S. exploiting war criminals during our post-WWII struggles with the Soviets. I watched in disbelieve as these nitwits intoned how using war criminals “stained” the U.S. in some way.
Please. These folks interviewed for this documentary must have popcorn instead of brains. This documentary's producers also evidently were educated beyond their intelligence: they let these stupid comments go unchallenged.
Since the producers of this documentary evidently cannot process simple tasks like unraveling string, emptying the urine from their boots before stepping into them or noticing the obvious mitigating factors that might make it profitable for the U.S. to employ war criminals then I guess I’ll have to do it for them.
First, I must puncture their the critics’ annoying sanctimoniousness. Every single nitwit—they all happen to be 100% Democrats whenever their party was specified, naturally—all were upset that the U.S. hired spies who were ex-Nazis. One nitwit emitted clouds of pious platitudes regarding that we hired people that worked for the government that some of our soldiers died fighting so as to spy on a country that many people—at least in the years immediately following WW II—expected to be fighting in the near future: the USSR. This, in her words, "made a mockery" out of our soldier's deaths.
Now I hope that it doesn’t come as a shock to anybody’s nervous system but the one purpose of intelligence—among other things—is to ensure that we lose the fewest number of soldiers before and during hostilities. For example, the successful attack on Pearl Harbor was a symptom of a thing called in some quarters an intelligence failure. We were hiring ex-Nazis because we needed intelligence on Stalin actions in eastern Europe.
Second, Not one of these same critics care even one whit that during the war both the U.S. and Britain allied with Stalin, who much more heinous than any of these small fry war criminals. I believe they revel their sympathies when acquiesce to working with Stalin to protect ourselves—an coincidently, help Stalin in his death struggle with Hitler—and simultaneously freaking out over hiring ex-Nazis in pursuit of defending ourselves against Stalin. This is the equilivent of swallowing something bigger than your head whole (i.e., the U.S. allying with Stalin) while proceding to choke on a gant (e.g., these Nazi generals were hired).
Third, these same critics complained that the U.S. was hiring war criminals and people with human rights problems. Of course the USSR’s human rights violations were well documented before WWII but this didn’t cause any of these critics to complain about the U.S. allying herself with Stalin for the purpose of winning a war against Hitler.
Oh by the way, one of the reasons why we don’t have any human intelligence sources within al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization prior to 9/11 is because the Deutch rules, forced on the CIA by Democratic Senator Torricelli prohibited the CIA from hiring spies that had “human rights problems”. Of course this rule is dysfunctional because it means that we can never recruit a spy from within terrorist organizations because there is nobody inside terrorist organizations except terrorists.
Listen closely to today’s Democratic complainers and—sometimes—you will hear echoes of the same complainers, that we hired certain members of the old Iraqi regime because they’re useful to us.
Isn’t it nice to know that some things never change?
Fourth, these critics were upset we hired the ex-members of an defeated government tin pursuit of defending ourselves against a hostile government that was still undefeated. SO? The ex-members of a defeated government are in no position to attack us! The USSR is!
posted by johnh | 1:45 AM
<< Home