Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: CNN breaking News!!!!

  1. #1
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983

    Exclamation CNN breaking News!!!!

    Scooter Libby has said this morning that the person who authorized the leak of the name of the secret agent was... GW BUSH!!!!!

  2. #2
    Wow, how can he possibly get out of this one??? If he did really leak the name of a secret agent for nothing more than politics, he needs to go - now!

    I can't see how anyone can defend this, Democrat or Republican.
    Try everything in life at least once, except incest & maybe square dancing.

  3. #3
    Of Slapshot Fame
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    2889 miles SW of Montreal
    Posts
    11

    White House Leak

    I am not taking any sides in this argument...but the information that was released today only indicated that the Vice President and the President authorized the release of top secret intel. There is no reference in these documents about the authorization of the release of the secret agents name.

    An interesting side note, legally, the President has the right to de-classify documents. If President Bush did authorize this leak, then technically he has de-classified the document and no law was broken.

  4. #4
    Village Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC's armpit
    Posts
    192
    I think it's interesting that everyone is focusing upon the concept that Plame's "name" was leaked to hurt her "career" as an agent.

    She hadn't been a NOC for a long time.

    BUT, she DID have an important role in getting "Ambassador" Wilson sent on a taxpayer-funded trip to Africa on a subject which he was not qualified to research.

    So, is it declassification to uncover nepotisim and political patronage, or is it declassification for "revenge"? Considering she's been a desk jockey for years... what is more likely?

  5. #5
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Nugie
    I think it's interesting that everyone is focusing upon the concept that Plame's "name" was leaked to hurt her "career" as an agent.

    She hadn't been a NOC for a long time.

    BUT, she DID have an important role in getting "Ambassador" Wilson sent on a taxpayer-funded trip to Africa on a subject which he was not qualified to research.

    So, is it declassification to uncover nepotisim and political patronage, or is it declassification for "revenge"? Considering she's been a desk jockey for years... what is more likely?
    Nugie,

    the prez apparently has the right to declassify documents, however, if he chooses to do so, he must follow a normal procedure whereby he must first make his intentions known to and obtain the assent of a special commitee before any leak can officially be made public. If it is indeed true that GW Bush was the one who first authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name, then he apparently violated the rules because he did not try to seek the approval of said special commitee beforehand.

    fml
    Last edited by femaleluver2; 04-07-2006 at 07:35 AM.

  6. #6

    Iraq

    Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with September 11. I am very sad to see the people of Iraq and USA suffering because of the Bush's administration.
    DocProstate
    Alcohol doesn't solve any problems, but then again, neither does milk.

  7. #7
    Village Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC's armpit
    Posts
    192
    huh? apropos of nothing?

  8. #8

    we broke it we fix it.

    I know many of you hate GW and think that the decisions of going to Iraq is wrong. I'm not a huge fan of the man but I cannot disagree more. First of all it is the U.S whom should have fought the war vs. Iran when they took our citizens as hostage back in the 70's. So instead of getting our hands dirty we decided to pay someone else to fix our porblem. It is the U.S that empowered a man like Saddam Hussein to fight agaisnt Iran we sold and gave him tons of weapons.
    It is also the U.S along with our allies, France, Germany, Great Britian, And Russia that contribute the build up of Iraq. Regarding the WMD I like to know where they are just like everyone else. I think we have receipts of all the mustard gas that we sold him and he used agaisnt Iran and his own people.
    After the first gulf war GH Bush "hint" something that if the people of Iraq overthrown this evil man, that the world will "support" them. Well the kurds took up arms to overthrown Saddam and the "world" was no where close to help them out. So Saddam slaughtered 100,000 Kurds. Did Saddam had anything to do with 911 maybe or maybe not. But let's get real if he could get involve you know he would. If he has nothing to hide then why didnt he allow the U.N inspector in Iraq. Is it me or it a coincedence that 2 years after we invaded Iraq Iran have nuclear capability ? Iraq, looking at the map, is the most ideal stagging arena for us to be in the middle east. It is in the middle of everything. we are 3 to 4 hours drive to most Middle East country and now that we have our forces there it is easier to handle any situation that may arise.
    Why aren't we in Korea some of you may ask ? simple Korea have a 500 lbs gorilla backing them up it's name is China. So before we pick another fight it is far easier to have China deal with Korea then us starting a fight with China.
    Maybe we dont need to be there but from a moral stand point we need to be there. For once I like to see the U.S finish what it started. We have a history of fighting wars that we can only win. Maybe this time around with the lost and suffering of lives and money, it will be the lesson that we need to learn before we go and mingle in other people's business.
    Last edited by pookiebear; 04-07-2006 at 09:38 PM.

  9. #9

    Iran and Iraq

    By invading Iraq, the Bush's administration have remove the best protection against Iran that we could have. The invasion of Iraq was a big mistake. Terrorism has grown a lot after Iraq invasion.
    DocProstate
    Alcohol doesn't solve any problems, but then again, neither does milk.

  10. #10
    easier to find the enemies abroad then at home.

  11. #11
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by docprostate
    By invading Iraq, the Bush's administration have remove the best protection against Iran that we could have. The invasion of Iraq was a big mistake. Terrorism has grown a lot after Iraq invasion.
    Hey docprostate,

    I believe you are right about there being more terrorism since the US-led war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the phrase ''the Iraqis will welcome us as liberators'' that Cheney once uttered on a NBC morning show proved painfully incorrect. The Bush administration not only went to war against Saddam on dubious grounds, but, manifestly, it also did not properly plan the after-war period. Now, thanks to Bush's antics, Americans are, more than ever, in danger abroad. And even though there hasn't been any major terrorist attacks on US soil since 911, terrorists are probably plotting other attacks in the US as we speak...

    fml

    ps. I recommend to anyone interested the excellent documentary film now playing in MTL called ''why we fight'', which talks about how Dwight Eisenhower's ''military-industrial complex'' proved painfully true!

    fml
    Last edited by femaleluver2; 04-08-2006 at 01:01 PM.

  12. #12
    I do agreed that Bush had a hard on for Saddam since he took office. Maybe it was the guilt of all the Kurdish that died when his old man was in office. Maybe we wanted some pay back from Saddam for threaten his old man. Sure there are more terrorist now than before 911. But logisticlly speaking American do not know how to fight a guerilla war, thus the invasion of Iraq. The way this administrations look at is this if we cant find them let them come to us. I'm not saying that Bush invaded Iraq out of compassion or Moral justification for the Iraqi people. The western world all have a vested interest in the Middle East. It is what keeps our econmy going and keep people their jobs. Until we all quit our depency on the MIddle East oil, we have no rights to lecture what is right and wrong. It's the same principle as you using a friends money and enjoy his" gift" and turn around and lecture him where the money is coming from especially if he kills or steal to obtain that money. What urks me the most is that without "western influence" the middle East is a sandbox. With out our influence and money most of those people will be living in a 3rd century enviroment. But yet they want nothing to do with the west.

  13. #13
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by pookiebear
    I'm not saying that Bush invaded Iraq out of compassion or Moral justification for the Iraqi people. The western world all have a vested interest in the Middle East. It is what keeps our econmy going and keep people their jobs. Until we all quit our depency on the MIddle East oil, we have no rights to lecture what is right and wrong. .
    You make a good point!

  14. #14
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    Pookie, you make the strongest argument I've heard for the war in Iraq. I just disagree with most of it. The problem with our disagreement is that people are dying there. They were dying with Saddam in power, too. There is no clear cut right or wrong here. Like most of life, it's shades of gray. If I'm going to commit to an action that will kill tens of thousands, or even one person for that matter, though, I better know for sure that it's absolutely necessary. I don't think Iraq was.

    You also make an argument for what GWB would call the 'strategery' of Iraq. Yes, it's a prime location. But, by fighting them, we've weakened ourselves greatly. We have troops on either side of Iran, but the numbers we have would be laughable as an invasion force. Then again, I thought 130,000 was a laughable force to invade Iraq.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  15. #15
    Village Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC's armpit
    Posts
    192
    btyger,

    The only reason the number of troops we have there seems small is because of the type of battle we're fighting.

    If the USA were to fight a "near-peer" war, we'd lay legendary devastation. But the urban fighting of plainclothes possible "civilians" makes it hard for the big hammer to fall. What we need are a thousand pointy sticks, not a big sledge.

    I'm going to stop talking about this. I keep telling everyone to read Barnett, who is a pro-globalization, anti-Bush theorist. Apparently no one has even checked his stuff out, because otherwise all these questions would, at the very least, have been discussed.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •