# Bush approved leak?



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

So the most recent documents say that Bush and Cheney specifically authorized the leak that has seen one reporter in jail for a while and possibly Scooter in jail for a bit. It looks like they did it on purpose. I don't think there will be any sort of prosecution toward them but it does raise some disturbing questions about the character of the two men.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It says even more if they let Libby take the fall.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Doesn't raise any questions about the character of either man - simply confirms what we already knew.

------------------


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Confuscious say:

"Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth".

READ THE ARTICLE.

_"Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate,""_

Additional Information:
Thus, neither the recent Court filing nor the press accounts which it generated allege that President Bush or Vice President Cheney authorized the disclosure of Valerie Plame's employment status. They allege only that the President authorized the declassification of certain portions of a National Intelligence Estimate, and authorized Libby to speak to reporters about those sections. As today's articles also note, said portions of the NIE were released to the press on July 18th, 2003.

Edit: Additional Information

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

The CNN article is changing as the story becomes more clear. Interesting. 
Even so, is it usual for the President to declassify things as he sees fit to further his political agenda? Further, is this usally done through a top aide annonamously to a reporter? If it was time to declassify it why not just realease it? Even though it's legal does that make it the right thing to do? 
I guess I'm waiting for a comment from Bush or Cheny at this point. If they say that this is the way things are done and it's just what we should all expect then that's one thing. If they're uncomfortable talking about it because it's not right then that's another. 
It's like the whole domestic spying thing, Bush has never said anything other than he was right and anybody who disagrees can go suck it (figuratively speaking) Cool, even though I think he was wrong, at least he thinks he was being honest and law abiding the whole time. When it will bug me is if it becomes clear that even he thinks he was doing things a bit underhanded to achieve the results he wanted. That's not cool. We'll see.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> Confuscious say:
> 
> "Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth".


*Confucius *say:

"Engage spellcheck before posting nonsense"

------------------


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

For those interested enough to read the supporting documents, they can be found here:

And this contains the Court document:

https://www.thesmokinggun.com//archive/0406061libby1.html

Still researching; may add more.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just following your lead......

------------------


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> For those interested enough to read the supporting documents, they can be found here:
> 
> ...


On balance, people are too quick to jump to conclusions. In this instance Mr. Kabbaz seems to be the party applying a studied, measured approach to looking at the issue, prior to reaching whatever conclusion(s) he may reach. Informed rather than emotional debate...now that's a Democracy! I'm sure I am naive but, I am inclined to give our President the benefit of the doubt until this plays out a bit further.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Rather than attacking my inability to properly spell the name of a dead Venezuelan philosopher, why don't you provide some relevant facts which counter my allegations?

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Venezuelan?

But in other news, can you even IMAGINE what Clinton's corpse would look like about now if the right-wing hypocrites had this much juice on the old boy?



> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote: Venezuelan?


 Oh? Am I wrong again? Was he actually from Argentinia?

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Costa Rica, I think.



> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

I think he was Guatalumbian...

Patrick


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Thank goodness! Patrick remembered. Yes sir, that's it. It was Guatalumbia.

Thank you, Patrick.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Alexander Kabbaz_
> If you have nothing substantive to say, why say anything at all?


Uh-huh.....

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

If a member of the Bush administration or the President himself broke the law they should be held accountable. I have no idea if this is the case and I think the Special Counsel in the case is fair and objective. What is laudable however is how this administration has cooperated with the Office of Special Counsel and has made as transparent as possible (do remember we are dealing with issues of national security here)all the relevant papers. Contrast that with the Clinton administartion where obstruction was an art and abuse of power was the modus operandi. 

But again, regardless of the fact that Joe Wilson is an a$$, if the law was broken then there must be accountability. Let Mr. Fitzgerald (the product of a Jesuit education btw!) do his work.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Totally agree with you on the accountability issue, but I don't see this administration as particularly tractable.

These are the same guys who reclassified 8,000 documents since they took office. (Clinton's team added some 1,500 to the kitty before departing D.C.)

U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 â€" In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.



> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gents,
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> Totally agree with you on the accountability issue, but I don't see this administration as particularly tractable.
> 
> ...


How many of those docs ended up in Sandy Bergers socks?
And yes, Joe Wilson is a proven liar (by Congress), and we would have never heard of his wife, who is not a secret agent but a cubicle warmer in Langly, if he hadnt been such a publicity hound.

The only thing I get from the recent revelations, is that Bush was right: Iraq was attempting to start a nuclear program. Oh, and we have a traitorous CIA employee and her keystone traitor husband.

Back to the clothes.
Cheers


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

To attempt to get in and out of here before it develops into a series of personal attacks, it is helpful to review the facts at they have been presented in the NY Times.

Valirie Plame wanted to put together arguments that countered the views of the administration that Iraq was attempting to develop WMD.

She lobbied to have her companion, Joe Wilson, appointed to conduct such an investigation.

Upon his return, he published an op ed in the NY Times saying that he found no evidence of Iraq attempting to secure yellow cake uranium in Niger.

Since this was contrary to the evidence that National Intelligence had furnished to the administration, the decision was made to declassify this information to counter the views expressed by Joe Wilson. 

In 1982, a law was passed giving the President the right to declassify any information that he/she thought in the best interest of the public.

Outside of the fact that vitriolic partisan warfare is sadly looked upon as a good way to get, or to retain personal power, it is difficult to understand the furor.

Carpe Diem


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> quote:Upon his return, he published an op ed in the NY Times saying that he found no evidence of Iraq attempting to secure yellow cake uranium in Niger.


 Close but incomplete - the fabled 'lie of omission':

In his own report, Wilson found that Iraq had sent representatives to Niger in 1999 to "establish a foundation for commerce between the two nations".

Niger has two commodities available for commerce: Sand and uranium. If my aging memory recalls properly, Iraq already has quite the sufficient domestic supply of one of those two items.

*https://www.CustomShirt1.com

Kabbaz-Kelly & Sons Fine Custom Clothiers
* Bespoke Shirts & Furnishings * Zimmerli Swiss Underwear **
* Alex Begg Cashmere * Pantherella Socks **​


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

The information was declassified 10 days after the leak, think about that. Also, only some info was declassified, not all, think about that. This Presidency leave much to be desired.



> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> To attempt to get in and out of here before it develops into a series of personal attacks, it is helpful to review the facts at they have been presented in the NY Times.
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Guys, if I want to read a load of right wing fantasies there are many web sites I can visit. Please don't regurgitate their lies here.

------------------


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

AMEN.



> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Guys, if I want to read a load of right wing fantasies there are many web sites I can visit. Please don't regurgitate their lies here.
> 
> ------------------


guit


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> The CNN article is changing as the story becomes more clear. Interesting.


LOL! 

That's a very nice way to say it. The story was clear from the beginning. CNN wanted to put out the headline, then once everyone is running around saying "W authorized the leak" they change the underlying story to represent the facts they already knew. It's an old play and getting older.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think that's quite accurate. True the story doesn't reference Plame, but it does shed some light on the Pres and VP leaking classified information through a chief of staff to the press. Yes, once they leaked it it was no longer classified and thereby no laws were broken (sure is convenient, it's almost like someone in the administration made that rule up.....) It gives us some insight into how things are being done in Washington, things that I think most of us don't believe is right and certainly wouldn't believe that W would have done during his glory days post 9-11. It furthers the idea that Bush had to sell the war. If you have to sell the war, to prove that's it's necessary then that's a whole lot different than saying that the war is inevitable. Something that's inevitible is obvious. It's especially troubling that this info that was being leaked to convince (scare?) the public that war was necessary turned out to be wrong. Not just a little wrong about the details, but completely wrong. 
I think the article told us a lot.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> To attempt to get in and out of here before it develops into a series of personal attacks, it is helpful to review the facts at they have been presented in the NY Times.
> 
> ...


So someone in the employ of the CIA, rather than reporting his findings accuratly to his superiors, reports to the the NY Times and prints a bunch of lies?

Why is this guy walking around selling book of further lies? Dont we still have sedition and treason laws?


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Exactly who is it that is telling lies?



> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

NPR reported that U.S. intel sources (notably the CIA) stated in the same document from which Bush cherry picked his bogus WMD citation that they had serious doubts about the veracity of said claims. Bush and Co. failed to present that detail until some 10 days after the initial leak, when they finally (though without going through the CIA, as is courtesy) declassified the entire document.

Leaks may be part of the Washington scene, but this president lied on camera. He's going to get to the bottom of the leak, right? Going to find out who in his administration perpetrated this leak? That's what he said.

Reminded me of O.J. saying he was going to find Nicole's killer.

At least Clinton's lie about Lewinsky didn't result in shipping kids off to some Middle East hellhole.

Wish I could have more respect for our putative leaders. They've ruined any such chance.

Guess things are going ducky if you believe in the Rapture. Which, come to think of it...



> quote:_Originally posted by guitone_
> 
> Exactly who is it that is telling lies?
> 
> ...


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Yes, I agree 100%. Clinton got caught with his pants down and maybe he believed he did not have sex with that woman, but she certainly had sex with him...Bush certainly knew he lied as well as Clinton knew he lied, now you tell me, who's lie put our armed forces in harms way? Bush has lied from the start, he got into office on a lie, went to war on one and continues to lie right into the camera and you know what, many Americans belieive him, not because they are stupid (well maybe some), but because they want to believe him.



> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> NPR reported that U.S. intel sources (notably the CIA) stated in the same document from which Bush cherry picked his bogus WMD citation that they had serious doubts about the veracity of said claims. Bush and Co. failed to present that detail until some 10 days after the initial leak, when they finally (though without going through the CIA, as is courtesy) declassified the entire document.
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> It's especially troubling that this info that was being leaked to convince (scare?) the public that war was necessary turned out to be wrong. Not just a little wrong about the details, but completely wrong.


Uh, I hate to break it to you, but they were completely right. There is a lot of truth coming out now regarding WMD if you watch and read something other than CNN and the newspaper as they translate more and more Iraqi Intelligence documents.

Part of the problem with immediate gratification on WMD was the delay caused by the UN and the French betraying our alliance. What is troubling is that maybe .05% of the US Population knows any of this.

W went out of his way to do what those of us knew had to be done trying to placate those that would never support him and gave up about a year, year and a half doing so. Then he's spent the last 2 years listening to whiners complain that no WMD was found in place. Frankly, I admire his patience and thick skin. I'd have done more than de-classify some intel to defend myself against the slander of Wilson and the libel of the media.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

W did what he needed to do to start a war, that is what he did. Why did the French betray him, if you want to call it that, because they knew he was not truthful. So he did what he needed to do to do what who knew and what was it that needed to be done...this is very scarey to read this kind of rationalization.

"W went out of his way to do what those of us knew had to be done trying to placate those that would never support him and gave up about a year, year and a half doing so. Then he's spent the last 2 years listening to whiners complain that no WMD was found in place. Frankly, I admire his patience and thick skin. I'd have done more than de-classify some intel to defend myself against the slander of Wilson and the libel of the media."



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Uh, I hate to break it to you, but they were completely right. There is a lot of truth coming out now regarding WMD if you watch and read something other than CNN and the newspaper as they translate more and more Iraqi Intelligence documents.
> 
> ...


So what you're telling us is that there are provable WMD and the public (except for really smart well informed people like you) don't know about it because of a media conspiracy? The same adminstration that has no problem declasifying information on a whim to try and drum up support for the war doesn't want to talk about the proof they have for WMD? The only news is so liberal and hateful that they won't talk about the very things that would vindicate W's decision to go to war. Even hotbed liberal news outlets like Fox? 
Really?

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

They think they might have been thinking about doing some really bad things? Really? So he wanted to do some bad stuff. He could make rocket fuel. He had 'reference strains' of some bad stuff (what does that mean, were they viable and able to do anything bad) He had some literature that we really didn't like. There's a difference between Sadam being a [email protected] and tweaking us for fun and being a real threat to the US and the world that would require spending billions of dollars, a few thousand American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Being able to see that difference is the kind of thing that we expect out of our world leaders.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford. 

John Adams


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> They think they might have been thinking about doing some really bad things? Really? So he wanted to do some bad stuff. He could make rocket fuel. He had 'reference strains' of some bad stuff (what does that mean, were they viable and able to do anything bad) He had some literature that we really didn't like. There's a difference between Sadam being a [email protected] and tweaking us for fun and being a real threat to the US and the world that would require spending billions of dollars, a few thousand American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Being able to see that difference is the kind of thing that we expect out of our world leaders.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100%.

W said Saddam was pursing WMD and we should act pre-emptively or BEFORE he gets them and becomes a threat. He said the world's most dangerous man (perhaps a bit dramatic) should not have the world's most dangerous weapons. Obviously, we can't wait until he has them so pursuing them is a threat. He said after 9/11 his view of this changed and he decided not to wait for things to materialize into imminent dangers.

The other side (is all I will call them) says W said he had them and was an imminent threat and so *he * lied and dragged us into a war.

So, I ask you your own question. Can't we expect all our leaders to be able to distinguish the difference?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> So, I ask you your own question. Can't we expect all our leaders to be able to distinguish the difference?


We should expect that and more. We should expect our leaders (our good ones anyway) to protect us from those things that really endanger us. To solve the problems that truly face us. Was the problem that Sadam had (or didn't) have those weapons or that he might use them? Well, one way to go about the question is to just end Sadam. Whether he had them or not he won't use them now. Problem solved. But is it? You got rid of the had but you didn't get rid of the ability to use. There are still a huge number of threats able to come over our porus borders or through our scantily protected ports or into the country a million other ways. Instead of looking at the real problem, that people that hate us might be able to do so, W decided (and I do think it was he and Cheney personally) to take out one guy. One of the million that hate us and leave the holes open. 
That is horribly unfocused leadership. That's focusing on your own personal ideals instead of focusing on what's the best way to do the job at hand. Had we spend the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent in Iraq domestically we would have a much more secure country and you and I and everyone else would be safer. And over 2000 American servicemen would be alive. 
I do expect that Bush should have had that kind of clarity. It was clear to me and many others that we were embarking on a fools errand from the start. Why shouldn't I (and I think I'm right of course) expect that Bush should have been able to figure this out before it all started? I don't think it's that hard to evaluate and do a better job than the current sitting president. I just don't.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Then please oh please familyman enlighten us or show us an alternative strategy in dealing with the post-9/11 world. And when you present such a strategy lets keep in mind the unforseen consequences of your actions, the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric ain't going to cut it. So have at it, the clocks back at 8/1/2002...


___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> Then please oh please familyman enlighten us or show us an alternative strategy in dealing with the post-9/11 world. And when you present such a strategy lets keep in mind the unforseen consequences of your actions, the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric ain't going to cut it. So have at it, the clocks back at 8/1/2002...


Are you really suggesting that, with everything that has come to light since, there was no alternative to invading Iraq in 2003?

------------------


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> Then please oh please familyman enlighten us or show us an alternative strategy in dealing with the post-9/11 world. And when you present such a strategy lets keep in mind the unforseen consequences of your actions, the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric ain't going to cut it. So have at it, the clocks back at 8/1/2002...
> 
> ...


Same way we dealt with a pre 9-11 world. 9-11 was an intigence and security failure. Fix the problem, move on. So far we have done neither.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by familyman_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, what you say about W is not true at all. Your post shows a real lack of listening to W. What W has said repeatedly is to agree with what you just said that simply taking out 1 man won't do it all OR he would have. I've heard him say that several times.

Taking out Saddam takes out one threat and buys us time. It also ties AlQ up in Iraq fighting us there instead of here. While 2,000 service men and women is a lot it's less than were killed on 9/11. All in all I think we have minimized casualties pretty well in spite of the issue with IEDs. AND almost all the casualties have been miliarty and not civilians.

W and Condi have said repeatedly the long term strategy is to spread freedom and solve the problems that face us with arab poverty and muslim fanaticism that prey on it and feed hatred of Americans and other western civilizations because "free people don't turn into terrrorists".

What you are saying is that we should only focus on the long term strategy and ignore the short term strategy because it is a fool's errand. And that W is only focused on the War in Iraq and not the longer term strategy. Neither of these is true.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm asking what that alternative would be, not invading Iraq is not a strategy. The Middle East is a problem, radical Islam in particular is a threat, what is the other sides plan to deal with it?

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Taking out Saddam takes out one threat and buys us time. It also ties AlQ up in Iraq fighting us there instead of here. While 2,000 service men and women is a lot it's less than were killed on 9/11. All in all I think we have minimized casualties pretty well in spite of the issue with IEDs. AND almost all the casualties have been miliarty and not civilians.


At what number of military casualities is it not worth it? When it equals 9-11 then it was stupid?

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:
> Same way we dealt with a pre 9-11 world. 9-11 was an intigence and security failure. Fix the problem, move on. So far we have done neither.


So in your mind 9/11 changed nothing? You can't be expected to be taken seriously with a statement like this, can you? Even Ted Kennedy realizes the game has changed and the ways in which we defend ourselves and our interests have as well, this is elementary, if not intuitive.

So I'll ask again, if 9/11 was an intelligence and security failure that is easily fixable by doing what we were doing pre-9/11, forgetting the fact that 9/11 happened because of what we were doing before it happened, what is your solution? I want me meat on the bones here...

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not easily fixable, but that does not preclude fixing it. I'm not sure what the solution intelligence wise is as I'm not familiar with the intimate workings of the intelligence agencies. That doesn't mean that I don't want and expect it fixed. 
And no, I don't think 9-11 changed the world. I think it changed a lot of peoples perceptions of the world, but radical islam was there before 9-11 and it's there today. Why would anyone suggest that it's a bigger threat now than it was then? They are still working toward the same goals, whatever they are and we're still trying to stop them from accomplishing their tasks. I think it's the was in which you and I think it's appropriate to go about stopping them that's at the heart of the argument here. I don't think the ideas of those in office are the right ones. I don't think invading countries to try and set up a democracy is the right way to spread democracy and peace. Wasn't the government of Afghanistan going to execute a guy just a couple of weeks ago for converting to Christianity? It took a huge amount of international pressure to get the government that we helped set up to keep them from doing that. Does that really sound like moderate gentle islam? And that's our success story right now. 
I don't think it's our job to fix radical islam through invasion. I think it's our job to plug the holes in the US so that radical islam can do minimal damage and I don't think we've done that. Even if we were to shut down radical islam (I'm going to try to say it as much as W) today then we'd still have the same hole and the same problems with the system that leave us vulnerable. We would and are just waiting for a different group and ideology to step in exploit the holes.

_____________________________________________________________________________
I am no enemy of elegance, but I say no man has a right to think of elegance till he has secured substance, nor then, to seek more of it than he can afford.

John Adams


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I believe your argument is mostly semantics. We know the threat must have been there before 9-11, obvioulsy, because they had been planning for quite some time. When someone says it changed the world, it's not to imply that the threat began that day. It means the world changed because we then began to widely understand the existence and the depth and seriousness of the threat.

Now on to democracy. Democracy could certainly sanction such an execution. The fact is an Afghani court decision to execute the convert has little to do with democracy, or lack thereof. A democractically elected government could easily implement such a law and execute it with out the slightest offense to democracy. Now, a republic with a constitution forbidding such an execution would be highly preferable, but sheer democracy won't necessarily halt such an execution.

With regard to "plugging holes", in our open American society, we will never plug the holes. We will be basically open to terror for anyone with even a moderate amount of determination. We either live with that or remove the source, to the degree that is possible. The relevant argument is how to attempt to eliminate it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

OK. The President declassified certain information and either the President or Vice-President approved the leak. Now we are fighting the terrorists in their backyard rather than ours. Is that a wise strategy and has it been effective? I believe so. Has the cost in loss of lives been tragic and excessive? The loss of even a single life is tragic and (yes) excessive...but, sometimes unavoidable.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

It seems all so blithe from here, doesn't it?



> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> OK. The President declassified certain information and either the President or Vice-President approved the leak. Now we are fighting the terrorists in their backyard rather than ours. Is that a wise strategy and has it been effective? I believe so. Has the cost in loss of lives been tragic and excessive? The loss of even a single life is tragic and (yes) excessive...but, sometimes unavoidable.


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

we're going on almost eight hours and still not a single peep as to an alternative strategy solution...thats comforting.

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> we're going on almost eight hours and still not a single peep as to an alternative strategy solution...thats comforting.
> 
> ...


Why are you trying to goad them into leaking a potentially successful strategy? [}]


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It is anything but blithe. Anyone who has carried the spear and had the bad guys throw lead in their direction can appreciate the anxiety and sacrifice of our soldiers as they face this enemy. If you have had a young wife soak the collar of your shirt with her tears after you told her her husband wouldn't be coming home, you might gain a sense of her pain but, still would be unable to comprehend her sense of unfathonable loss...I certainly hope my initial response did not convey that I take this present conflict at all lightly. However, if we as a Nation don't take the fight to these bad guys, they will certainly bring it to us...and then we would fault the President for that.



> quote:_Originally posted by BertieW_
> 
> It seems all so blithe from here, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> we're going on almost eight hours and still not a single peep as to an alternative strategy solution...thats comforting.


I'm glad that you are comforted by everyone ignoring your dumb question.

------------------


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Our President helped increase the number of terrorists with his strategy and help create new training areas possible for these fanatics....so I ask you, was this a wise strategy?



> quote:_Originally posted by eagle2250_
> 
> OK. The President declassified certain information and either the President or Vice-President approved the leak. Now we are fighting the terrorists in their backyard rather than ours. Is that a wise strategy and has it been effective? I believe so. Has the cost in loss of lives been tragic and excessive? The loss of even a single life is tragic and (yes) excessive...but, sometimes unavoidable.


guit


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Sure it is a problem, but was it a problem that the US should have attempted to take on all alone? Makes us look like there is more of an agenda than just getting the bad guys, if indeed we are truly after the bad guys....so who are we after, the mastermind of 9/11 is still on the loose, Bush has ties to his family (not that we should punish his family but does he not think they will help him?)....look a bit more into what it is that our fine President is donig, what is his agenda, why Saddam, I mean really why, not flippantly.



> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


guit


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The President has not helped increase the number of terrorists by taking the fight to Iraq, nor has he helped create more training areas for the terrorists with this strategy. The incidence of terrorist activities has certainly been concentrated in a more confined geographic area and if you will recall, in the early days of the Iraq war our forces discoved two (or possibly three) major training facilities where the terrorists had been conducting fairly complex operational training activities for field operatives dispatched to other areas of the world. Terrorist training activities were taking place in Iraq well before our troops arrived.

Several respondents to this thread have mentioned 9/11. As a group, we tend to forget that 9/11 was not the first terrorist attack against the World Trade Center. The first was a truck bombing that had occurred, I believe, nine years earlier. We also conveniently forget the the foiled attempt to bomb the New York tunnels, the car filled with explosives discovered at the Canadian/US border...and the list goes on. The frequency of terrorist incidents within our borders and throughout other parts of the world (Germany, Spain, Phillipines, etc.)is down, while the bad guys fight for their lives in Iraq. History has repeatedly shown that if we don't take the fight to these bad guys, they will bring it to us.



> quote:_Originally posted by guitone_
> 
> Our President helped increase the number of terrorists with his strategy and help create new training areas possible for these fanatics....so I ask you, was this a wise strategy?
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by guitone_
> 
> Our President helped increase the number of terrorists with his strategy and help create new training areas possible for these fanatics....so I ask you, was this a wise strategy?
> 
> guit


And your source for these facts is?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> I'm glad that you are comforted by everyone ignoring your dumb question.


gmac, do you ever make statements like this and step back and think, why are my idealogical counterparts at home and in the US getting their asses handed to them in the elections? Does it ever even cross your mind?

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## romafan (Apr 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by whnay._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which elections?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You all aren't going to let a small thing like Fitzgerald changing the accusation stop you now are you?

W is still probably guilty! He probably still approved the leak! Off with his head anyway false charges not withstanding![}]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by romafan_
> Which elections?


He means the ones liberals keep losing. Or every election since the Republican Revolution [}]


----------

