Poop Man Bob Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Originally posted by mapo returns Let me be straight up. I dont really know what happened all that well as far as the CIA leak. I have a general understanding but I dont know the details. Myabe Ill look into it, but I doubt it. This is just one of those things I dont find interesting; not politics as a whole, but this particular issue. I said the board was far too liberal because of all the childish bashing of anything which isnt extreme left-wing. Then when !@#$% said (paraphrasing) 'its time to attack' and said liberals better take advantage of this. I just think people who are extreme right or left wing, sometimes turn politics more into a war between one side and another. For example, this may have just been one guy who leaked this. Yet we have people assuming its some big crazy conspiracy. If you're going to make generalizations/conclusions about the current Plame situation, how about you do read up on it before telling us we're wrong. Beginning by saying you're uninformed and plan to stay that way is positively the worst way to state your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 and isn't it interesting: on the above polls, those who would be described as "more liberal" are the more well informed??? NOTICE: Fox news viewers (conservative viewers, are WRONG about current events...THE MOST WRONG) NPR (liberal listeners, are RIGHT) fucking shit. don't give me that libaral spun media line of mallarky. fucking BULLSHIT!! republicans in this country are misinformed..BLINDLY following a leader who has taken his country to WAR over some complete bullshit!! and in the second post, it is reinforced that the current administration has no problem with deceit.. the adminisration WILL make us PAY for its current improprieties..(just as former administrations have caused the country to pay dearly for their mistakes) how big a price are you willing to pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 the whole this side vs. that side thing is ridiculous, it frames the discussion in this bullshit scenario whereby one's views are the fodder for discussion instead of actually discussing the real issue. so fuck it. fuck team bush. ps-this isn't some 'big conspiracy' to attribute to a bunch of wacky out there liberals. its a fucking crime that flies in the face of these biatchsz whole oeuvre. if this^ is extreme then i feel sorry for you and yours. fence sit and tip toe around issues all you want and watch your country get flushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 !, don't get me wrong... im not against liberalism (just against people that conform to liberal views for no reason except partisan politics)... and im not defending bush (though i may be trying to play devil's advocate a tad)... my viewpoint is that of ignorance, i'm trying to inform myself... the initimidation just doesn't make much sense to me... i guess poop brought up a good point, but i still think just killing the guy would have been more effective, and we all know, no matter how blatent it is, nothing is gonna happen. and as far as the revenge.. i dunno.. perhaps, it just seems so petty, not saying that means it wouldnt happen, just not something that would cross my mind. and browner, the link you posted discussed partisan (am i spellig that right?) politics, so ya kinda brought it on yourself, ya know? and if you wish the discussion to go elsewhere, how about a little gasoline leading away from the fire... can you dig it? oh yeah, and so far the WMD search has cost 300 mil... wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 oh yeah... and !@#, anyone ever tell you you come off a bit condescending? i'm not really offended or anything, but it's just not the best debate tactic, cause it may be taken as a personal attack on the person (ie, you're such a dumb ass :D ), and you won't ever win a debate like that because they'll retain their views out of spite.... just like you ever try arguing w/ your parents about politics? the fact that you're young and arguing a certain viewpoint automatically gives them a reason not to pay any creadence to it. anyway.. de la soul-breakadawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 i'm not starting another thread to discuss the merit of squabbling over viewpoints. seriously.. . the link..i'm not following the relevance to my points. whether its the link/media or the board, i don't really care, its the same thing: squabbling. also, i think you are putting a bit too much faith in power. offing people is optional, but in most cases probably too complex and unrealistic(i'm talking right out of my ass, but logically speaking..). keep in mind that not every employee of the CIA, FBI, DIA, DOD etc. is a scum bag running with the bush cartel. they've burnt bridges. revenge is a 2 way street. also, if rove was the leak, it makes sense to look at rove himself..his character. he's a petty biatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapo returns Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob If you're going to make generalizations/conclusions about the current Plame situation, how about you do read up on it before telling us we're wrong. Beginning by saying you're uninformed and plan to stay that way is positively the worst way to state your case. i never stated a case. i never said anybody was wrong. read my post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
23578 Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 look mapo, what everyone wants to know is why are you here then. to call people names? is that it? you obviously don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, so just hip, hip, hop out of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by mapo returns i never stated a case. i never said anybody was wrong. read my post again. Originally posted by mapo returns For example, this may have just been one guy who leaked this. Yet we have people assuming its some big crazy conspiracy. Uhh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 this is my new ridiculous name since i can't log in under !@#$% ..as far as me being judgemental/condescending..i say, so what. this is a message board, not a debate. i see the united states getting flushed down the fucking toilet. it scares the fuck out of me to see how apathetic and uninformed the general public is; how easy it has been to dupe them into going along with an unjustified invasion into another country so when i get even the slightest whiff of that ignorance, i pounce. i have very little hope for people who can't see the err of bush's ways clearly ..oh, and by the way..i am lucky enough to have parents who's political views fall very closely in line with my own. :) we don't have to argue, we just commiserate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 why would you attack? i'd think seeing someone ignorant would give you all the more incentive to inform them in a constructive manner in order to help them understand your point of view (how's that for ya browno, we went from partisan bickering to rhetoric)... i actually think that the apathetic public is going to get worse as more and more information is available, it all becomes a blur (another topic for ya brownuh) in order to balance out that huge influx of information, i try to stay nuetral until i feel comfortable enough to make an informed decision. and i wouldn't say thr war is completely unjustified, just the justifications he provided do not exists (threats, etc). i think if he went in w/ humanitarian justifications, people would view it quite differently, of course, he would then have no excuse to secure the oilfields and hence not want to invade. and i'm afraid that i don't have the same luck w/ you.. my parents blindly vote republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Originally posted by Vanity i actually think that the apathetic public is going to get worse as more and more information is available, it all becomes a blur (another topic for ya brownuh) yea, i agree. i think the metaphor of an information ocean will really turn out to be more of an information fishbowl. i wouldn't say this war was completely unjustified either. you can start that topic bro:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~KRYLON2~ Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 :lol: fuk it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapo returns Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob Uhh.. please show me where i stated any case, or said anybody was wrong. i said it 'may have been'. that people might be wrong if theyre assuming this is a big conspiracy. is that not accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by mapo returns please show me where i stated any case, or said anybody was wrong. I never said you "stated a case" - you said that. I said you made "generalizations/conclusions", which you did. Your statement: "For example, this may have just been one guy who leaked this. Yet we have people assuming its some big crazy conspiracy." My original statement was, and remains, before you make any generalizations/conclusions about the Plame affair, read up on it. I'm not going to debate semantics anymore - that's not the purpose of this thread. I'm still waiting for the right-leaning part of you to add something of substance. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming highlighting Bush's nonstop idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Did Novak Expose More CIA Undercover Officers? From here: Bob Novak yesterday on CNN: “Joe Wilson, the -- everybody knows he has given campaign contributions in 2000 to both Ford -- I mean to both Gore and to Bush. He gave twice as much to Gore, $2,000, $1,000 over the limit. The government -- the campaign had to give him back $1,000. That very day, according to his records, his wife, the CIA employee gave $1,000 to Gore, and she listed herself as an employee of Bruster, Jennings and Associates (ph). There is there no such firm, I'm convinced. CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're a deep cover. They're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. So it adds to the little mystery.” Once Novak publicized the fact that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative who used her maiden name Valerie Plame, it was possible to trace her ostensible employer through the campaign contributions she made as Valerie Wilson, for campaigns are required to collect the name of a donor’s employer. (The Political Moneyline website has even posted a link on their home page that shows the page from FEC database listing hers and her husband’s contributions, along with their home address.) Had she not been exposed as a CIA operative it is unlikely that any attention would have fallen on Brewster-Jennings and Associates, but now, as the Washington Post reports, After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front… The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered. A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities… The [FEC] document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And even though Novak is "convinced" there was no such firm as Brewster Jennings and Associates, the Post found the company information in a business database, proving that the company did exist, "at least on paper." It keeps getting worse… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 From here: July 14, 2003. President Bush discovers a breach of national security. Two "senior administration officials" have apparently exposed the identity of a covert CIA operative while attempting to discredit one of Bush's critics. President Bush immediately swings into action to cure this shocking, illegal breach. Here is a detailed, day-by-day chronology of the president's decisive action: Day 1: Nothing Day 2: Nothing Day 3: Nothing Day 4: Nothing Day 5: Nothing Day 6: Nothing Day 7: Nothing Day 8: Nothing Day 9: Nothing Day 10: Nothing Day 11: Nothing Day 12: Nothing Day 13: Nothing Day 14: Nothing Day 15: Nothing Day 16: Nothing Day 17: Nothing Day 18: Nothing Day 19: Nothing Day 20: Nothing Day 21: Nothing Day 22: Nothing Day 23: Nothing Day 24: Nothing Day 25: Nothing Day 26: Nothing Day 27: Nothing Day 28: Nothing Day 29: Nothing Day 30: Nothing Day 31: Nothing Day 32: Nothing Day 33: Nothing Day 34: Nothing Day 35: Nothing Day 36: Nothing Day 37: Nothing Day 38: Nothing Day 39: Nothing Day 40: Nothing Day 41: Nothing Day 42: Nothing Day 43: Nothing Day 44: Nothing Day 45: Nothing Day 46: Nothing Day 47: Nothing Day 48: Nothing Day 49: Nothing Day 50: Nothing Day 51: Nothing Day 52: Nothing Day 53: Nothing Day 54: Nothing Day 55: Nothing Day 56: Nothing Day 57: Nothing Day 58: Nothing Day 59: Nothing Day 60: Nothing Day 61: Nothing Day 62: Nothing Day 63: Nothing Day 64: Nothing Day 65: Nothing Day 66: Nothing Day 67: Nothing Day 68: Nothing Day 69: Nothing Day 70: Nothing Day 71: Nothing Day 72: Nothing Day 73: Nothing Day 74: Nothing Day 75: Nothing Day 76: "I want to know the truth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 off topic like a mofo. Originally posted by Vanity why would you attack? i'd think seeing someone ignorant would give you all the more incentive to inform them in a constructive manner in order to help them understand your point of view (how's that for ya browno, we went from partisan bickering to rhetoric)... i actually think that the apathetic public is going to get worse as more and more information is available, it all becomes a blur (another topic for ya brownuh) in order to balance out that huge influx of information, i try to stay nuetral until i feel comfortable enough to make an informed decision. and i wouldn't say thr war is completely unjustified, just the justifications he provided do not exists (threats, etc). i think if he went in w/ humanitarian justifications, people would view it quite differently, of course, he would then have no excuse to secure the oilfields and hence not want to invade. and i'm afraid that i don't have the same luck w/ you.. my parents blindly vote republican. i'm just cynical. and i'm impatient so i guess i got caught being short on some days. lately i've had zero tolerance, after the downward spiral the government has entered. i'm just upset, and kind of equally upset about the general population's response [little or none].. i dunno about the public's getting better or worse, i suppose that it sadly has a lot to do with what terroroists do over the next few years. as far as justifications, it was there in early years, before gulf war one, when a lot of the worst things were being done by hussein, then later when he invaded kuwait, they had a huge shot then. why he wasn't deposed then, i don't know. terrible. but honestly, i don't think that all adds up to a justified invasion of a non-agressive country. the arms inspections, the sanctions, they were having a slow debilitating effect. now look at the human rights crisis we have created. a hotbed of guerrilla warfare and terrorist activity, in the center of civilian life. we're pretty much fucked in the middle east. do people even realize that? anti-americanism was on the rise before all this, now it's surging. and yeah, if it was humanitarian, we would have done something about LIBERIA...a perfect oppurtunity for humanitarian aid desperately needed by a country lacking order and run by a megalomaniac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 yeah, i don't think you can always have the view that as long as they aren't aggresive, we have no right to do anything.... that lets them get away w/ concentration camps, etc., but yeah, that doesn't rake in the votes as well as cash. so any of you kids going to the protest on the 24th or so? the plot thickens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politi...ics/3164948.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapo returns Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob I'm not going to debate semantics anymore well, at least you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by mapo returns well, at least you tried. and succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob and succeeded. define succeeded ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by Vanity yeah, i don't think you can always have the view that as long as they aren't aggresive, we have no right to do anything.... that lets them get away w/ concentration camps, etc., but yeah, that doesn't rake in the votes as well as cash. iraq is a unique situation. we already had our shot, and blew it. we didn't have any right to come stomping back in there ten years later (after they had started to comply with our demands, no less) and blow their infrastructuire to smithereens. after all, i would have been in favor of large scale military action in Liberia..or a much larger operation immediately post-9.11 in afghanistan but yeah, right now no one cares about countries without oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 http://photopile.com/photos/WalkingCarpet/Fark/41092.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapo returns Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 / i wonder if there is a similar one with Clinton saying 'sorry I bombed your asprin factory, i thought you were making weapons, woops!!' probably not, afterall, the dems can do no wrong, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Nope, sorry, didn't find one. *edit - I find it funny that the right tries to justify Bush's idiocy by making references to Clinton. Do Clinton's actions in any way forgive Bush's fuck ups? Me thinks not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 i always thought clinton was considered a conservative anyway :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by mapo returns / i wonder if there is a similar one with Clinton saying 'sorry I bombed your asprin factory, i thought you were making weapons, woops!!' probably not, afterall, the dems can do no wrong, right? you just don't get it, do you. poop man's edit pretty much sums up what i was going to point out. clinton never ever gets brought up as a solution, or even as such a great president for that matter. shit, while we're at it, we can talk about nixon and reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 oh brother.. Conscience Before Career Ray McGovern, _October 7, 2003 Note: Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, is now on the steering group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Before retiring, he led one of two CIA teams conducting the most-secret daily intelligence briefings at the White House. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." — George H. W. Bush, 1999 What could have been going through the heads of senior White House officials when they decided to expose a CIA officer working under deep cover? Why would they want to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of former United States Ambassador Joseph Wilson? What will the FBI find out? It is not altogether reassuring to learn that John Dion is heading the investigation. Dion is widely known in intelligence circles as one who does not feel he can go to the bathroom without first asking the Justice Department for permission. Sadly, we can expect the kind of "full and thorough investigation" that Richard Nixon ordered then-Attorney General John Mitchell to conduct into Watergate. The important thing is not who-done-it, but why. What ulterior motive moved White House officials to "out" Ms. Plame when they knew full well it would burn her entire network of agents reporting on weapons of mass destruction, put those agents in serious jeopardy and destroy her ability at the peak of her career to address this top-priority issue? Was it another preemptive attack, which — like the attack on Iraq — seemed to the White House a good idea at the time? It certainly fits that pattern, inasmuch as little thought seems to have been given to the implications, consequences and post-attack planning. The objective was to create strong disincentive for those who might be tempted to follow the courageous example set by Joseph Wilson in citing the president's own words to show that our country went to war on a lie. Administration spin doctors, having been able to dig up nothing worse, are calling Ambassador Wilson a "Clinton holdover," but no one was better qualified to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for Baghdad's putative nuclear weapons program. Wilson served with high distinction as President George H. W. Bush's acting ambassador in Iraq during the first Gulf war and also served many years in Africa, including Niger. After being sent to Niger in early 2002 at the behest of the Vice President Dick Cheney's office, he reported back that the story was false on its face — a finding reinforced when it was later learned that the report was based on forged documents. When, despite all this, President Bush used this canard in his state-of-the-union address on January 28, 2003, Wilson faced a choice not unfamiliar to just-retired government officials. He could sit comfortably and smirk over brandy with friends in Georgetown parlors, or he could speak truth to power. Conscience won. In a New York Times article on July 6, Wilson blew the whistle on the Iraq-Niger hoax, adding that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The consummate diplomat, Ambassador Wilson chooses his words carefully. He was fed up, though, with the specious reasons adduced to justify the unprovoked U.S.-U.K. attack on Iraq — the same reasons that prompted three courageous colleagues to leave their careers in the foreign service in protest. With the Times article, Wilson threw down the gauntlet. At the same time, he permitted himself the comment to Washington Post reporters that the Iraq-Niger hoax "begs the question as to what else they are lying about." That went too far for the White House, which took barely a week to react, using trusted columnist Robert Novak to retaliate. There was little they could do to Ambassador Wilson, but they were hell-bent on preventing others from following his courageous example. There are, after all, hundreds of people in U.S. intelligence and foreign service circles who know about the lies. Worse still from the White House's point of view, some are about to retire and escape the constraints that come of being on the inside. And, more often than not, the chicanery that took place can be exposed without divulging classified information. And so, White House Mafiosi decided to retaliate against the Wilsons in order to issue a clear warning that those who might be thinking of following the ambassador's example should think twice — that they can expect to pay a high price for turning state's evidence, so to speak. At least one reporter was explicitly told that wives are "fair game." So far the intimidation has worked. But a test case is waiting in the wings. Alan Foley, the CIA official in charge of analysis on weapons of mass destruction, has announced his retirement. His name hit the news recently when it was learned that Foley tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the bogus report on Iraq-Niger from finding its way into the president's state-of-the-union speech. Foley's credibility was immediately attacked by the White House — which may come to regret having done so. I have worked with Alan Foley. He is cut of the same cloth as Ambassador Wilson. I am betting that the White House's latest preemptive strike will not deter Foley and other intelligence officials able to put conscience and integrity before career from following Wilson's example. Things are likely to get even more interesting. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I'm sure the men and women at Langley have a long, long memory. They know Bush tried to pin the 16-word SOTU mess on the CIA .. and I'm sure a few more will step forward before the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.