[opendtv] Re: Off topic
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:09:35 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Sorry Bob, but the decision to invade Iraq was completely justified,
> and the world will be a safer place because of this action. Stop the
> bellyaching!
>
Maybe, maybe not. I supported the President's actions once we were
committed, though not before. But we certainly need an exit strategy now.
- Tom
> At 1:32 AM -0500 11/5/05, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>>I think it has been shown that his wife had nothing to do with assigning
>>him to this mission. She was used to ask him to come in to be offered
>>the mission and she then supplied bona fides as to his credentials but
>>was not in the instigation of or the decision to send him.
>
>
> I think it has been shown that you are incorrect. She was intimately
> involved in the decision to send her husband on this mission. What
> has not been shown as clearly, is why the CIA felt it necessary to do
> this. What is coming out is the fact that the CIA was unhappy with
> the White House and put this stunt together to take the heat off of
> their "lapses in intelligence."
>
>
>>Her identity was still classified information whether she was active
>>over seas or not. Her cover was intact and she was a asset. The leaking
>>of her identity jeopardize other agents using the same cover she still
>>used. And the people with classified access to her identity in the White
>>House did not have the right and I am sure they did not ascertain that
>>outing her was OK. If it was not technically criminal it was ethically
>>wrong and as holders of classified clearances the parties who leaked it
>>were knowledgeable of what they did. It should be criminal IMO. We will
>>see if it was.
>
>
> No here identity was not classified. It was WIDELY know in Washington
> that she worked for the CIA. She was no longer involved in any covert
> activities...had not been for a decade.
>
> If there was something ethically wrong, it was the fact that here
> husband wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, filled with
> lies, in an effort to drum up PR for his book, which slammed the
> White House. Ironically, in the book he verifies the FACT that Sadam
> was indeed trying to buy Yellow Cake from Niger, just as Brittish
> Intelligence had indicated.
>
> What this illustrates is that the party in power does not necessarily
> have control of the government agencies that it is charged with
> operating. There's nothing new here; the giant government bureaucracy
> is self protecting and self regulating; there are always people
> working against you...
>
> Just look at the new book from the director of the FBI under Clinton.
>
> This whole affair has been nothing more than a huge publicity stunt.
>
>
>>Even the president said so when he first stated that he would fire
>>anyone involved in the leak before he back tracked and said they had to
>>be found criminally guilty. I am sure if Rove is found guilty Bush will
>>up the ante to someone who has received the death penalty.
>
>
> Another lie. The White House has never changed its story on this
> issue. But the media has mangled it. The position has always been -
> if you are indicted you must resign.
>
>
>>The CIA instituted this investigation, demanded it because they thought
>>it was important enough. I think so also.
>
>
> And what they found out confirmed what the President said, based on
> Brittish intelligence reports. I am growing so tired of this whole
> attempt to bring down an administration that went through the proper
> steps to go after Iraq. There is a high level tie in here to the
> whole DTV mess. The mass media caused us to lose the was in Vietnam,
> based in large part on lies about what was really happening, and
> relentless anti-war publicity. Now that the Democrats are out of
> power, they have become willing accomplices to try to overthrow
> another administration.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy with either party. Our Republic is
> on the brink of total collapse, and the mass media is leading the
> assault.
>
>
>>>This was a direct attempt to discredit the Bush administration.
>>>Wilson LIED in his editorial in the new York Times. This LIE is
>>>confirmed in his own book, which is the real reason that this whole
>>>affair became public. This is nothing more that inside the beltway
>>>politics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I think it was an attempt to find out if the main thread of a
>>justification to go to war, WMD, would stand up to just checking it out.
>>Minimal due diligence. It didn't. Which really pissed off a gun slinger
>>administration. As I said I voted for his father twice and Reagan before
>>that twice but I never voted for this one and have never believed
>>anything he says. I trusted Powell. He was the only credible figure in
>>this administration for me and the canary who died.
>
>
> You are wrong about this. There is more than ample evidence that Iraq
> was trying to buy Yellow Cake from Niger. There is more than ample
> evidence that WMDs did exist. It is not a question of whether they
> existed, but where did they go. We have tons of evidence that the
> Soviet Union was pulling all kinds of stuff out of the country just
> before the invasion. There were convoys of trucks heading into Syria
> for weeks. There were ships filled with stuff that sailed just before
> the invasion.
>
> I'm sorry, but this whole idea that we rushed to war without just
> cause is ridiculous. The majority of Democrats who are now crying
> foul voted to go to war.
>
> The UN was enabling the biggest heist in the history of government
> enabled corruption. It looks like the oil for food siphoned off a
> bout $50 billion, straight into the hands of the corrupt UN officials
> and the government leaders who opposed U.S. efforts to clean up this
> mess.
>
> Sorry Bob, but the decision to invade Iraq was completely justified,
> and the world will be a safer place because of this action. Stop the
> bellyaching!
>
>
>>>The whole ATSC affair is equally sordid, and I can assure you that
>>>more laws were broken in the AdvancedTelevision process than in this
>>>supposed leak case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I am sure of that.
>>
>
>
> Glad we agree about something.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
