Looks like the Bumbler couldn't wait to kick the fear-mongering into gear...but in his administration's haste it ruined years of the companies efforts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21186181/

Heckuva job Bushie!

Vitalogy, finding this forum so you can wallow in Bush bashing must be much like when you discovered you pee-pee for the first time.

Trouble is, we've read it all before, many times. Too bad you just woke up.

Yeah, you're a regular comedian! You're just jealous cause my pee pee still works without a prescription.

The democrats have 3 strategies for 2008:

1. Bash Bush.
2. Bash Bush.
3. Bash Bush.

Without any meaningful plans for the future and their consistently 'weak on defense' posture, the left is toast, yet again.

Herb

@BVD (both Vitalogy and Deane) -- Keep it up you two and you'll be stuck together on a high rated satellite radio show.

@Herb -- I think the problem is bipartisan:

Bash
Bash
Bash
Bash

An' never take out the trash.

Deane said - " Trouble is, we've read it all before, many times. Too bad you just woke up."

Translation; Quit piling it on. We know Bush is terrible. Of course, we Republicans denied, delayed and discredited as many people as we could that tried to tell us so for 7 years. But since there is a better chance of us not being in power come 2008, we'd best feign being contrite. So I guess what I asking for is some mercy. Even though Democrats were right the WHOLE time in pointing out Bush's poor leadership skills, and we fought you every step of the way, we'd like you to exercise that thing we always try and shame you for; Mercy.

In the meanwhile, we will continue to dig up stuff we can blame Clinton for.

Thank you.

" Without any meaningful plans for the future and their consistently 'weak on defense' posture, the left is toast, yet again. "

There's that pattern again. Empty threat. Denying reality. Stay the course. You'll come around. You won't have a choice.

And it will be funny to start watching fro it. I predict about spring you'll start admitting Republicans will not win the Presidency. Right about the time the troops cannot legally continue their tours in Iraq. Then things will start to get really messy for Bush as he just plaing will collapse.

Then you'll keep defending him - but concede that the entire nation wants a new direction. ( Thanks to Rick Emerson ).

Stonewall. Never admit defeat. Even when you are defeated.

Uh, no thanks. How about we just move on without you?

" Yet again "? I assume you mean the 2004 election - not the " again " of 2006?

You are absolutely correct CJ! C'mon, show a little mercy to the pompous ones. Remember, they truly need your support for them to have a hope of returning their party to real conservative values.

There has got to be a SERIOUS bloodletting before that happens. Say another third to half?

From there, the remaining GOP can reconsider their platform.

There's plenty more time for Mr. Bush to appoint some more Supreme Court justices whilst freeing some more Iraqis.

Herb

Huh? K

@missing - Perhaps Doug Arbittier, M.D. might help:

http://medicalantiques.com/medical/Scarifications_and_Bleeder_Medical_Antiques.h tm

?

I don't follow that point at all.

Nice link Little.

The point is this:

"Nothing else matters, but fighting terror and getting those right wing court appointments." This has been expressed here many ways. When you read, "The voters will be..." it is statements like this, that are implied.

Value votes.

In this case, the value of getting the courts packed is higher than pretty much anything else but fighting terror, which happens to make it easier to get the courts packed!

So, we don't matter, the troops don't matter, the existing law really does not matter. Nothing but legislating morality and fighting terror matters.

Bush being a poor leader has no longer term significance. Some of his deeds do however.

One of them is the financial destruction. Hobbling us with lots of debt, invested in the war being leveraged to keep people focused on "the enemy", instead of their own self-interest, means sharp limits to any kind of New Deal type of progress.

That kind of thing really can't be legislated, so it's gotta be forced. That's one part of the story. If, this kind of thing were put before voters, they would say no.

Ed linked an informative study / poll here that essentially demonstrated the majority of Americans are progressive on a lot of things. By and large, we don't mind New Deal kinds of things.

Building up fear, draining resources, etc... keeps these things off the table for a long time.

A lot of divisive politics does the same thing! This is why we have so much discussion on gay marriage, by way of example. Brings out the voters, who buy this crap.

Bottom line here, a government starved for dollars isn't going to be making the kinds of progress that really help people out.

For those things that can be legislated, putting very specific kinds of people onto the Supreme Court, biases it.

Have any of you noticed the court taking cases where there is little to no lower court decisions to overturn? This is purposeful. How the cases are chosen and when, etc... help set legal precedent without actually having to endure and justify overruling lower court deliberations.

Go look. It's happening right now, and will continue to happen for long after Bush is gone.

One or two more appointees, NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS, will essentially sharply limit the kind of liberal social progress this nation is known for, for a very long time, no matter who is President.

Those hidden warnings, implied positions of strength CJ refers to, are these things. We've about 20 - 30 percent of us, willing to get these things done at any cost!

...and they have been working at building up to doing it for a very long time.

Go ahead and ask them, where and when you can. I've done it here, REPEATEDLY, and it's never once been denied. Think back over the posts, the points made, the bizzare disconnects, etc...

All comes down to value judgements. For that 20 something percent of us, those value judgments are as stated above.

"Nothing else matters"

We've been lectured here about "grey", "no moral compass", "activist judges" and more.

Yet, this particular value judgement permits the ends justifying the means!

Think about it. Nothing else matters! It's as simple as it is powerful.

Wrap that with a very aggressive movement to declare this nation a "Christian Nation" and even the rule of law does not matter! It's trumped by the word of god, with God not present to sort out the questions.

Who does this leave?

People. Powerful people, willing to spend whatever it takes to make more noise than anybody else.

Given the whole "word of God" thing is completely arbitrary, as in it says what Bob says it does... we are left with a circular, self referencing moral movement that justifies it's own acts and deeds for completely arbitrary reasons!

It's no different than the "clerics" we are taught to fear and loathe. That's not freedom we are told....

Well, we have clerics, in the form of people willing to play the "Nothing else matters" game, in our courts, in our goverment, doing things they think are right, the will of the people, rule of law, be dammed.

That's the point. The general idea is there are enough of these people, willing to go the distance, that we need to fear them. They don't care about anything really, but for terror and morality; specifically, theirs being imposed on the rest of us, "because god says so.

Of course, this all annoys the living shit out of me. We have a process that, when not bastardized by dollars and manipulations, insures we are well represented and largely free.

So that's it. They don't care and they won't rest, "because God said so."

**To be clear, those who have read me for a while, know my position on faith and religion in general. It's all good, we are free to do it, learn, share, etc...

What I just wrote is a rational analysis of what I have seen, heard and read for the last 4 years or so. And yes, I have notes because I simply could not believe there were enough people, that whacked, to actually make it happen on a scale that could matter. I was wrong.

Ever wonder why I spend time on this crap? Now you know. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Sucks huh? Remember to vote. They are.

"...the value of getting the courts packed is higher than pretty much anything else but fighting terror, which happens to make it easier to get the courts packed!"

If packing the courts was good enough for FDR, who was a prominent democrat, it should be acceptable for Republicans, too. And if you can't understand the importance of fighting terror, I can't help you.

Hopefully, Ms. Bader Ginsburg will retire before '08. That'll overturn Roe v. Wade for sure.

Herb

Roe v Wade will never be overturned. And if you think any judge would be dumb enough to retire before 2008, you must believe god created the earth in 7 days.

"Roe v Wade will never be overturned."

Oh, really? Like partial birth abortion wouldn't be ruled as illegal? It's just a matter of degrees now until Roe v. Wade is as dead as the millions of infants it helped to murder.

Keep your confidence in such a flawed court ruling.

In the meanwhile, conservatives will continue chipping away at abortion, more appropriately known as pre-birth infanticide.

Herb

" There's plenty more time for Mr. Bush to appoint some more Supreme Court justices whilst freeing some more Iraqis."

No there is not. Well, there may be time - but you are implying opportunities too. I disagree very much.

The election is more than a year away.

Conservatives can continue with some dandy gridlock to prevent any socialist takeover until at least '08.

Herbert Milhous

Oh, you mean AFTER the upcoming election...wait...no...you said plenty of time for Bush to do it.

How so? What vacancies are coming up in the next year or so? I am probably missing something obvious. I'm just not following.

Aw, there's plenty of lower court appointments that need filling.

These newer appointments will be with us for many, many, years and are likely to be those who are chosen from, when higher courts need appointments.

My Roe v. Wade strategy is very long term, if necessary.

It's literally a matter of life and death. It took a while to stop slavery. Since the stakes are so high, I can be patient.

Herb

Hopefully your patience lasts an eternity, because a strong majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. Maybe you're out of touch, but the pro-life movement has peaked and will decline politically speaking. Making abortion illegal is a minority opinion, and most Americans like myself believe is a third world policy. I don't support late term abortions unless the mother's health is at risk, and in that respect, I trust the doctors are doing what's medically necessary. What I don't like is the idea that if my wife gets pregnant, that no matter what, she must give birth or else. Roe v Wade may be chipped away at, but the core right of having the choice to terminate a pregnancy will continue to reside with the woman carrying it, not your sham of a religion or our government.

OK so just to put a cap on it; To say Bush has plenty of time to appoint Supreme Court judges is really not at all accurate.

Next topic, I guess is abortion ( Wait, have we already covered Nixon in this thread? Ohh, probably. I don't really need to scroll up do I?;

Where can I find accurate stats on the amount performed, at what stage and why?

Actually, I think the best way to put a cap on it is... to put a cap on it!
http://phosted.com/0710/109argue.jpg
Any further discussion!?

"...a strong majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose."

Oh really?

Let's start with the recent ban on partial birth abortion, which democrats sought to prevent from becoming law:

"...an April poll conducted by NBC/News Wall Street Journal...found 53 percent of respondents were in favour of the Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. Thirty-four percent of respondents were opposed to the ban."

Now, here are figures which show there is no so-called 'strong majority' favouring the right to kill an unborn child:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031106.html

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051509.html

And for you internationalists out there:

http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/238/

Herb

Some food for thought:

Say we pass a new law. Abortion is bad, maybe slap a death penalty on it, like a few backassward nations have. Great! Problem solved right!

We've saved the fetus. Now there will be a lot more babies to be exploited, more wealth to be concentrated, leaving the upper percenters in a really great mood. Ass kissing pays off better and everybody is happy!

Guess what?

There will still be abortions, an increase in women killing themselves, rather than have some kid they don't want to have, and what?

Maybe you guys, who support this crap, feel better about it? Will this be another conservative thing where we see people basically saying, "I can't help it if they break the law?", I tried to save the kiddies. Must be evil at work.

Probably, but that's not really where I'm going with it.

A while back, I summed up a solid plan to essentially take abortion off the map. Lead the world, make a difference in just 20 years. Should anything even close to that get passed, the pro-life cause would be moot.

Not less important, just moot, in that everybody would be focused on the next big issue to resolve, secure in the understanding we have really nailed the problem. Marginalized it, mastered it. Anyone walking around really worried about pro-life issues would be labeled, immediately, as the extremist they are.

Of course that makes way too much sense, so what gives?

Divisive politics. If one thinks ending abortion is all that matters, you know for the sake of the kids, then one is a mere tool to be manipulated into allowing all sorts of other crap to happen.

So we can nation build, allow all sorts of crime, let the people be sick, attack labor, etc... because that's just part of the cost of getting that law passed no matter what.

See how foolish that is? It's happening right now. Just in case we somehow get sane on abortion, there is being gay as a backup. That one is almost as good, if not better for manipulating some people.

Just remember, at the end of the day, the woman always gets to choose. ALWAYS. She can end her life, and with it the fetus. There is no penalty for that, no going back to achieve justice, just an end, period.

The ability to destroy a thing is complete and utter control over said thing. --Paul Atredies, "Dune", Frank Herbert.

This is absolutely true. It does not matter what the cost is, only having the will and the means to do it. For a woman, both of these are true always, for every pregnancy, unless we want to just drug them up, suffer retarded babies, and cut them out one by one.

Another one, from that same most excellent book, "Words, once spoken, cannot ever be taken back." The words are out there. We can add more, but never take back ones uttered.

I'm posting that second one because I'm reading the book right now, thought about Littlesongs, and just thought it would work with his personal attack thing. If politics are frustrating, tiresome, whatever, I can't recommend "Dune" enough! I read it every few years. Always amazed at the beauty, complexity and sheer genius in that work.

It's relevant to the thread too. Religious groups work for generations to build toward some control over others they would not otherwise have. Lots of dogma, and manupulation playing out, just as it is right now today, here in the real world.

Partial birth abortion and banning ALL abortions are too different arguments. Show me a poll where they ask the question "should all abortion be made illegal" and I'll guarantee you that only a minority of people would support such a law. And the sad thing is, half of that minority would probably break that law, because the right wing extremists have no limit on their own hypocrisy.

If you did a poll, and asked the question should only the mothers physical health be used in determing if an abortion should be allowed, you would get a majority.

No you wouldn't. A majority support Roe v Wade, as Herb already posted. If you want to live under a government that forces child birth for every woman who gets pregnant, then move to a third world country like Nicaragua.

" majority support Roe v Wade..."

That number will continue to dwindle, as new technology like fetal sonograms reveal the undeniable humanity of the unborn child.

Your goose is cooked, abortionists, and it's about time.

Herb

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Explain how to me when over 60% think there should be stricter limits on abortion or banned, a majority is in favor of roe

Uh, look at the column that says "not permitted". It's in the 20's. That means the other 80% or so think it should be permitted in some manner. Last time I checked, 80% would be considered a majority. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Add 40% that say stricter limits, and you get over 60% against most abortions.
If they thought that you should have abortion in any circumstances, they would be in that column.

You subscribe to fuzzy math, pal. Stricter limits still means it's available, which means they still support a woman's right to choose which is the essence of Roe v Wade.

I just read through a lot of these.

Generally speaking, we've only got the 20 something percenters saying, "illegal in all cases". Go look again.

That's the same 23 percenters we've been discussing all along!

The rest of us are all over the map, but in agreement about abortion, in particular, Rowe, being permitted.

So, then the stuff I posted a while back, you know that rough plan that would take abortion off the map in not that many years?

Yeah, that one. Majority support. Would bet my house on it.

What gets in the way?

23 percenters. Same people getting in the way of a lot of things. It's gonna be really sweet when we don't have a kiss ass GOP coddling them.

Bet they drop by half, out of shock.

BTW: Look at the pro-life, pro-choice polls. Roughly split.

This means roughly half the pro-lifers support Rowe.

Again, why are we debating abortion with two old MALES who will NEVER (as much as they might like to) be pregnant or need to decide that question for themselves. They also can't decide it for their daughters, wives, or girlfriends (Thank God).

"...Again, why are we debating abortion with two old MALES..."

Because 1/2 of all aborted kids are males viewed as less than fully human...kind of like what black people were seen as a century ago.

Herb

"Because 1/2 of all aborted kids are males viewed as less than fully human...kind of like what black people were seen as a century ago."

Much like many of your ultra-conservative constituents view homosexuals now?

Wrong again. Nice try, though.

Herb

Herb...
Back in 2000 the EXTREMEIES did NOTHING but BASH Clinton BASH Clinton BASH Clinton...
And NOW your pissing and moaning about it happening to YOUR EXTREME leader....

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Before us is a thread titled ""Bush Leaks Info about Al Quaeda". This is possibly the most egregious example of the entire self-serving philosophy of the Bush administration, which is to a) take care of the cronies, b) assert American might throughout the world in pursuit of imperial dominance, c) glorify the Bush legacy through misinformation, revisionist history and the perpetual sealing of unflattering public documents, d) cripple government through crushing debt so that the worst traits of corporate capitalism may run rampant, completely unregulated and unregulatable. The Al Quaeda tape release makes it crystal clear to anyone concerned with real national security that Bush consistently puts his own personal, petty, political needs above those of America.

And what are we now discussing? Freaking Abortion! Rightie Herb and Rightie Deane immediately and successfully bumped the discussion over to an area where they can cry about how unfair life is to them and their leader ("Bash Bush! Waa!") and suck the thread into an area where they feel most comfortable throwing punches.

This perfectly illustrates why I have my apprehensions about Democratic successes in 2008. As long as progressives allow conservatives to keep resetting the agenda to their favorite topics, the much-needed arguments of progressivism will never get any traction.

Edselehr said>>>>
And what are we now discussing? Freaking Abortion! Rightie Herb and Rightie Dean immediately and successfully bumped the discussion over to an area where they can cry about how unfair life is to them and their leader ("Bash Bush! Waa!") and suck the thread into an area where they feel most comfortable throwing punches.

HEY! They're RADICAL EXTREMEIES! And throwing the Abortion card out there shows it. Rudi and other TRUE Republican's know that the choice of what a woman does to her body is hers. Ask DJ she will tell you that her body is her own... Oh that's right... SHE'S EXTREME

"...the choice of what a woman does to her body is hers."

Oh, really? If it's simply a choice of what a woman does to her body AND NOTHING ELSE, then WHY did one form of abortion, partial birth abortion, get OUTLAWED? It is now ILLEGAL.

Don't backpeddle. You say it's a woman's choice. It's grey, remember?

Liberals want to point fingers and prattle on about this bill and that bill, whilst supporting the right to off little kids. It doesn't get any more heartless than that. No wonder libs love Castro. Such blackhearts have a lot in common.

WHO'S EXTREME?

Herb

ANYWAY...I think the release of the Al Quaeda tape is going to be one of the bigger items for the Democrats to be able to exploit in defense of their argument that the Republicans have had a net negative effect on enhancing security in America. Of course, NOT GETTING DISTRACTED by random Republican talking points will be a big accomplishment for them. Think the Dems can pull it off?

"This perfectly illustrates why I have my apprehensions about Democratic successes in 2008. As long as progressives allow conservatives to keep resetting the agenda to their favorite topics, the much-needed arguments of progressivism will never get any traction."


Noted! This is an extremely good point.

"HEY! They're RADICAL EXTREMEIES! And throwing the Abortion card out there shows it. Rudi and other TRUE Republican's know that the choice of what a woman does to her body is hers. Ask DJ she will tell you that her body is her own... Oh that's right... SHE'S EXTREME"

Trix, you state the truth, and you state it succinctly. But the problem is not Deane, and not Herb, for they are unchanging and unchangable. The problem is in us, for allowing them to hijack the thread almost immediately with their tired old Bash Bush and Abortion squabbles. You can tell when the facts, or the arguments being made, are getting too close to the conservative bone - it's "Bash Bush" time! Hell, he's a politician - if he didn't want to be bashed he should have stayed in Texas running unsuccessfully for Congress. When Bush pulls a boner like this Al Quaeda tape release, he damn well deserves to be bashed! I don't understand why Deane wouldn't agree with that...

Totally.

It was a lame move, that actually reduced national security. Why?

Political gain, and with that comes most of what I wrote above.

BTW: Edselehr, your post is spot on, and I'll be watching for that. It's something known, but it slips in --insidiously (if that's a word). Sneaky , slippery, like it SO important, we should never forget.

"the other ford" sez: "The problem is in us, for allowing them to hijack the thread almost immediately with their tired old Bash Bush and Abortion squabbles."

I think for some, its hard not to play poker with clowns who are showing their hand. The troll never wins, but its gratifying to watch him eat crow after betting the farm.

Actually, releasing the tape info, could be a good thing. It can make them react to us, their going to be asking, how did we know? Do we have a traiter in our midst?

Regarding the White House dissemination of a Bin Laden tape which they were instructed to keep secret: "The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder...Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries." (Washington Post)

C'mon Nwokie - this is bad. Just admit it so we can move onto the next stage of your recovery.

" Actually, releasing the tape info, could be a good thing."

You're right. It could be. But none of those reasons that you cite are good enough reasons. I have no personal issue with you being a simple kind of guy who looks for silver lining in bad causes you support - but you are going to have to think a little bit more than you are used to on this one and start weighing priorities and intentionally leaked intel. I know that Bush does it all the time and you've become used to it. But this is not a good time or instance for him to have done it.

Funny thing is, I'm not even outraged. Every decision Bush makes turns to shit in some way or another. I just want him to sit on his hands and do as little as possible.

I have " fuck-up fatigue " regarding Bush and his actions anymore.

First of all, no one has shown who leaked the info. It could have been thir own people.

Second, US intelligence specialists would have determined the best way to use the data, CIA, DIA etc.

You're right. It was a great idea. Those people who have legitimate gripes about it should shut up. It's insignificant compared to making the terrorists question their ranks. That's how we are going to " win." By making the terrorists worry about how we know things.

Nope, I said could be, there will be an investigation.

Yeah. I know. Thanks for stating the obvious again.

Well, the title of this thread, is Bush leaks info, without any proof the President or advisers did it.

So you don't think they did?

I don't have an opinion, there were lots of people in that loop, always a bad thing for intelligence.

You start with a private security firm, who knows what kind of controls they have, then its passed to the great intelligence hole, where all kinds of people have all kinds of agendas.

Its quite possible, some lower ranking official, said, this is fairly small intelligence, lets throw it out, and see what rises to the surface.

" Its quite possible, some lower ranking official, said, this is fairly small intelligence, lets throw it out, and see what rises to the surface."

#1. I do not think it's nearly as probable as you imply. Do you think that would be a good idea for someone to do? I do not think that it is. It turned out to be connected to some larger intelligence that was sort of, you know, important. Seems like it at the very least deserved to be treated with some care of SOME kind. I can't imagine being in any position where I would have access to it and then make the decision, without approval to put it on Youtube. But hey, that's me. But that's where the disagreement is - It doesn't look like it was a good idea to release it when it was released.

#2. Do you think it is actually small intelligence?

There are several problems with this story, and we will probably never know what really went on.

A private intelligency group comes up with an item of data, and passes it on. The US intelligence community could have already known, but they probably wouldnt say that. What to do with this bit of intelligence would certainly have been discused at Langly and the Pentagon, several possibilities, do nothing with it, which is usually what the intelligence agiencies want, because to use it, could give away a source. Find a way to use it, that will give the greatest value, with minimum risk. Or use it in a way, that might risk the source, but give the greatest return. We pay people medium sized salaries to make those decisions.

"A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide."

Seems pretty clear to me the leak came from the Bush Adminstration. End of story.

A range of intelligence agencies began to download it, and there is no proof someone from the administration leaked it. And there is no proof, the US agencies didnt already have it, and decided since these folks have it, there is no harm using it.

Nwokie doesn't have a problem with the fall-out that happened from it being released before it's source wanted it released.

#1. It may have been done by a low level person. So that's understandable if that was the case. Heck, even excusable because...

#2. It's possible that it did good. Even thogh the very specific request to NOT do it was spelled out and the reasons why were given.

#3. " We know better - we are willing to release it because we have other reasons that trump all other intelligence gathering methods present AND future."

I'm guessing that the administration will fight to keep it a secret who leaked it. Because they know it was a mistake. But once they admit it, they'll say " But we had good reasons! So it was on purpose. "

At the very least, it's good to know that telling the administration not to leak it early does NO good. So now they will hold future stuff and release it and give access only when they are good and ready. Otherwise, they themselves are only to blame in the future.

It didn't have to be that way, but now we know it is. No matter who leaked it, NOBODY can be trusted.

Way to slam another door and miss another oppotunity and piss off another ally!

THANKS! I feel so much safer now.

So, we know for sure it was Republican employee who leaked it, do we? Is it remotely possible a employee who was a Democrat leaked it? Or would that blow our "bash Bush" scenario so far out of the water we wouldn't want anyone to know if it was a Democrat.

Look, this ain't rocket science: The private intelligence company notified the Bush Administration, and later that day it was public knowledge. Someone in the Bush Adminstration leaked it. Connect the dots!

Deane, if you can point to any Democrats that work for the Bush Administration, then maybe you could be right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a number of these employees civil service and don't they work through whatever administrations come and go?

Deane, are you naive enough to think that low-level civil servants would have access to such high-level intel? Especially Al-Qaida stuff? C'mon.

The bottom line is that the Bush Adminstration was notified and they leaked it. End of story.

Actually civil servicwe covers grades up to SES 5, which is equivelant of 2 star general.

And there is no way this company can know that the CIA or DIA didnt already have the data, and upon finding out that some civilian co had it, it was alright to release it.

>>>"The bottom line is that the Bush Adminstration was notified and they leaked it. End of story."

It should read "End of Vitalogy's opinion" shouldn't it?

Deane - Bush like to cite Truman as an inspiration and role model. What about "The Buck Stops Here"? If anything like this were to have happened under Harry's watch, he would have stepped up and taken responsibility.

That's why the thread is titled "Bush leaks info about Al Quaeda"

He would, how about when N Korea attacked after his sec of state announced S Korea wasn't in our area of importance.


Or the fact the US army in Korea , as well as the Marines and Army in general had been cut past the bone, the 1st Marine Division was at half strength. And the army in Korea hadn't received any training funds for 2 years.

I'm sorry...your point is -?

Deane, it's not my opinion, it's 100% fact. The Bush Administration was the only one notified, and almost immediately after they were, it was leaked.

Do you also think OJ Simpson was set up by LAPD???

How do you know,
A. They didnt already have the info, just waiting until it could be verified someone else had it.

B. It wasn't released by someone in the company.

C. Some other company found out about it independently, and released the info, the timing being coincedental.

D. A Yeti came down out of the Himelayas to Pakistan, made a copy of the tape, and FedEx'ed it to his cousin Bigfoot, who passed it to DB Cooper who leaked it.

E. Okie did not really read the entire article.

(But I pick D.)