• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Topic: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    The CIA says it warned Bush three years ago that invading Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility and Bush ignored them. This from Robert Novak:

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak27.html

  2. #2

    Thumbs down Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    Quote Originally Posted by suntimes
    Modern history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments, for good or ill. In the final days of World War II, the German Abwehr conspired against Hitler. More recently, Pakistani intelligence was plotting with Muslim terrorists. The CIA is a long way from those extremes, but it is supposed to be a resource -- not a critic -- for the president.
    The quote above was the last paragraph in the piece you cited. Ooops - guess you didn't think we'd read that.

  3. #3

    Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    Is that paragraph supposed to negate the point, TAI? I don't understand.

    The CIA - and others, by the way - told Bush the truth and he wouldn't hear it. And the CIA is at odds with the State Department for very good reasons, if that column is true. It's certainly true that our administration is made up of ideologues - and ones whose ideology is ~~~~, at that.

  4. #4

    Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    That last paragraph is telling about Novak. It's pure editorializing with no additional facts about the CIA or the Administration. He's a suck-up for Bush.

    Remeber, Novak is the guy who outted CIA agent Valerie Plame and refused to divulge his source, admitted to be a "high-level member in the administration". He stands behind a journalistic code - even though 1) the information was not solicited as part of a news investigation, 2) the information was not newsworthy, 3) such a leak could cost lives, and 4) the act itself was a felony.

    Novak is a traitor.

    -JF

  5. #5

    Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    Quote Originally Posted by Think_About_It
    The quote above was the last paragraph in the piece you cited. Ooops - guess you didn't think we'd read that.
    And it makes a difference how?

    Bush ignored a critical warning from the CIA. AGAIN. How many times does he have to do it before you conservos get the message that he isn't good for this country -- no matter what side of the fence you're on.

  6. #6

    Question Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    That last paragraph is telling about Novak. It's pure editorializing with no additional facts about the CIA or the Administration. He's a suck-up for Bush.

    Remeber, Novak is the guy who outted CIA agent Valerie Plame and refused to divulge his source, admitted to be a "high-level member in the administration". He stands behind a journalistic code - even though 1) the information was not solicited as part of a news investigation, 2) the information was not newsworthy, 3) such a leak could cost lives, and 4) the act itself was a felony.

    Novak is a traitor.-JF
    The ENTIRE article ITSELF was written by Novak, not just the last paragraph!

    Sooooooo since Novak-io is a traitor we can trust this traitors words riiii...iiight!?!?

  7. #7

    Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    I didn't say that Novak is a liar, just a Bush suck-up traitor.

    I don't know that the facts mentioned in the body of the article are true or not. It should be easy enough to find independent confirmation.

    Don't confuse Novak's factual statements with his editorializing. They are two different things. I can understand that the cable "news" talking head fests have blurred that line for many.

    -JF

  8. #8

    Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    I didn't say that Novak is a liar, just a Bush suck-up traitor.

    I don't know that the facts mentioned in the body of the article are true or not. It should be easy enough to find independent confirmation.

    Don't confuse Novak's factual statements with his editorializing. They are two different things. I can understand that the cable "news" talking head fests have blurred that line for many.

    -JF
    Talking heads. Don't get me started. On the local news the other day (L.A.), some dimwit is talking about a report and makes the off-handed remark, "If Bush gets re-elected -- and, according to the polls, it looks like he will -- blah blah"

    One or two polls at the time showed Bush with a slight lead. The rest were dead even. Yet this bimbo had decided that Bush is going to win. It's one thing for someone like ME to say Kerry is going to win, which I believe, but aren't news anchors supposed to be objective? She was a reporter, not a pundit, so the editorializing was completely out of line, especially since it wasn't even based on reality.

    Anyone who relies on these television bozos for their news is an idiot.

  9. #9

    Talking Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    And speaking of talking heads:





    Kinda skerry - them noggins!

  10. #10

    Wink Re: CIA Warned Bush, Bush Ignored Them

    And speaking of polls:

    Dame Judy Woodruff of CNN just read a CNN/USA/Gallup poll:

    53% Likely voters for Bush
    42% " for Lurch

    52% Registered voters for Bush
    42% " for Lurch

    But then again who believes CNN anyway?

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •