Another Perspective
CIA’s Vulnerability Is Congenital
Conservatives are too prone to think of CIA as our valiant defenders rather than what they are: dangerously incompetent.
The destruction of the CIA’s Forward Operating Base Chapman on December 30 by an Afghan suicide bomber who had been a trusted informant was surprising only because it had not happened sooner. Bringing bombs to intelligence officers is infinitely easier than getting them to accept misleading information. But hostile intelligence services have foisted such information onto CIA ever since its inception, easily. Just so, it seems that the Chapman bomber, Hammam al Balali, had long been providing CIA with the information it used to direct drone strikes against what CIA was led to believe were America’s enemies. That may explain why, after each strike, the U.S. government would claim success against terrorists while Afghans and Pakistanis would claim that innocents had died. In short, before CIA officers got themselves killed by letting Mr. al Balali bring them a bomb, they caused wider harm by letting him and his friends help pick America’s targets. CIA will rush to protect itself against physical attack, but will resist protecting the rest of us against its own incompetence.
CIA’s model of operations practically invites all forms of betrayal, because its operatives are by no means clandestine, and because they have always been averse to serious counterintelligence. Ever since 1943, when Allen Dulles set up spy shop on Bern’s Herrengasse with full coverage by the local press, nearly all of CIA’s case officers have been “covered” only by the useless pretense that they work for another part of the U.S. government. But to the people they try to recruit, CIA officers make no pretense at all about who they are. They could not if they tried, because they are linguistically and culturally incapable of passing for anything other than what they are. As a result, CIA officers end up having far more contact with people who want to use them than with those whom they might wish to use. Perpetually starved for high grade information, CIA accepts sources as valid with only the thinnest pretense of quality control. Even before 1975, when CIA made the operators themselves responsible for their own operations’ integrity, counterintelligence had been the Agency’s stepchild. Thus, not only did the Soviet KGB routinely control CIA’s operations through double agents: so did the East Germans, the Cubans, and the Iraqis, who penetrated the CIA’s vaunted ROCKSTARS network from the start.
CIA’s performance regarding terrorism is worsened by its increasing reliance on foreign intelligence services. The Chapman case, in which an agent provided by Jordanian intelligence proved to be hostile, is all too typical. Our officers simply had neither alternatives to the Jordanian agent, nor means independently to vet him. All they could do was to note that he had provided facts that proved to be true. How many false ones were mixed in, no one seems to have asked. And so the agent was invited to take part in deciding who America’s friends and enemies are. Alas, this is a very old story. The only new part is that he decided to end the charade by killing his hosts. Probably, he would have done more harm by keeping it up.
For CIA to exercise judgment independent of foreign liaison services, to penetrate hostiles rather than to be penetrated by them, it would have to consist of people who derive security from blending into foreign environments unrecognizably rather than from guards; who derive effectiveness from their capacity to distinguish between true facts and true lies; who have the integrity to tell themselves and others the difference between what they know and what they want to believe. But CIA has never consisted of such people.
The CIA bureaucrats whose inertial navigation of personnel and procedures placed a thirty-ish suburban mother of three young children in charge of Base Chapman, exposing her to be euchred and then killed by people who proved to be beyond her ken, bear a heavy responsibility.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (99) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Angelo M. Codevilla
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/11/cias-vulnerability-is-congenit
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 7:33AM
Yes, but it started in earnest with Watergate; then the 'investigations' in '75; then Jimmuh Boy.
A downward spiral.
JP| 1.11.10 @ 9:08AM
Bob,
The CIA's involvement in Watergate was about as important as the DOD's release of confidential background information on Linda Tripp. Not very nice, and but nothing unusal.
If you wish to find a starting date on the CIA's lack of performance you need to go back to JFK. Eisenhower was probably the last President who had control of the CIAs' bureaucracy.
And yes, you do have a point. Nixon didn't do the agency any favors. And look how much good it did him.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 10:29AM
You call me Bob, JP?
mind if I call you Margie?
And first you disagree, then you you come around at the end to write "And yes, you do have a point. Nixon didn't do the agency any favors. And look how much good it did him."
How convoluted of you. You don't remember the investigations after '74? The investigations of the CIA? the hamstringing laws? Was that before your time? JFK wasn't in office long enough to do the damage LBJ (6 years) , Nixon (5) and Carter (thankfully only 4) did.
JP| 1.11.10 @ 11:03AM
Jerimiah,
I'm not sure if I'd say the CIA's ridiculous attempt to insert themselves into the FBI's investigation into Watergate was any worse than the Gulf of Tolkien Incident or the Bay of Pigs. People actually died in those ops.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 11:42AM
JP,
You are frightfully dense-- no wonder Obama was elected. I'm referring to what occurred AFTER Watergate, as a RESULT of Watergate.
The investigations.
The unreasonable limits on Agency activities.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 11:47AM
JP, Blockhead, You are the most thickheaded guy on this blog.
Or pretending to be.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 11:55AM
I beg your pardon?
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 12:06PM
Affirmative.
You are granted a full, unconditional pardon-- for being such a bimbo; you can't help it, you were born a bimbo.
Margie| 1.11.10 @ 12:25PM
So says Alan. And Alan has such a fine sense of judgement. All Leftists do, of course. You can see it by the way they carry on in their conversations. Insult, demean, and false accusations. Because that's all they have.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 8:49PM
Wish I were a leftist, leftists believe in social progress; I think social progress is finished.
Come to think of it, you are right about me, Marge;
I'm as bad as you or worse-- and if both of us had what it takes we'd be writing articles here, not comments.
Comments are nothing, they are as here-today-gone- tomorrow--disposable-- as letters to the editor. We are both pieces of driftwood floating downstream.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 12:29PM
correction: LBJ was potus only 5 years, not six.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 12:30PM
... and thank God for small favors.
Otis, my man!| 1.12.10 @ 2:37PM
The public's perception of the CIA is shaped largely by what media and Hollywood have portrayed it as.
But those who know really know the place would best describe it as an organization similar to what your local Dept. of Motor Vehicles would be like if it were staffed and run by Ivy League graduates.
Shamus| 1.11.10 @ 7:36AM
Can an open society support clandestine agencies?
martin j smith| 1.11.10 @ 8:33AM
A society open to what ? Terrorist threats ? I think there is no place on earth that is "completely open" this may exist in the minds of the foolish or in minds of ACLU lawyer types. There are always compromises. My sense is this: when you look at each episode of terrorist threat or attempt, as it ratches up, the American public wants to what going on with our government. The Christmas Day incident is no exception. I think the problem has to do with a serious midnset that has hampered our intelligence services. Its called PC.
I am no spy but ( and forgive me Neaderthals ) but even a Cavemen can see where using local people in places such as Afganistan or Pakistan etc has severe risks and limitations.
So the CIA would need to clean house --sometime by future with a President who takes seriously the need to protect the American People and Win the war against terrorism. It is not this president.
Many Americans are probably not aware the the damage done by the killing of our intelligence forces in Afganistan. But they should be because in the end, it is their lives that are at risk as well.
and, Speaking of being open, sadly the vast majority of the Main Street Media are not opening their minds or American public's to the threat that can kill us.
JP| 1.11.10 @ 9:10AM
Shamus,
Even you beloved French run cladestine operations. And from what I've read they're quite good at it.
Shamus| 1.11.10 @ 10:29AM
Louis XIV and Napoleon certainly knew how to operate effectively in a clandestine fashion, but they were monarchs and emperors. Clandestine agencies must keep secrets, so my question goes more to whether this is possible than to whether security concerns are paramount.
The UK has an official secrets act which allows their government to stop publication of secrets. The US government lacks this power. In the 70's the New York Times published the Pentagon papers and in the past decade it published many leaks from CIA officials. Congressional oversight ensures that far more people will know secrets than operational security would dictate.
There appears to be an inimical tension between government by the people and secret operations.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 10:34AM
Yes, the '70s-- which major administrations did we have then?
Nixon, Carter; .
Oh, just great. More fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Dixie Pixie| 1.11.10 @ 1:46PM
Do the French have a excellence intelligent service?
Yes if you discount the minor blunders as WWI, WWII, The French Colonial Wars, the Cold War and the attempted overthrow of the Charles de Gaulle government.
Personally I rate Intelligent Agencies on invisibility. In this criteria the Japanese and the Vatican are rated higher than the French.
Darlene Slater| 1.11.10 @ 8:17AM
You make wild accusations of incompetence without offering substantial proof. You and the likes of Nancy Pelosi can pound sound. The CIA isn't perfect but it's a lot better than the alternatives you offer. Oh, yeah. You didn't offer any. Taking cheap shots is easy when you don't have any responsibility.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 8:36AM
I have read enough "Spy" novels...written by connected bright guys, (Clancy, WEB Griffin, etc.), to honestly believe there are two disparate groups of folks in the OSS/CIA.
Sadly, the largest group seems to be by far the majority...bureaucrats plain and simple.
I do want to give a thank you to those hard working minority members. Thank you for your service.
Howard| 1.11.10 @ 8:50AM
It appears that since the days of the OSS and into the founding of the modern CIA that human intelligence has been the weak link. That is the reason for all of the spy satellites, U-2 overflights, etc. the KGB, Mossad, and all other services have played us for fools. It is especially difficult now, as we don't have many Arabic and Farsi speakers available. During the 1960's we messed up in Vietnam, in many ways because the CIA was oblivious to the culture and politics in that region. While it isn't a government type job like the Post Office was, it is far too bureaucratic in nature. CYA as usual in Washington.
JP| 1.11.10 @ 9:19AM
Part of the problem arose from our love affair with technology. The US has the most sophisticated remote sensing satellites in the world. Operated by the NSA, these birds in the sky uncover a huge amount of info. From phone intercepts to Internet data mining (remember Able Danger?), our intelligence agencies have the ability to put together a huge amount of intelligence scenarios. However, all of that high tech stuff didn't prevent 9/11 or the Crotchbomber.
I imagine some bean counter with an eye to promotion pushed technology over HUMINT. But, it takes years to build HUMINT networks, develope relationships, and find weak spots. We have nothing like the Mossad. The Mossad always seems to find willing spies, whether in Terhan, Damascus, or London. Ditto for the former KGB. It's funny that after 9 years the CIA has yet to have any "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan. Not one case officer. The scathing report issued by the Commander of Military Intelligence written last week was really depressing.
davod| 1.12.10 @ 11:04AM
Why do people in government, from the White House on down, feel the need to let the world know how we fight our wars.
"The scathing report issued by the Commander of Military Intelligence written last week was really depressing" and was released for political not tactical reasons.
I am sure our friends and enemies alike appreciated the heads up to our shortcomings.
Whoever released the report should face the severest penalty.
I do have one more comment about the report - and I know this flies in the face of Mr. Codevilla's article, but -
Would the CIA be operating its case officers under the radar of local commanders specifically to keep the operations secret. Any meaningfull intelligence could be passed back into theatre by the US based intelligence coordinators?
Christopher Holland| 1.11.10 @ 10:27PM
I remember after the Iranian revolution that bought the Ayatollah Khomenie to power, the CIA missed that one too, and they claimed that it wasn't their fault because they did not have enough Farsi speakers. That was in 1980 and 30 years later they are still saying they don't have enough Farsi speakers. It isn't the lack of Farsi speakers that is the problem, it is the lack of guts, brains and energy. The CIA is as stupid and useless now as it was 30 years ago. In 30 years they have not learned a bloody thing and people who don't learn are stupid by definition. The CIA is your standard government bureaucracy, full of penpushers and time servers who never take responsibility for anything. The organisation is useless and always will be, no matter how many Farsi speakers they recruit.
davod| 1.12.10 @ 11:10AM
"I remember after the Iranian revolution that bought the Ayatollah Khomenie to power, the CIA missed that one too, and they claimed that it wasn't their fault because they did not have enough Farsi speakers. "
Not quite correct. The US was complicit in getting Khomenie back to power. I recently read about a US person, I forget whether they were military or CIA, who expressed regret at convincing the Iranian military not to intervene because most of the officers he knew were soon killed off by the new regime.
bill| 1.12.10 @ 2:08PM
davod,
It was the Shah who told his military not to kill the Khomeinists and their civilian supporters. Then he skipped town.
Ret. Marine| 1.11.10 @ 8:56AM
This author of this article does not know what he is remoltly talking about. If he and his types can do better they themselves they would have had the job. As it stands I will neither deny or agree with most of the above, but take issue as a whole. The bureaurats have been plenty responsible for most of the actions related to this article. The three most dangerous to this, and any type of intelligence agencies have been jimmiah, "hi, I pick peanuts" carter, bill, "I didn't have sex with that woman" klinton and barack, "I'm an amerikan" obama. The political climate in all of these admin.'s were toxic to say the least.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 10:38AM
" jimmiah, "hi, I pick peanuts" carter"
Here we agree completely. But don't tar innocent peanut farmers with Carter's brush; that is guilt by association at its worst. Jimmuh was second only to LBJ in perniciousness.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 11:02AM
Alan, I knew you had it in you...somewhere. Finally you constructed a sensible statement.
LBJ was in fact a physical as well as a moral coward.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 11:48AM
Let's state it plainly:
LBJ was the worst president EVER.
Howard| 1.11.10 @ 1:45PM
"LBJ was the worst president EVER. ". Why, on what grounds? (I'm not saying i disagree).
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 8:20PM
Hi Howard. Welcome.
I said it above. LBJ did not have the courage of his convictions...either physically...or morally.
EVERYTHING HE DID... was a political sham.
Then.....he hung our young men out to dry in Viet Nam.
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 8:54PM
"Then.....he hung our young men out to dry in Viet Nam."
LBJ fed the boys in uniform into a meat mincer; approx. 30,000 in his reign? more?
Alan Brooks| 1.11.10 @ 8:56PM
...that's 30,000 or so servicemen dead, doesn't include the wounded.
RAMIII| 1.11.10 @ 12:20PM
Think of the name "CentralIA". How can anything central be clandestine? I do believe we have true clandestine operatives, but no one knows about them, otherwise how could they be clandestine?
This article missed the point unless it was merely criticising the bureaucracy of the "visible" CIA.
To address "Shamus'" point, the only way a society can stay "open" is to have clandestine agencies that uphold OUR Constitution even if they act in questionable ways globally.
Dixie Pixie| 1.11.10 @ 1:24PM
Gentlemen,
The problem with the CIA is the National Security Act of 1947.
The Act centralized control of the CIA under the President of the United States. The CIA only reports to the President by statuary law. Only the President has statuary control of the CIA by legal design. As a result of the ACT the CIA has no responsibility to the People of the USA. The CIA was setup by the Dulles bothers as a state within a state by statuary design.
As a result of statuary design the public can only see the CIA's public failures and disasters. The successes are only known to the President. The CIA can be quite brilliant at times. Unfortunately the news of the CIA's glory must be publicly suppressed. Thus the only knowledge of CIA successes are leaked to the Press and therefor look self serving. The CIA is trapped in the statuary laws of its existence.
To correct the problem the National Security Act of 1947 should be amended so the CIA is responsible to and works for the American Public. The President should only be the executor for the American Public in intelligent matters not the sole authority. That was a mistake and can be corrected by a change in Law.
Howard| 1.11.10 @ 1:48PM
So you see no validity for any secrecy? It's a tough world out there. I'm not sure we have to put all of our cards face up on the table.
Dixie Pixie| 1.11.10 @ 2:03PM
Howard you are missing my point.
The CIA should be working for the benefit of the American Public not be the Presidents private army.
Dixie Pixie| 1.11.10 @ 4:01PM
Howard and Everybody Else,
Please consider and think through the following sentence with all of its consequences.
By statuary law the CIA exclusively reports to and is controlled by President Barack Obama.
!!!!!!! YIKES !!!!!!!!
Roy| 1.11.10 @ 5:07PM
So does the entire rest of the executive branch, including the military. And yeah: yikes. But I don't get what alternative you're suggesting. I don't think a simple formalistic statement that the CIA reports to the people would make any practical difference.
sprstirl| 1.11.10 @ 3:03PM
Agree wholeheartedly with 'Dixie Pixie' (what a great name!)... the greatest problem the American citizens have to surmount, is the 'strictly political' strings attached to each Agency that is (to Constitutionally) protect the Republic (the people).
(We) have now practically NO control over the 'protections' that are supposed to be in place.
As to JP, absolutely correct... HUMINT is (forever) the most important aspect in this.
Dixie Pixie| 1.11.10 @ 9:34PM
Thanks SPRSTIRL
It is good to know someone else has been thinking along the same wavelength.
I am glad you like the 'handle'. It was suggested by another TAS Online writer.
I am no lawyer, but the solution seems simple enough. Just change SEC. 103 (50 U.S.C 403-3 clause (A) from “to the President” to read “To the America Public and the President as the executor of American Public policy”. Then adjust the other relevant clauses in the NSA 1947 to match.
In short the solution is to change the CIA focus of responsibly to the American Public through the Office of the President.
The fix is very simple, once one knows the cause of the problem.
davelnaf| 1.11.10 @ 3:25PM
I spent some time recently in Afghanistan and got to know quite a few locals reasonably well. I concluded that almost any Afghan is not above selling information to the Taliban, particularly if it keeps his family from been murdered by the them. These people are just trying to survive in one of the worst countries and worst situations on the planet and many of them make no distinction beyond that—although few of them know enough about the outside world to know what a wasteland their country is.
It is quite true, as the author point out, that ignorance killed these CIA officers. But it also true that America is no longer able to make war on its enemies without handicapping itself with politically necessitated rules of engagement. In a country like Afghanistan it is indeed a wonder than more CIA personnel have not died.
John Jarrell| 1.11.10 @ 3:40PM
The most, to me, telling point in the article is that there is no meaningful counterintelligence effort being made today. In point of fact the culture of the federal government is antithentical to counterintelligence and has been since the 20s. As a result, we have no defense against foreign services. I state that from the perspective of having been in federal security and counterintelligence for 30 years. If you really want your head to explode, read "Blacklisted by History" and "Wilderness of Mirrors."
Christopher Holland| 1.11.10 @ 10:39PM
Makes you wonder what the KGB was doing all these years. All the benefits of a secret, totalitarian state, up against a bunch of bozos who couldn't find their own arses with both hands, and they still lost. Jeez, wasn't Ronald Reagan great! He had to carry the CIA on his back and he still wiped the floor with the Russians. Now why can't Obama wipe the floor with the Iranians - what is his excuse?
JoshInHB| 1.11.10 @ 10:56PM
Now why can't Obama wipe the floor with the Iranians - what is his excuse?
1) Obama doesn't want to "beat" anyone.
2) His goal is a soclialist transformation of America. This foreign policy stuff is just a distraction to him.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.11.10 @ 5:45PM
Mr. Jarrell,
Thank you sir for your service.
The readers here truly do not want to go there....I promise.
My goodness, you were there! I'm glad you made it through...sane and not too paranoid...heh.
God bless
Dave M.| 1.11.10 @ 6:14PM
I used to romanticize that the CIA was strictly looking out for America's best interests and fighting the bad guys. But after 9/11 and all of the fall out I have come to realize the CIA is just another politically charged organization much like the State Department. The Valerie Plame kerfuffle did nothing but reinforce that perception. God bless the true believers who work at the CIA and those who put their lives in jeopardy for the good of this Nation, but the CIA, like every Federal government department, is rife with leftist rot.
PCC| 1.11.10 @ 10:42PM
I'm not competent to judge the accuracy of Mr. Codevilla's assessment of the CIA and its weaknesses.
I'm also prepared to concede that it may be the case that some of the CIA's most brilliant successes may never be known by the general public or may fall into the category of secretly preventing certain negative events from ever taking place.
Nevertheless, the CIA has failed publicly so many times (Russia invasion of Afghanistan, collapse of the Soviet Union, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, no weapons of mass destruction, Salaya's attempted coup in Honduras, penetrating al Qaeda, finding Osama bin Laden, finding Radko Mladic, etc.) that a lack of confidence in the organisation is completely justified.
More to the point, every time a weakness or failure of the CIA appears, their plea, and the usual response, is to give them more money to solve the problem. I certainly disagree with that approach.
RAMIII| 1.12.10 @ 8:38AM
You forgot the abandoning of Tibet to the Chinese in the 1970's.
Really though the CIA requires the LEADERSHIP of a POTUS who understands what it is to protect this great country.
Having served in the US Navy in the 80's it is clear to me that OUR military is what keeps the world commerce alive. Without this protection of Trade Routes, despots and tyrannical ego-maniacs would control these.
In order for an effective operation of the military the HUMINT is required by CIA feet (secret) on the ground.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.12.10 @ 12:26AM
" CIA's Vulnerability Is Congenital ...."
Congenital?
Well, yes - if one counts their year of rebirth from
the time period of then senator Frank Churchs'
1970's committees' inquisition of the CIA as
somewhat of a KGB.
If they've come to be perennially tortured - since - by the LMSM/bottom feeders in Hollowwood; surprise - we can have a fraternity of PC-loving eunuchs in the making; hear no evil, see no evil,
speak no evil - naughty, naughty - of enemies of
the national security interests of America.
Did I mention the perennial crusading 60 minutes genre as ever assisting in further denuding the CIA? What's secret about the CIA - for Flames' sake?
CIA's intelligence gathering evolving shortcomings in an arena suited for OSS caliber personnel; sadly, it all had to start - somewhere.
Especially remember the name - Democrat senator Frank Church. His legacy for America - the dummkopf.
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 1:02AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : CIA's Vulnerability Is Congenital [s links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marine| 1.13.10 @ 1:15AM
surprise - we can have a fraternity of PC-loving eunuchs in the makinggreen coffee 800
zi xiu tang
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 3:23PM
Twitter ends Jennifer Aniston relationship with John Mayer | twittersRus.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.5.10 @ 9:38PM
John Terry stripped of England captaincy | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.6.10 @ 7:11PM
Soldiers banned from MySpace and Facebook | ConcerningFacebook.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.9.10 @ 7:47AM
The ultimate ‘Japan only’ games consoles | AboutGaming.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.10 @ 8:06PM
Astronomers Discover the Secret of Supernova | AboutSpace.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 6:26AM
Python Explosive Snake Saves Soldiers, Opens Gates of Hell | AboutGadgets.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.21.10 @ 4:48AM
Playing Musical Instruments May Improve Reading | AboutScienceNow.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.17.10 @ 2:24PM
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama’s Watch | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.1.10 @ 12:04PM
Who really spends the most on their armed forces? (Graphic) | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.1.10 @ 3:26PM
Has Oprah Weakened America? | WeCharts.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.2.10 @ 3:35PM
Hour of the Time » HOTT Newslinks Feb. 10, 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.10.10 @ 12:18AM
Metallica vs. the Taliban | MusicaModerna.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.22.10 @ 1:29PM
Why does Hollywood love British movie villains? | MovieMash.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.28.10 @ 8:37AM
Bad habits can age you by 12 years, study suggests | AboutScienceNow.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 10:00PM
is good