ATS: Bush Ok'ed Plame leak according to Libby

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Perhaps you should try to avoid the one with Ted Kennedy in it. There's an old story going around that he's kinda hard on other passengers when he goes on or over the water.

We are talking about liars, not people who cant drive. Nice try.

Originally posted by dgtempe
We are talking about liars, not people who cant drive. Nice try.

DG you should be used to the old spin it on the opposition to evade responsibility. If they had any sense, they would demand accountability in those who represent them, but it's more an ego and denial thing when your election pick turns out to be a big turd. Pride goeth before the fall on the face.



They are all wet now too. Wonder how long it takes before they wake up and smell the reality?

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

I think the headline is misleading because I seriously doubt that Rove and Cheney need Bush's "OK" to do anything. It seems to me that Bush is the one who needs the approval of them to make decisions.

Thanks for making my day so early with that graphic.

When will they learn?

I would of outed Valerie Plame too.
First off, if she is so important and so covert as she says she is, she probably shouldn't of been seen in Time Magazine.
Second she shouldn't of been cherry picking "classified" info for her husband Ambassador Dan Wilson.
Third, the way Dan Wilson presents himself and his take on events. How pompous, what an ass!

Regenmacher

That is a very funny I am laughing my hart out. The problem with Bush and Cheney is that they both have thin skin when it comes to criticism against their personas so instead of taking the criticism and make it into an asset they just go ballistic and have to abuse their political powers to get even.

And that is the type of people ruling our nation, no wonder we are fighting a war on an ideology also, that leaves open doors to who will become the target next.

Political capital with political powers can become easily corrupt when personal agendas and revenge are the prioritized.

"no wonder we are fighting a war on an ideology"

Marg pardon me, when has there EVER been a war throughout history that wasn't fought based on an ideology or other belief?

Just because there is an ideology doesn't mean it is wrong.

What do you believe if you don't believe in any ideologies?

Political capital with political powers can become easily corrupt when personal agendas and revenge are the prioritized.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit


What do you believe if you don't believe in any ideologies?

Then you become more intelligent in the decision making that can affect millions of people around the world.

In other words you sit and think before taking action so the results of the actions do not becomes as catastrophic as the war on terror has become for the people in Iraq that has nothing to do with 9/11.

A very costly war for the American tax payer I may say.

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Low Orbit


What do you believe if you don't believe in any ideologies?

Then you become more intelligent in the decision making that can affect millions of people around the world.

In other words you sit and think before taking action so the results of the actions do not becomes as catastrophic as the war on terror has become for the people in Iraq that has nothing to do with 9/11.

A very costly war for the American tax payer I may say.

I agree that the war is very costly for us, Im not sure if you're american too? but I have to disagree with this point,

"In other words you sit and think before taking action so the results of the actions do not becomes as catastrophic as the war on terror has become for the people in Iraq that has nothing to do with 9/11."

That my friend regardless of what you conclude or act upon or what you choose not to act upon is in itself an IDEOLOGY, when you are a politician you can not avoid having an ideology(even a democrat because they have been without ideas ever since 9/11, but even that, aka inaction is in itself an action or a posture, think about it!)

Originally posted by marg6043
Political capital with political powers can become easily corrupt when personal agendas and revenge are the prioritized.

Yeah, we already know Bush and cronies don't give a crap about the people unless those people will personally enrich and increase their power base. It will probably have to evolve to "give them enough rope and eventually they shall hang themselves", considering there's lots of complacency throughout congress,



What I fail to understand is why anyone defends such a blantant case of hypocrisy and then expects intelligent people to think they are something besides complete fools.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
That my friend regardless of what you conclude or act upon or what you choose not to act upon is in itself an IDEOLOGY, when you are a politician you can not avoid having an ideology(even a democrat because they have been without ideas ever since 9/11, but even that, aka inaction is in itself an action or a posture, think about it!)

Just remember the nationality of the people involve in 9/11 and who we the administration has targeted for it.

Also yes politicians Does have ideologies that they sell to the voter, but ideologies base on personal agendas not to benefit the nation should not be taken into consideration when wagging a war on sovereign countries on the premises of Intention to cause harm that was what Iraq was all about.

9/11 faded in the back ground when Iraq became the juiciest morsel.

Regenmacher

The problem here is as how much power the president have or have given himself.

The big blunder was to utilized that power for revenge, now technicalities has to be created to justify the blunder.

Why Bush and Cheney may have been so unhappy with Wilson as to used his wife to get to him is what the issue should be.

What did Wilson did? Beside criticizing the administration, Well. . .

Perhaps because he is a scholar at the Middle East institute and in favor of Saudi interest? No. . . because the Bush administration is also big at when it comes to Saudi Interest.

Perhaps because he wrote in the Nation Magazine that Bush had Imperial ambitions and said that the world Worries because America has entered one of it periods of madness.

www.thenation.com...

Perhaps because he is a speaker for the Education for peace in Iraq Center that opposed to the US intervention in Iraq.

www.epic-usa.org...

It seems that Wilson just being a vocal activist against Bush and his war for lies got him in the Presidential black list.

So it bring to mind how much freedom of speech we have when it has to do with opposing the present administration also.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Low Orbit
That my friend regardless of what you conclude or act upon or what you choose not to act upon is in itself an IDEOLOGY, when you are a politician you can not avoid having an ideology(even a democrat because they have been without ideas ever since 9/11, but even that, aka inaction is in itself an action or a posture, think about it!)

Just remember the nationality of the people involve in 9/11 and who we the administration has targeted for it.

Also yes politicians Does have ideologies that they sell to the voter, but ideologies base on personal agendas not to benefit the nation should not be taken into consideration when wagging a war on sovereign countries on the premises of Intention to cause harm that was what Iraq was all about.

9/11 faded in the back ground when Iraq became the juiciest morsel.

Marg, I wish I could understood what you wrote, if you could clean up the grammar it would be much appreciated!

"9/11 faded in the back ground when Iraq became the juiciest morsel."

I understand this. Bush's intent was to cause harm to Saddam and use the American people and our money in a Bush family fued.

That is criminal! Bush is a criminal.

He don't care about a war on terror. He's causing terror where there was none in Iraq. Bush is dumb, and those that follow his lead are dumber.

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Marg, I wish I could understood what you wrote, if you could clean up the grammar it would be much appreciated!

I hope that this is not an insult but a concern of yours, my first language is Spanish not English, and by now many of the oldest fine members of ATS knows that.

BTW my words are pretty clear on my meanings so I don't see what the point is.

It wasn't an insult I just found this a bit confusing, are you saying?

"Also yes politicians Does have ideologies that they sell to the voter, but ideologies base on personal agendas not to benefit the nation should not be taken into consideration when wagging a war on sovereign countries on the premises of Intention to cause harm that was what Iraq was all about. "

1. Yes politicians do have ideologies that they sell(pander) to the voter, but ideologies based on personal agendas(american politicians have self interests not national interests?) not to benefit the nation.
2. The nation(us people) should not be taken into consideration when waging a war on sovereign countries on the premises of 'Intention to Cause Harm'(Bush doesn't care what Americans think if he feels people can hurt the country?) that was what Iraq was all about.

Is that what you are trying to say, I'm just trying to understand your argument.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Is that what you are trying to say, I'm just trying to understand your argument.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Yes I understand I guess sometimes I expect everybody to be in my line of though forgeting that some members are not.

Marg, the only words you need are:

Liar- One who doesnt tell the truth: Mentiroso

Criminal- One who doesnt abide by the rules: Criminal



Your English is and has always been very good. Keep up the good work

Unfortunately I still believe that Bush did what he thought was in the best interest of the country and maybe the world, by attacking both Afghanistan and Iraq. Once you ENGAGE in war you don't follow the polls of what your civilians want because of course they want the soldiers out of harms way and that is how you LOSE a war.

Marg the U.S. is in a war right now. I want them to win that war.(I dont know who you want to win?)
The U.S. can win the war if they can just stay in the streets long enough for the "insurgents" to die down, and long enough to get a basic government in place with a good enough military to stop any future attacks.

What I am saying is... WHO EVER STAYS IN LONGEST,... WINS!!!

Who do you want to win the war Marg/ dgtempe?

Who did you want to win the last election?

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Low Orbit]

The war Bush has wagged is against the American constitution and any country that will be a possible asset to his corporate agenda.

Wars base in ideology are never won at all.

Yes DG criminal, mentiroso y mugroso.