It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA head says Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Common people the cia is in a power struggle at the moment. They were warned about going into bed with politics, so now the are paying the price.


(click to open player in new window)




posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
If this is true, and Cheney does "almost" wish for the US to be attacked, that would mean Cheney is a terrorist. He should be put on a terrorist watch list.


I'm sure he is, seeing as Secretary Napoleon at the DHS has declared being Republican a terrorist activity



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
Common people the cia is in a power struggle at the moment. They were warned about going into bed with politics, so now the are paying the price.


I'm sure that's on purpose. Obama is wanting to turn the CIA into his personal covert police force for when TSHTF.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ace High
 


You obviously dont hate cheney enough. here stare at this pic for a few minutes and say that again:


[edit on 14-6-2009 by MR BOB]



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
So

When I play civilization on my computer and run a Democracy...

I hope to be Attacked too

The populace doesn't revolt that way and you can conquer more territory...



You have to realize... all people in power are playing Civilization, they never see faces, they make decisions on a big map



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

I agree... Cheney's VP office tried everything they could to make American lose the war in Iraq...


And they almost succeeded.... Thank goodness someone with some vision took the reigns during the last election..



Huh? I must have missed something there.

What exactly has Obama done that has had any effect in Iraq. The Surge (which he opposed and had no part in) has succeeded for the for the most part. If you were to ask me which Party wanted to "lose the war in Iraq" I would say it would be the Democratic Party. Thank goodness we didn't take their advice....................



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Wrapped up?...you will be eating those words for a low carb breakfast quite soon.This isn't about a small state(iraq) its about the region..and trust me,the region hasn't even began to fan the flames yet.Just because there has been *relative* peace for a year or so means moot...and much smarter people than you or i know this.It will continue for generations and is by no means...*wrapped* up.What a silly thing to say.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
One thing is certain when cheney the dick was in power if someone criticized the bush minor administration and/or their policies the way he is Obama's, they did their level best to smear them as traitors or worse and destroy their reputations.

It doesn't matter if it was Richard Clarke, Valarie Plame, Nancy Sheehan or the Dixie Chicks... among others.

And to the Obama administration's credit they have not tried the same tactic.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
There is only one reason and one reason only why cheney would want the US to be attacked and that reason is financial gain.

This man IMO is a very bad person and should be removed from this planet in order to save many many lives. I don't think I have ever read so much information on one man, the things he has done to destroy this planet and to kill innocent people is sickenly shocking!

[edit on 15-6-2009 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Well as i said, when you play poker with the devil make sure you have your last hand to play.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I guess that's why the war in Iraq was wrapping up and just about won during the Bush & Cheney years.


...

What vision does Obama have?
Retreat and sing camp songs with the enemy. Yeah, that's a great policy.


Wrapping up? Won? Yeah, right.

Iraq is, if anything, more unstable than it was at the start of the war. We deposed a rutheless dictator. Yay. He deserved it, but the fact of the matter is that we had no intention or plan for stabilizing the government afterwards. Noone had a plan for government building. Bombs are still going off in the streets and if we pulled out right now, it would all fall back down into chaos. Doesn't sound like a "win" to me.

Face it, there is no way WE can *win* anything in Iraq. The best we can hope for is to concede we made a horrible mistake by trying to press our will on that country through mass force at the expense of a few thousand American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

The sooner the United States government can own up to the mistake, the sooner we can take our licks and move on. Let the people of Iraq decide on their own what form of government they want.

As for Obama's policy? I don't view him as a Messiah. He is just another politician. But at least he is trying something new...listening and opening a real discourse. We are not the Romans. We don't have the right or priviledge to just invade people's countries and tell them what to do. We need to shut up for once and let their people deal with these matters.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
One thing is certain when cheney the dick was in power if someone criticized the bush minor administration and/or their policies the way he is Obama's, they did their level best to smear them as traitors or worse and destroy their reputations.

It doesn't matter if it was Richard Clarke, Valarie Plame, Nancy Sheehan or the Dixie Chicks... among others.

And to the Obama administration's credit they have not tried the same tactic.


Hmmm.

Barack Obama picks a fight with Rush Limbaugh as bipartisan spirit crumbles



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Noone was saying he wasn't going to comment on his adversaries. I agree with what he said. You really can't just follow Rush Limbaugh and expect anything to get done. Rush is a corrupt idealouge who doesn't care about anything by his own glory. Both parties have them and they do nothing to contribute to the bottom line.


The point here is that he did not call Rush a traitor or try to brand him as unpatriotic.

[edit on 6-15-2009 by rogerstigers]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
you can bet all your riches that if chenny wants it attacked it will be.
because he's an all powerful washington god. let us all praise his
mighty name. on second thought,never been a tailwagger.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Just stating that Obama is trying to discredit civilians also to his political advantage.

And as to the post above containing the NSA cartoon. Check this article out.

Privacy may be a victim in cyberdefense plan


Much of the new military command’s work is expected to be carried out by the National Security Agency, whose role in intercepting the domestic end of international calls and e-mail messages after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, under secret orders issued by the Bush administration, has already generated intense controversy.

There is simply no way, the officials say, to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Fair enough. I am under no allusions that Obama is anything more than a politician. I personally think he is something differant than what we have experienced in the time since Kennedy, but he is still just a politician. *shrug*



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Yup. Agreed. And I'm sure there's gonna be at least a couple of pundits here try to say it's OK for Obama to do what they are damning Bush and Cheney for doing.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Ain't nothing compared to what the bush minor administration did. Not by a long shot.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic
 


Right wing left wing, the whole bird is in the same oven.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Unless you spent the last 8 years living in a cave (scratch that), with earmuffs on you are going to be bias in some way.

I think it's going to far to state that Cheney is wishing for the US to be attacked. At the same time Cheney is making statement in which the only way for them to be proven true is for the US to be attacked. If the US does not get attacked then Cheney's message is going to lose credibility. It could be true that America is less safe now under the Obama administration while at the same time being safe enough to avoid getting attacked. This of course is if we assume that Cheney's arguments are correct.

Cheney has put himself in a win, win situation. He can claim that we are less safe under the Obama administration and as long as we do not get attacked he is just supporting his views and everybody is happy. However if America is attacked then Cheney's arguments have more credibility, or at least appear to. In this situation I believe Cheney would wait out the initial reaction and then respectfully point out what he believes we should have done.

Again I think it is too much to say that Cheney wishes an attack upon the US but he is placing himself in a situation where only an attack would back up his views.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join