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.

 

W.H. condemns 'irresponsible' leaks (from Wikileaks), dismisses stories

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

W.H. condemns 'irresponsible' leaks (from Wikileaks), dismisses stories


www.politico.com


The White House responded swiftly and sharply to publication Sunday evening of more than 91,000 secret documents painting a bleak picture of the Afghanistan war, calling the leak “irresponsible” and saying that the source – the whistleblower website WikiLeaks — “opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan.”


WikiLeaks said its "Afghan War Diary" consists mostly of reports "written by soldiers and intelligence officers ... describing lethal military actions involving the United States military." WikiLeaks gave three news organizations – The New York Times, The (British) Guardian
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   




“The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.”


*sigh* Blaming Bush yet again. No sense of accountability from ANY American government (because I can guarantee Republicans would say the same about Democrats when they come into power).



“If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.”


I do believe Wikileaks distorts truth in one form or another. At the same time, it's nice for the White House to finally be transparent about their lack of transparency, (ironic,
I know) and ultimately, the truth.

Read more: www.politico.com...



Read more: www.politico.com...


www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Portugoal]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
lots of people oppose U.S. policy in Afghanistan. And what's wrong with blaming the Bush administration for things committed to and committed during the Bush administration



[edit on 7/25/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
What else can you expect from the White House, ....

Their not going to reply with " Yeah we know, were sorry everyone, we F'ed up big time"



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
So in essence, the white house is saying giving the people the truth and being transparent, is irresponsible?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Are there two other threads out on ATS about this already?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
The principal of pre-emptive war as a tool for America appears to be new. Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt both denounced such policy. Roosevelt stated it was developed by Hilter. Why is it a good thing now?
I know this is off thread a bit but as a Canadian I see our government trying to cover up documents concerning Afganistan which were ordered for release months ago.
The WH cries foul when the lights go on as to what is or was happening.If pre-emptive war was never a good policy, then ways must be found to justify what is now public knowledge and never meant to be known. Denial and shooting the messenger are usual first reactions.
Canadians are shoulder to shoulder with the US in this mess. Our documents are at this minute being screened by a group of carefully picked individuals who will decide what is to be seen or not. No messy Wikileaks here. (Yet.)



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
i think this is going to be a fun week!!!!! denials, finger pointing, typical political games... (where's my popcorn and cold beverage!!!!)



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Haha... preemptive war is ok now because we ARE the nazis now. If you look for similarities you wont stop finding them, especially the time period from 9/11 to the present. Even 9/11 has a mirror event in Nazi Germany, a little structure fire at the Reichstag (sp?). That should be a clue right there, "fire". Remember all the emphasis on how it was the office fires that brought down all 3 buildings? 9/11 was just another Reichstag but with the technology & resources available 60 some years later in the 21st century. "and the citizens not only stood by while their military wreaked havoc on foreign lands, most of them actually supported it until it got to late. the sense of nationalism had reached a fever pitch and so they were afraid of the very machine/monster which they helped to create, nobody wanted to be labeled a badguy & be arrested by secret police who come in the night & take you away to a secret prison & do god knows what." sound familiar... its only the tip of the iceberg.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal





“The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy.”


*sigh* Blaming Bush yet again. No sense of accountability from ANY American government (because I can guarantee Republicans would say the same about Democrats when they come into power).


He started the military campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the documents DO cover his term in office not Obamas so that assessment is very accurate.

A lot of the Bush legacy still remains and I'm sorry if people don't want to acknowledge that and think after he left office there would be no lasting impact from the choices him and his administration made. That isn't reality and unfair to any incoming president.

It's not even blame just pointing out a fact.

Unless of course Bush was not president from January 2004-December 2009; the period of time in which the documents cover the conflict.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
We give them one billion a year to murder our soldiers. Another reason not to trust the Federal Government....As if we needed another. I've been talking about this for a long time on and off line. I don't need a declassified document or a news story to tell me this. One only need to look at history to uncover Pakistan's ties to the Taliban.


Who's being irresponsible here.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by highfreq
 


lol, ya. Keeping campaign promises is irresponsible.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I understand that the Bush administration is responsible for what happen during his term, but for the White House to say every problem that comes their way in 2010 and beyond is his fault (including the Gulf Oil Spill), then they really don't understand the meaning of the buck stopping at Obama's office, and not in Crawford, Texas.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimplyGord
The principal of pre-emptive war as a tool for America appears to be new. Abraham Lincoln and Roosevelt both denounced such policy. Roosevelt stated it was developed by Hilter. Why is it a good thing now?
I know this is off thread a bit but as a Canadian I see our government trying to cover up documents concerning Afganistan which were ordered for release months ago.
The WH cries foul when the lights go on as to what is or was happening.If pre-emptive war was never a good policy, then ways must be found to justify what is now public knowledge and never meant to be known. Denial and shooting the messenger are usual first reactions.
Canadians are shoulder to shoulder with the US in this mess. Our documents are at this minute being screened by a group of carefully picked individuals who will decide what is to be seen or not. No messy Wikileaks here. (Yet.)
LOL... Hitler??

Yeah, I'm sure Hitler was the first guy to take a war to an enemies stronghold in the history of mankind.

*eyes A rollin*



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
That's nice Obama. Why don't you go f**k off and golf some more while we continue not caring about your opinion.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The only reason he can't blame bush anymore is because he has done it so much it is lacking in credibility anymore. It is his back pocket excuse.

Yeah, sad. The one time he might be valid in his blaming he has ruined his ability to lay that blame.

The little boy who cried wolf, and some such.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


That's a good way of explaining it.
Wouldn't have been able to think of a better example myself.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
The White House necessarily has to take this stance on the leaks; they can't possibly demonstrate weakness to their populace.

This is so expected it's almost a non story...and for the record, I blame Bush more than the current administration. Through the generations, the Bush family has demonstrated that they are tossing their financial weight around when it comes to influencing politics and world events for money...

Onward and forward...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The White House necessarily has to take this stance on the leaks; they can't possibly demonstrate weakness to their populace.

This is so expected it's almost a non story...and for the record, I blame Bush more than the current administration. Through the generations, the Bush family has demonstrated that they are tossing their financial weight around when it comes to influencing politics and world events for money...

Onward and forward...


I can't argue with that. Bush Sr is a major player in the world. He represents the CIA's seizure of the POTUS via the October Surprise. Clinton may not have been CIA, but he was made.

The Bush family, along with many others, serve the interests of someone other than the US. Obama is just a continuation of this. Until i see why he has the SSN he has, as well as the other SSN issues related to him, I will believe he is CIA, too.

This, if true, would mean that blaming Bush more is like saying a killers right hand is more guilty because it was what was used to pull the trigger.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
www.earthtimes.org...
It said that US ally Pakistan, which receives more than 1 billion dollars a year from Washington, would allow its spy service to collaborate with the Taliban and meet them in secret "to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan."

How can they be dismissive of that?

Do they want us to believe they are that incompetent? To use our own tax dollars to essentially attack ourselves?




new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join