Bush Orders Secret War Against

[Jerry Galinda]

From what I see – first of all - Sunnis and Shiites hate each other !!

[GostHacked]

M Dancer

not sure what you are trying to say

If it was not that obvious, but recall how Iraq has been bombed for 10 years after the first Gulf War?? No Fly zones and other sanctions? The US bombed Iraq from the air for weeks before the land invasion. This prevented them from restarting their nuclear programme.

So if you do the same to Iran, you just might get the same results as in Iraq.

Slow down boy? Not a chance...didn't get to be the biggest damn dog by slowing down.

Just make sure you chew good enough before you swallow, you don't want to choke now do you? Choking can lead to a sudden death.

[Liam]

Bush Orders Secret War Against

Iran

Not much of a secret. The NYT will be pissed that someone else beat them to the punch and divulged what seems to be national security matters.

This is not divulging national security matters.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...andidates_.html :"In a statement ABC News said, "In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to." "

Does anyone think the mullahs in Iran are so stupid as to think the CIA hasn't been operating covertly within Iran for years? How is the publication of that fact a matter of breaching national security? This calls to mind the hysterics Bush folks went into when it was reported that **DUH** US intelligence agents were watching bank transactions and wire transfers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just make sure you chew good enough before you swallow, you don't want to choke now do you? Choking can lead to a sudden death.

The US has been "chewing" on Iran for over 25 years. President Carter "choked", which did lead to sudden death (1980 election).

[B. Max]

Bush Orders Secret War Against

Iran

Not much of a secret. The NYT will be pissed that someone else beat them to the punch and divulged what seems to be national security matters.

This is not divulging national security matters.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...andidates_.html :"In a statement ABC News said, "In the six days since we first contacted the CIA and the White House, at no time did they indicate that broadcasting this report would jeopardize lives or operations on the ground. ABC News management gave them the repeated opportunity to make whatever objection they wanted to regarding our report. They chose not to." "

From what I hear it's still being looked into as to who gave them information in the first place. ABC shouldn't have ask, they should know enough not to say anything. Maybe someone needs to ask what side they're on.

On the other hand, do the bearded billy goats in Iran have questions about what these things are for, and what they're doing there.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He2...N-8157C-240.jpg

http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=29585

[myata]

Slow down boy? Not a chance...didn't get to be the biggest damn dog by slowing down.

All dogs are mortal even the biggest ones. Romans ruled the known world for 500 years, British - 200 or so.

US had been the big kid for what, 60 years (after WWII), and the biggest one from 1990 (16). And already showing the strain, with massive debt and international credibility in tatters. The reign may not last anywhere as long. And there's no telling which unlucky bite will break the straw.

[Liam]

From what I hear it's still being looked into as to who gave them information in the first place. ABC shouldn't have ask, they should know enough not to say anything. Maybe someone needs to ask what side they're on.

Last time I checked we still had a free press and ABC is free to report the results of its investigations. This is hardly a "spoiling the surprise of D-Day" moment. Anyone with half a brain cell should have already assumed this was happening.

[B. Max]

Last time I checked we still had a free press and ABC is free to report the results of its investigations. This is hardly a "spoiling the surprise of D-Day" moment. Anyone with half a brain cell should have already assumed this was happening.

It's not up the media to decide what military information they should be talking about. There are proper channels that military information comes from and it's obvious it didn't come from proper channels. A traitor operating under the guise of a free press is still a traitor.

[myata]

Yes right. One must be a traitor if not approved by "proper channels". Is that the ideals which this infamous war on terror is fought for?

[B. Max]

Yes right. One must be a traitor if not approved by "proper channels". Is that the ideals which this infamous war on terror is fought for?

War is fought on the principle that you keep your damn mouth shut, and if you can't understand that, it needs to be shut for you.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55846

[guyser]

War is fought on the principle that you keep your damn mouth shut, and if you can't understand that, it needs to be shut for you.

Quite right old chap. The leak in the Pentagon should be closed.

As for ABC, good job on them. You see if you read the article it states that ABC talked to the Pentagon, and no one said anything about security. Not until of course they were embarassed by this.

Embarass = Slag the paper. Its called Rovian Tactics 101. Doesnt seem to work as well as it once did.

Let me guess, you thought the Plame affair was inconsequential. But now....whoo boy, look out, anger has been raised.

Frankly , I am disappointed that the media dropped the ball before the war and did not do its job.Glad to see they might be back on track.

Lets see...TRAITOR:1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2 : one who commits treason

Nope , doesn't fit.

[B. Max]

name='guyser' date='May 24 2007, 06:50 PM' post='221616']

Quite right old chap. The leak in the Pentagon should be closed.

No, the leak is at the CIA. I don't know why bush never cleaned that nest of Clinton appointees out when he took over.

As for ABC, good job on them. You see if you read the article it states that ABC talked to the Pentagon, and no one said anything about security. Not until of course they were embarassed by this.

I know what ABC did, and it doesn't make any difference. They should know better. Who knows what they said. Did they say we have recieved questionable information by questionable means. There's another question that sticks out. Why take it to ABC. Did they think that if the took it to say fox, they would be turned over.

Let me guess, you thought the Plame affair was inconsequential. But now....whoo boy, look out, anger has been raised.

The plame case was nothing but a leftist witch hunt. This isn't even remotely the same thing and no one was ever charged with doing anything wrong because their was no case. Other than the nonsense they got Libby on. It is typical though, of the treason we were treated to by the NYT over their exposing of the collection of intelligence.

[bush_cheney2004]

All dogs are mortal even the biggest ones. Romans ruled the known world for 500 years, British - 200 or so.

US had been the big kid for what, 60 years (after WWII), and the biggest one from 1990 (16). And already showing the strain, with massive debt and international credibility in tatters. The reign may not last anywhere as long. And there's no telling which unlucky bite will break the straw.

It's not the same kind of "reign" for the US. If you live in Canada, you're already living in a fallen empire. Not much down side, now is there? 'Tis better to have been a superpower and lost, than never to have been one at all.

[myata]

'Tis better to have been a superpower and lost, than never to have been one at all.

And why is it better? Who said so? Another of god-forgotten presidents?

[bush_cheney2004]

And why is it better? Who said so? Another of god-forgotten presidents?

Canada has said so, in many ways, most notably by clinging to the notion of "middle power" and lesser god, but at least rising above the despised label of "third world".

You have named several US presidents in prior posts...can you name your neighbors down the street?

[myata]

Canada has said so, in many ways, most notably by clinging to the notion of "middle power" and lesser god, but at least rising above the despised label of "third world".

Wow, that's quite an ego you've got there. I.e. all good that exists in this world is due to US. Thank-you.

You have named several US presidents in prior posts...can you name your neighbors down the street?

With their families? Must be about an order of magnitude more. Sad if it's the other way around in your place. Unless of course, you remember all 200 of them. Or was it 200 years? Whatever.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow, that's quite an ego you've got there. I.e. all good that exists in this world is due to US. Thank-you.

Yes, my ego is fine, but I said nothing of the sort. The US "exists" as sole superpower...good or bad.

With their families? Must be about an order of magnitude more. Sad if it's the other way around in your place. Unless of course, you remember all 200 of them. Or was it 200 years? Whatever.

It doesn't matter if its 20 or 2000.....you are drawn to "US Politics" like a moth to a flame.

[GostHacked]

On the other hand, do the bearded billy goats in Iran have questions about what these things are for, and what they're doing there.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He2...N-8157C-240.jpg

War is fought on the principle that you keep your damn mouth shut, and if you can't understand that, it needs to be shut for you.

This sounds like some kind of dictator facist, or facist dictator, cannot tell the difference.

And the carriers are there on rotation to replace the other 2 that left and came home last year. But I am sure you were keeping track of that. And you cannot bitch at ABC for maybe actually having a backbone and telling the public what it needs to know. More than the US and Iraq and Iran is at steak here. So why not have all the information on the subject.

bushcheny

It doesn't matter if its 20 or 2000.....you are drawn to "US Politics" like a moth to a flame.

Getting an idea on how big that flame is?

[myata]

Yes, my ego is fine, but I said nothing of the sort. The US "exists" as sole superpower...good or bad.

You associated "rising above the third world label..." with being an empire (yours or ours I'm less sure).

That needs to be clarified. There're many countries (this included) which do not have imperial ambitions and are doing just fine.

It doesn't matter if its 20 or 2000.....you are drawn to "US Politics" like a moth to a flame.

Uhm, no. I usually do not discuss comings and goings of miscellaneous US presidents et cetera. This particular topic is about that aspect of US policy that affects international order, perhaps it belongs in the world affairs section.

[B. Max]

name='GostHacked' date='May 25 2007, 04:04 AM' post='221691']

This sounds like some kind of dictator facist, or facist dictator, cannot tell the difference.

No, it's the way things concerning these types of matters are properly handled.

And the carriers are there on rotation to replace the other 2 that left and came home last year. But I am sure you were keeping track of that.

I think if were rotation from last year they would have been rotated last year. With two not there.

And you cannot bitch at ABC for maybe actually having a backbone and telling the public what it needs to know.

The people don't need to know this. Was it the people ABC was telling or the enemy.

More than the US and Iraq and Iran is at steak here. So why not have all the information on the subject.

And of what use is that information to the public.

[Liam]

What if the leak was deliberate -- someone at the White House or in the CIA deliberately leaked the information knowing ABC would report it so as to scare the Iranian regime and possibly get them back to the negotiating table. If that's the case, then the media is (unwittingly) doing to administration's bidding. B. Max, is *that* OK, then? Is it OK for the media to report things that actually help the administration achieve its national security interests? Seriously, I'd like you to answer the question.

[B. Max]

What if the leak was deliberate -- someone at the White House or in the CIA deliberately leaked the information knowing ABC would report it so as to scare the Iranian regime and possibly get them back to the negotiating table. If that's the case, then the media is (unwittingly) doing to administration's bidding. B. Max, is *that* OK, then? Is it OK for the media to report things that actually help the administration achieve its national security interests? Seriously, I'd like you to answer the question.

It's a possibility, but I doubt it. Someone in the CIA deliberately leaked it. No disagreement there. The problem is, if it's a real plan then leaking it would destroy it. If it's not a real plan it only puts Iran on heightened awareness. It won't drive them to any table, they're already at the table. All they've used the table for so far is to stall and buy time until they can blow the table up.

[sharkman]

So, if this is the solution to the Iran problem, it's not half bad. Military action would be undoable for many reasons and this option doesn't take a huge amount of cash as Iraq does. It's about time they did something.

[Liam]

It's a possibility, but I doubt it. Someone in the CIA deliberately leaked it. No disagreement there. The problem is, if it's a real plan then leaking it would destroy it. If it's not a real plan it only puts Iran on heightened awareness. It won't drive them to any table, they're already at the table. All they've used the table for so far is to stall and buy time until they can blow the table up.

But you didn't answer my question -- you opinined on its likelihood and your guess as to whether it would be effective, which is not what I asked. I'll ask again: if the reporting by ABC was a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to give a "scoop" to one media outlet knowing it would report it, and knowing that the reporting of that scoop might push Iran closer to a standpoint of negotiation... are you still against the publishing of the story?

[B. Max]

But you didn't answer my question -- you opinined on its likelihood and your guess as to whether it would be effective, which is not what I asked. I'll ask again: if the reporting by ABC was a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to give a "scoop" to one media outlet knowing it would report it, and knowing that the reporting of that scoop might push Iran closer to a standpoint of negotiation... are you still against the publishing of the story?

Sure ok. Even though it won't. There is another possiblity. They were looking for the leaks at the CIA.