Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lerkfish · Feb 9, 2004, 08:54 AM

First you had the Palme outing, suspected to have been orchestrated by Rove, then you had the accusations against O'Neill, which have now been rescinded

interesting how its a very dangerous move to speak out against Bush.

excerpts from the link:

"I should make it clear that nothing that former Secretary O'Neill did in any way calls into question the propriety of his actions," Snow said in an interview with CNN at the conclusion of a meeting of G-7 finance ministers.

The investigation by the department's inspector general found that though O'Neill did receive classified material from the department after his resignation, the lapse was the fault of the Treasury Department, not O'Neill, the sources said.

of course, this did not preclude him from being slammed by Bushites right and left.....

and another snippet:

The book raised a furor when it was released in January. The Treasury Department launched an investigation after CBS broadcast an episode of "60 Minutes" that contained an interview during which O'Neill held up a document marked "secret."

Bush critics charged that O'Neill was being targeted for his comments, but Treasury officials said they had no choice but to investigate whether classified documents had been misused

yes, investigate, but first accuse.

So, what do we conclude from these incidents? Is speaking out against the administration tantamount to have a contract put out on you?

thoughts?

Fanatic · Feb 9, 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

So, what do we conclude from these incidents? Is speaking out against the administration tantamount to have a contract put out on you?

thoughts?

Yes... It's called Politics, and it happens in every administration.

BRussell · Feb 9, 2004, 09:13 AM

It would be interesting to see how long it took for various federal investigations to occur.

9/11: After months of opposition, still stonewalling.
WMDgate: Months of opposition, questionable scope.
O'Neill: Days.
Janet Jackson: Hours. Minutes?

Lerkfish · Feb 9, 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by BRussell:
It would be interesting to see how long it took for various federal investigations to occur.

9/11: After months of opposition, still stonewalling.
WMDgate: Months of opposition, questionable scope.
O'Neill: Days.
Janet Jackson: Hours. Minutes?

LOL! sounds like a good information graphic.

voodoo · Feb 9, 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
It would be interesting to see how long it took for various federal investigations to occur.

9/11: After months of opposition, still stonewalling.
WMDgate: Months of opposition, questionable scope.
O'Neill: Days.
Janet Jackson: Hours. Minutes?

lol BRussell you sure have a sense of humour

Spliffdaddy · Feb 9, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

So, what do we conclude from these incidents? Is speaking out against the administration tantamount to have a contract put out on you?

thoughts?

Was anybody killed or injured?

no?

Then I'd suggest it's nothing like having "a contract put out on you."

BUT

Clinton did have a young couple jailed for saying "you suck, you let our boys die." - in reference to a Army barracks bombing, I believe (yes, Virginia, terrorists existed before Dubya became President)

Lerkfish · Feb 9, 2004, 12:24 PM

you don't think the Palme outing was tantamount to a death sentence to an operative in the field?

Spliffdaddy · Feb 9, 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you don't think the Palme outing was tantamount to a death sentence to an operative in the field?

Possibly. Like any other dangerous job - you pretty much know what you're getting into.

I haven't seen any conclusive proof that Rove was involved, only hearsay and rumor.

BlackGriffen · Feb 9, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Possibly. Like any other dangerous job - you pretty much know what you're getting into.

I haven't seen any conclusive proof that Rove was involved, only hearsay and rumor.

Nobody gets into that $hit expecting to be fcking backstabbed!

I'd bet you were plenty pissed when that jerk-off, Geraldo, was giving out battle plans on broadcast TV. Yet you wouldn't have the same contempt for whichever of Bush's cronies did the same god damned thing to one of our spies?

Un-be-fcking-lievable.

You, sir, are no patriot, you're a sick partisan lapdog. You know what the remedy is for a sick dog don't you?

Luckily for you I have neither the means to accomplish, nor the desire to rot in prison over doing it. So your visit to the veterinarian will have to wait until you drag your own lazy butt there.

BlackGriffen

tie · 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Possibly. Like any other dangerous job - you pretty much know what you're getting into.

Like being betrayed by your own leaders? You have one sick world view.

By the way, an update from the NY Times: (link)

President Bush's press secretary and a former White House press aide testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating who improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer, the press secretary and a lawyer for the aide said on Monday.

The appearances of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, and the press aide, Adam Levine, reflected what lawyers in the case said was the quickening pace of a criminal inquiry in which a special prosecutor is examining conversations between journalists and the White House.

kvm_mkdb · Feb 10, 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I haven't seen any conclusive proof that Rove was involved, only hearsay and rumor.

The leak was from inside the administration. Dunno about Rove in particular, but it was one of them.

theolein · Feb 10, 2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Possibly. Like any other dangerous job - you pretty much know what you're getting into.

...

Oh, so you have a good chuckle every time some more Iraqis and US soldiers die in Iraq then? Seen a shrink lately?

I would have thought you as being intelligent enough not to fall for partisan apologeticism like that, especially here on the board, where you seem to try hard to cultivate an image of drug addled apathy. Still, I suppose we all make mistakes every now and again.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 10, 2004, 08:24 AM

um. ok. you don't make any sense, but I reckon there's no need to start doing that now.

theolein · Feb 10, 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
um. ok. you don't make any sense, but I reckon there's no need to start doing that now.

Hmmm. Seem a bit touchy today, don't we? Withdrawal symptoms, perhaps? I can sympathise as I recently stopped smoking and it did influence my mood quite heavily.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 10, 2004, 08:51 AM

If everyone smoked weed there would be no conflict.

theolein · Feb 10, 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If everyone smoked weed there would be no conflict.

That's better

Lerkfish · Feb 10, 2004, 01:17 PM

BOT: seeing as there are serious consequences for whistle-blowing this particular administration, how does that bode for getting the complete picture on anything? How much are we really going to know, and how much is going to be hushed, quietly or viciously?

This is just the stuff we KNOW about, what about the stuff we don't know about?

just how sinister IS this administration?

Evan_11 · Feb 10, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

This is just the stuff we KNOW about, what about the stuff we don't know about?

just how sinister IS this administration?

BOT: And what about those strange crop circles?

Sinister?

Since when are the bad guys the good guys?

Lerkfish · Feb 10, 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Evan_11:
BOT: And what about those strange crop circles?

Sinister?

Since when are the bad guys the good guys?

LOL! perhaps you meant to say:

Since when are the good guys the bad guys?

But instead, I'll answer the question the way you wrote it:

Since when are the bad guys the good guys? Answer: since the neocons hijacked our foreign policy and declared themselves "good".