Politics: J'accuse! - Page 289

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I am somewhat conflicted.

Do you believe that morality/ethics/right/wrong is situational? Most folks do, I suppose.

On the other hand, virtue and principles should not be a suicide pact. How far can one stretch the concept of legitimate use of force in self-defense. Most people would say that, in most situations, the world is full of shades of gray.

S_A_M

I would love to believe we can fight and win this war without getting our hands dirty, but I fear this is not the case. These people do not play by the rules. They are absolutely ruthless and without discernable morals.

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Abrams? Having the WH use Abrams for that is like asking the guy with five fouls to get the ball "by any means necessary."

Do the feds have a "three strikes" law? I hope so. It will be fun to watch some future GOP president use the special double-strength pardon and then appoint him to a sub-cabinet position. Again. Like Groundhog Day.

Let's hear how the neocons on the board feel about presidential pardons for lying to Congress, now that the Congress is GOP-controlled. A good thing?

Correct me if my memory is hazy, but wasn't it determined that no federal statute was broken by whomever leaked the info?

Hank Chinaski · 05-13-2004, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
1) When Blix went in and looked where we told him to, and didn't find it, he changed his mind. We didn't listen to him.

2) What "circumstances" do you know of that Tommy Franks didn't know of?

3) What conspiracy-laced conclusions? All I said is that on one day, Franks told Bush they had never found a single WMD, and the next day Bush told the press that Hussein had WMD.

are you trying to "dumb down" to make your toady baltassoc look like he can argue a point?

Blix in on record as saying WHEN the US went in, he THOUGHT we would find the weapons. Ty, I let you get away with a lot here; i cannot let you rewrite history.

my points 1 and 2 were that "1-everyone thought he had them "and "2-we hadn't found any when we went in"

were both things everyone knew. Franks told bush we hadn't found anything? So? I knew we hadn't found anything for sure.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-13-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Correct me if my memory is hazy, but wasn't it determined that no federal statute was broken by whomever leaked the info?

A grand jury has been empaneled to consider that very question.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-13-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
None of whom she will name.

So, do you believe she was orderd to have sex with these guys in front of prisoners by her superiors? If so, please let me know so I can put you on my "too stupid to respond to" list. TIA!

Nope -- not the sex shots. But you got to understand that "persons of higher rank than her" and "in her chain of command" include that Specialist with the goofy grin she was hugging on. Someone might have said, "Hey Lynndie, hold the leash for a minute!"

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski · 05-13-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope -- not the sex shots. But you got to understand that "persons of higher rank than her" and "in her chain of command" include that Specialist with the goofy grin she was hugging on. Someone might have said, "Hey Lynndie, hold the leash for a minute!"

S_A_M

he is supposed to the father of her future baby, so I bet he's in some of the movies. but he's charged to, so we got that high up the chain- and when you have film of you having sex with multiple partners in front of prisoners.......well i've gotta say, I show the film at least as to the credibility of her statement about "being ordered " to hold the dog collar.

conf to fringe: I not making a statemtn that sexually active girls are bad- I'm just saying the two behaviors do have relevance to each other.

Secret_Agent_Man · 05-13-2004, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Correct me if my memory is hazy, but wasn't it determined that no federal statute was broken by whomever leaked the info?

AFAIK, that argument has been made, but there is still a grand jury empanelled to investigate and one Atty. Gen'l who has recused himself from the ongoing investigation.

Unbelievable that they might not know who leaked it yet. Maybe we need to start "waterboarding" some White House aides. OTOH -- its not like she was an _important_ CIA agent.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 05-13-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

Unbelievable that they might not know who leaked it yet.

Perhaps they do, but they're also figuring out who lied about not knowing who leaked it, and are holding off the indictments until they have the whole lot of them.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-13-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
my points 1 and 2 were that "1-everyone thought he had them "and "2-we hadn't found any when we went in"

And my point was that Bush presented supposition or speculation as fact. He led everyone to believe we knew more than we did. If he had said, we've been looking for WMD for ten years and can't find a single WMD, but I want to invade Iraq because I think if we do we'll turn WMD up, that would have been truthful, but it wouldn't have rallied public support around the war. Public support for the war came from the fact that people felt threatened, by WMD and by terrorism. Some people, like bilmore, feel that the war was entirely justified by the bad things Saddam did to his people -- y'know, like torture -- but the White House apparently decided that people would not support a war fought for that reason, and I think they were right.

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As my post says, it's from page 173 of Bob Woodward's book.

Franks told Bush they'd been looking for ten years and hadn't found a single WMD, and couldn't say they were there. The next day, Bush went before reporters and said unequivocally that Hussein had WMD. There are a few possibilities:

3. Woodward is lying. Very unlikely. The quote is attributed directly to Franks, not to an anonymous official. Woodward's whole schtick is letting his sources tell their stories -- this, pretty clearly, is Franks' way of making it clear that the WMD debacle is not the Pentagon's fault.

Has Franks confirmed that he actually said this Woodward?

Hank Chinaski · 05-13-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And my point was that Bush presented supposition or speculation as fact. He led everyone to believe we knew more than we did. If he had said, we've been looking for WMD for ten years and can't find a single WMD, but I want to invade Iraq because I think if we do we'll turn WMD up, that would have been truthful, but it wouldn't have rallied public support around the war. Public support for the war came from the fact that people felt threatened, by WMD and by terrorism. Some people, like bilmore, feel that the war was entirely justified by the bad things Saddam did to his people -- y'know, like torture -- but the White House apparently decided that people would not support a war fought for that reason, and I think they were right.

I'm sorry, who didn't know we were looking but hadn't found anything? And what does looking mean? Traveling umipeded through Iraq? Please.

You need to learn to drop points and pick on your stronger points. Do you routinely need to move for extra pages in your supporting memorandum so you can "fully address every rat down every hoel"?

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Where is the outrage?

If you are a Dem, all the outrage is focused on someone having to wear panties on their head.

baltassoc · 05-13-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And my point was that Bush presented supposition or speculation as fact. He led everyone to believe we knew more than we did.

That's kind of -- what's the word I'm looking for -- weasely.

Not Me · 05-13-2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope -- not the sex shots. But you got to understand that "persons of higher rank than her" and "in her chain of command" include that Specialist with the goofy grin she was hugging on. Someone might have said, "Hey Lynndie, hold the leash for a minute!"

S_A_M

I agree that she is looking to finger this on those just above her in rank. The problem is that one of them is the father of her baby. My guess is that she is waiting to see if he takes responsibility for her actions to get the mother of his baby off. If he doesn't, I bet she fingers him. I know I would. Either my man protects me, or, well, hell hath no fury, ya know?

sgtclub · 05-13-2004, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And my point was that Bush presented supposition or speculation as fact. He led everyone to believe we knew more than we did. If he had said, we've been looking for WMD for ten years and can't find a single WMD, but I want to invade Iraq because I think if we do we'll turn WMD up, that would have been truthful, but it wouldn't have rallied public support around the war. Public support for the war came from the fact that people felt threatened, by WMD and by terrorism. Some people, like bilmore, feel that the war was entirely justified by the bad things Saddam did to his people -- y'know, like torture -- but the White House apparently decided that people would not support a war fought for that reason, and I think they were right.

You act as though this was some clanestine behavior. It was all in the security assessment materials which were made available to congress, and any of the 535 members had the opportunity to call bullshit if they thought the evidence was too flimsy. None did on these grounds, not even JFK.