Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on September 26, 2006, 08:47:29 PM
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Our board seems to be getting ripe with this method of posting for some reason. People, if you want to discuss something, the DISCUSS it, let's stop with the simple cut and paste operations berift of any substance from the thread starter.
-
I love how the NYT left this part out of their article:
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.
The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
What I really want to see from this administration is for them to catch and prosecute who ever is leaking all of this to the media. It is a complete breach of national security.
I actually like it when President Bush gets a little fired up for a change. From a news conference this morning:
BUSH: We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.
You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement.
BUSH: In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement.
They've used all kinds of excuses.
This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense.
The best way to protect America is to defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.
We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.
Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE? It was an intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February.
BUSH: And here we are coming down the stretch in an election campaign and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody's taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.
I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who've been around here long enough know what I'm talking about.
But once again there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign in order to create confusion in the minds of the American people.
BUSH: In my judgment, that's why they leaked it.
And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. It will stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq; you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.
And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible -- declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself.
And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods of -- that our intelligence community uses.
And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What I really want to see from this administration is for them to catch and prosecute who ever is leaking all of this to the media. It is a complete breach of national security.
Gun, does the above rise to the level of "secret" in your opinion?
Regards,
hap
p.s. You are so correct about the Times.
-
yada yada yada, there will be only one winner in this war, the enemy has committed to your destruction, the war is yours to lose.
-
Anything you hear or read about concerning Intel is well over 6 Months to 8 Months old.
Mac
-
The irony with the leakers is...
Federal prosecutors said Tuesday they have spent $1.44 million so far investigating the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Yet if someone leaks classified info about the NSA Phone Tap Program, or this recent report that can spun anti-Bush...where's the outrage claiming we need to find the source of THOSE leaks?
-
Originally posted by Hap
Gun, does the above rise to the level of "secret" in your opinion?
Regards,
hap
p.s. You are so correct about the Times.
It's not so much the information itself they try to protect but the sourcing of it. EDIT: Keeping a source of intel secret is just as important as the information itself. Some information can "out" the source of it just by the data or intel it contains. Keep in mind this is a declassified report so that means analysts have gone over it and blacked out the parts the don't want in there.
Either way, in my job secrets are just that....secret. It doesn't matter if it's the stock number to the toilet seat they us on Air Force 1, if it's classified and you leak it out you are violating a major trust that the govt, and American public puts in you as a public servent.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
if it's classified and you leak it out you are violating a major trust that the govt, and American public puts in you as a public servent.
Agreed!
A tributary: who are Bush's "plumbers?" I don't know.
Regards,
hap
-
It wasn't leaked it was de-classified.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What I really want to see from this administration is for them to catch and prosecute who ever is leaking all of this to the media. It is a complete breach of national security.
Me too, I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes before leaking this document.
-
I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes
====
Take your evidence to the Attorney General of the United States and press charges, or are you just spouting off at the verb hole ?
-
Yeager:
"He's a crook! He's a liar! The interweb told me so!"
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes
====
Take your evidence to the Attorney General of the United States and press charges, or are you just spouting off at the verb hole ?
I think it's the second part.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Me too, I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes before leaking this document.
(http://www.orlyowl.com/omgbush.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Pei
It wasn't leaked it was de-classified.
It was both.....It was leaked to the NYT, and then to silence critics it was de-classified. Try and keep up please.
-
Yeager & Co.
Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeager & Co.
Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.
Just like your tactics against Bush?
-
no defame, just want you accusers to put up something that could stand in court rather than just running off at the mouth like you know what your talking about. Im honestly looking for more than just talk. Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Me too, I'd like to see G.W. Bush in jail, he's committed many other crimes before leaking this document.
believe me, if they could the dems would have locked him up and thrown away the key ...
the truth is they can't as he has not broken any laws ...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
no defame, just want you accusers to put up something that could stand in court rather than just running off at the mouth like you know what your talking about. Im honestly looking for more than just talk. Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up.
It's not worth my time to every time put up something that could stand in court, which would be eventually put down by a reason or another, without much more than just the talk. Been there done that.
Therefore it's easier to stay at the same level with the opposition - all they have is talk, so why should I do more?
Besides, Bush's actions have been discussed so many times that people on this board should already know what he's done wrong.
Secret jails around the world (mainly in europe and middle east), Guantanamo..
That's just for starters. Why should I dig up rest of his crimes, when one category of crimes is sufficient to have him jailed; if the justice would be in working order.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
believe me, if they could the dems would have locked him up and thrown away the key ...
the truth is they can't as he has not broken any laws ...
Why hasn't the congress required him to explain his actions?
There was a great fuzz over Clinton's adultery, but the congress doesn't care if Bush is restricting the freedom of people without charges in Guantanamo and in an unknown number of secret jails around the world, which of only few co-operating countries are known.
The congress hasn't either cared to inquire from Bush where's the WMD and terrorist camps of (pre-war) Iraq. No victims were caused by Clinton's adultery (except for the spent sperm cells), but couple thousand american lives lost in Iraq and many more permanently wounded.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yeager & Co.
Ahh, the dreaded defaming tactic... ignorance rules.
But you weren't defaming our president? I agree with the ignorance rules part though.
-
Originally posted by lukster
But you weren't defaming our president? I agree with the ignorance rules part though.
Depends on how you take it. I didn't simply claim that he's a tard because I say so, but referred to his own actions which have been discussed over and over again. I don't really feel the need to every time put up several pages of his actions and the proofs of the wrong doings (just to be put down in a way or another simply with the talk.. been there done that!).
I've even proved the fact that whatever you put up here will be put down by talk. Most notably by the people who WANTS you to put up the evidence. It was few years ago and after I proving it twice I didn't care to repeat myself over and over again over generally known issues. I chose to test the 'put up' thing by putting up facts that CAN'T be denied; yet it was denied by simple talk and attempts of defaming.
-
clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.
-
Originally posted by john9001
clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.
Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
Bush hasn't been put into the situation, so there hasn't even been a chance to get him caught of a lie under oath. Although there's really no need to have him caught of a lie to have him sentenced.
Money & power talks and BS walks.. I suppose. I don't think there has been a single american charged of war crimes in a court, but few have been wanted for war crimes. H. Kissinger for one, who could be arrested if he'd travel to europe. Americans are highly uncooperative when it comes to handing over accused war criminals and they generally lack the will to charge the accused war criminals themselves. Only some very low level scape goats have been accused of war crimes in the US, and when pressed into it.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
Bush hasn't been put into the situation, so there hasn't even been a chance to get him caught of a lie under oath. Although there's really no need to have him caught of a lie to have him sentenced.
Money & power talks and BS walks.. I suppose. I don't think there has been a single american charged of war crimes in court, but few have been wanted for war crimes. H. Kissinger for one, who could be arrested if he'd travel to europe.
Uh, good question. What exactly did happen before? You do know that this whole thing with Monica Lewinsky wasn't about whether he had sex with her right? It started based on accusations by others of sexual assualt.
Bring charges against Bush in your court and see how far it gets ya.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Bring charges against Bush in your court and see how far it gets ya.
I don't think I could as a foreigner. Besides I don't have the money to feed the poor lawyers. I'm not a plaintiff either.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Why hasn't the congress required him to explain his actions?
There was a great fuzz over Clinton's adultery, but the congress doesn't care if Bush is restricting the freedom of people without charges in Guantanamo and in an unknown number of secret jails around the world, which of only few co-operating countries are known.
The congress hasn't either cared to inquire from Bush where's the WMD and terrorist camps of (pre-war) Iraq. No victims were caused by Clinton's adultery (except for the spent sperm cells), but couple thousand american lives lost in Iraq and many more permanently wounded.
well ya know when we are attacked, we get slightly P.O.'d.
Thought the media and the dems may seem to be making big noise over the bs you stated above, the majority of us don't give a rats arse what happens to those in gitmo and we'd rather have or army pop them in iraq than have their greasy camel humping arses show up on our shores.
looks to be working too:
al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDUES80.html)
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Yes, but that's not the point, but what happened BEFORE he was put into the position where he lied.
:rofl OMG . Give it up.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we'd rather have or army pop them in iraq than have their greasy camel humping arses show up on our shores.
looks to be working too:
al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060928/D8KDUES80.html)
Indeed a great way to tackle the terrorism problem by first creating majority of the insurgents as a result of own actions and then declaring the large body count as a success in the war on terrorism. :rolleyes:
Too bad there's 40 times more to kill, and after that there'll be another 40 times more to kill.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Indeed a great way to tackle the terrorism problem by first creating majority of the insurgents as a result of own actions and then declaring the large body count as a success in the war on terrorism. :rolleyes:
Too bad there's 40 times more to kill, and after that there'll be another 40 times more to kill.
Perhaps the number of those willing to murder and die for their religion is large but it isn't infinite.
-
There was a great fuzz over Clinton's adultery
It wasn't the adultery or the sex that got Clinton infront of the judges. It was the sexual harassment, charges of rape, and general sexual misconduct.
But of course, everyone just remembers that he was up there because of Lewinsky and a little sex.
-
Its clear what kind of wishful thinking is going on at the defense. From the speech it seems they're under the impression that they're somehow keeping an attacking force from entering the mainland by waging war overseas..
When the danger already sits inside borders in several dormant terrorist cells. Its like puckering up after the load already landed in the pants. :o
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Its clear what kind of wishful thinking is going on at the defense. From the speech it seems they're under the impression that they're somehow keeping an attacking force from entering the mainland by waging war overseas..
When the danger already sits inside borders in several dormant terrorist cells. Its like puckering up after the load already landed in the pants. :o
which is exactly why I wonder daily why they haven't launched an attack or two inside the states ...
seems like that'd be a sure way to punch holes in the whole "fight them there and not here" line
either they are too stupid to realize that or like the fact a wad of them can jump into the back of a 79 pickup truck and be shooting at an american within a couple of days .. dunno - just hope they continue to line up and get what's coming to em. Yes, fishu, the line is long but we have a bullet for each of them..
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
When the danger already sits inside borders in several dormant terrorist cells.
you know of these cells? have you reported the cells to the proper authorities? are you or anyone you know a member of these cells?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perhaps the number of those willing to murder and die for their religion is large but it isn't infinite.
That's true, but how far are you willing to go by conventional means?
The more you kill, the more people over there will radicalize.