RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bush incompetence #237 U.S. blew an undercover operation

Quote:

---

Wolf had the following exchange with Condo Rice

"BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?
RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...

BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.

RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike."

---

Herr Ashcroft issued another one of his phony terrorist warnings today.



Take a good look at this photo. Notice how all the "suspects" seem to look..oh, I don't know...MIDDLE EASTERN? Notice how their skin seems to be a little DARK? Notice how they all seem to have the same types of names? What does that tell you?

You got it, GEORGE BUSH IS A RACIST BIGOT!!! Where are the white guys in this wild west "wanted poster"? Where's the mugshot of my gramma? Gramma gets felt up at airport security all the time...she must have terrorist connections. When are the jackbooted thugs going to drag her off to Abu Ghraib?

Obviously, Bush is trying to stir-up hatred against Muslim Americans by enforcing the stereotype that all terrorists are dark-skinned Arab males with smoking sneakers. As Michael Moore will tell you, the vast majority of terrorists are white males who drive SUV's and listen to Rush Limbaugh. But Bushie just won't be satisfied until muslims are hunted like dogs and forced to wear women's undies over their heads.

Personally, I'd prefer he'd keep these silly warnings to himself, anyway - at least until an actual attack occurs. Then he can explain to us why he didn't bother warning anyone about it.

Quote:

---

whomod said:
That website looks so over the top that i'd be tempted to say it was put up by your side.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:


This is idle speculation. Just another example of how extremists try to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong with anything.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
It's funny how "Paul Weller," despite having registered 10/29/04, has such an intimate knowledge of long dormant, long forgotten, threads begun by "whomod" before "Paul" registered here.

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
READ POINT 4

G-Man, you do realize there is a search engine here do you not? I searched for this old story thinking it'd lead me to the Iraq thread. This one popped up instead.

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:

---

Quote:

---

London Bombers Tied to Al Qaeda Plot in Pakistan

Connection to Al Qaeda Plot in Pakistan

Officials tell ABC News the London bombers have been connected to an al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in the Pakistani city of Lahore.

The laptop computer of Naeem Noor Khan, a captured al Qaeda leader, contained plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway system, as well as on financial buildings in both New York and Washington.

"There's absolutely no doubt he was part of an al Qaeda operation aimed at not only the United States but Great Britain," explained Alexis Debat, a former official in the French Defense Ministry who is now a senior terrorism consultant for ABC News.

At the time, authorities thought they had foiled the London subway plot by arresting more than a dozen young Britons of Pakistani descent last August in Luton, a city known for its ties to terrorism.

"For some time, the locus of terrorism in Britain has been around the Luton area and in some of the northern cities," said Michael Clark, professor of defense at King's College in London.

Security officials tell ABC News they have discovered links between the eldest of the London bombers, Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30, and the original group in Luton. Officials also believe it was not a coincidence the subway bombers all met at the Luton train station last week.

---

Sorry G-Man, it's no longer idle "Bush hating" speculation. The Bush Administration, by exposing Khan right before the DNC convention, is directly responsible for botching an investigation that would have prevented the London bombings. The connection to Khan is there. Blood is on your idols hands.

The pattern that is emerging here is one of political advantage trumping all other considerations. Screwing up the Brit's terror investigation for Bushy's political advantage is immoral, grotesque, and if not treasonous, well, it's grounds for Blair to punch Georgie in the mouth. And it goes to show that all these political games and machinations have real and grave consequences. Consequences of which these Republicans care nothing about.




Please, for the sake of justice for the victims of “7/7”, click here and sign the petition demanding a full Senate investigation of this most serious matter. Pass it on as well.

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
do you only delete posts from people who disagree with you?

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
The pattern that is emerging here is one of political advantage trumping all other considerations. Screwing up the Brit's terror investigation for Bushy's political advantage is immoral, grotesque, and if not treasonous, well, it's grounds for Blair to punch Georgie in the mouth.

---

first and foremost,

secondly, please be forewarned, i'll readily admit that i have been out of the political game for quite some time, and that the information above, and information relating to the london attacks, are sketchy to me, at best (that is, "sketchy" in that i don't know the details, not that i feel there's a coverup or conspiracy or that one of the beatles actually died in a car accident years prior to their final few records)

now. mr wellr. do you honestly believe that the bush admin and company are so very corrupt and maliciously toned that they'd purposely screw their photo-op-best-pal country, not to mention recklessly allow the slaughter of innocent londoners?

certainly, i'm more than ready and willing to admit that its possible errors have been made in the past few years regarding various terrorist prevention activities. how many and how severe, like beauty, depends on the eye of the beholder.

but retroactively pointing out a potential mistake because the pieces may possibly fit after the puzzle is together... i dunno... it just doesn't seem very CSI of you. hell, i wouldn't even give it matlock!

is there a connection or tie in? thats possible. im not debating that. as said, i honestly don't know the story or the intracacies of the details.

but the slant that you're taking seems accusationally thick and extraneous, to say the least.

Quote:

---

G-Man, does speculation on whether i'm "whomod" or not have ANYTHING to do with the issue at hand?

If not then you're a hypocrite for allowing MrJLA and his graemlins to substitute for the topic at hand and not deleting or moving it, as is your habit.

But judging by the animosity you hold here by anyone not blindly loyal to the Bush Administration and your talking points on their behalf, I think people already know that.

Or do you only delete OFF TOPIC posts from people who disagree with you?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Sigh....



Coincidence is not cause and effect. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that.

---

Where did you go to law school and where were you in your class? Is there some other reason you work for the Feds and not Davis, Polk & Wardwell?

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the average Davis Polk attorney also recognizes that coincidence does not equal cause and effect. In fact, they probably also took the class that discussed the need to be able to recognize the difference between coincidence and proximate cause.

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:
no. It's not at all funny.

---

Quote:

---

MisterJLA said:

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:

---

---

Can JLA Rack himself? If so that's at least 1,500!

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

In reviewing the arguments of the "Paul Wellrs" of the thread, it seems that their premise boils to the following: "An act of Bush (actually his employee) led to a suspected terrorist, or terrorists, going free; said terrorist(s) later were involved in a new crime, which resulted in individual(s) dying; therefore, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of said individual(s)."

In other words, they are arguing that anyone whos actions free a suspected criminal is guilty of that criminal's future crimes.

If we accept that premise, then they should also be against the ACLU and every criminal defense lawyer in America. After all, the ACLU often takes cases that will result in the freeing of a suspected criminal. If that suspect later commits a new crime, by their logic, the ACLU is directly responsible for those crimes. Therefore, to be intellectually consistent, whomod, Paul, Id, et al, must argue AGAINST the ACLU.

In fact, if we accept their premise then they need to support the detention center at Gitmo. After all, many, if not all, of the detainees are suspected or potential terrorists. If we allow them to go free, they COULD commit a crime. So allowing them to go free would make us responsible for their future crimes. Therefore, whomod, Paul, Id, and anyone else abscribing blame to Bush for the London attacks, in order to be intellectally consistent, must now argue IN FAVOR of Gitmo.

Furthermore, the case against the ACLU and IN FAVOR of Gitmo is actually stronger than the case against Bush.

In Bush's case, there was clearly no intent. Even if we accept the whomod premise, it is clear that the actions of the Bush administration were inadvertent and not specificially designed to allow suspected terrorist to go free. After all, the suspected terrorists were not RELEASED by Bush. And the British government, by Paul's own admission, was on its way to get them when the escaped.

In the case of the ACLU/Gitmo opponents, the intent is clear: to release a suspected criminal, in order to preserve his or her rights.

Therefore, in order to attack Bush for inadvertently and indirectly causing a suspected terrorist to go free, an intellectally consistent person MUST attack the ACLU/Gitmo opponents for intentionally and purposefully causing such persons to go free.

Of course, none of them are likely to do so. In fact, each of them is likely to continue to call Gitmo a concentration camp, and continue to send their annual donation to the ACLU.

As such, one can only speculate, once again, as to whether the actual motiviation is anything other than the latest round in the game of "blame Bush."

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

In reviewing the arguments of the "Paul Wellrs" of the thread, it seems that their premise boils to the following: "An act of Bush (actually his employee) led to a suspected terrorist, or terrorists, going free; said terrorist(s) later were involved in a new crime, which resulted in individual(s) dying; therefore, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of said individual(s)."

In other words, they are arguing that anyone whos actions free a suspected criminal is guilty of that criminal's future crimes.

If we accept that premise, then they should also be against the ACLU and every criminal defense lawyer in America. After all, the ACLU often takes cases that will result in the freeing of a suspected criminal. If that suspect later commits a new crime, by their logic, the ACLU is directly responsible for those crimes. Therefore, to be intellectually consistent, whomod, Paul, Id, et al, must argue AGAINST the ACLU.

In fact, if we accept their premise then they need to support the detention center at Gitmo. After all, many, if not all, of the detainees are suspected or potential terrorists. If we allow them to go free, they COULD commit a crime. So allowing them to go free would make us responsible for their future crimes. Therefore, whomod, Paul, Id, and anyone else abscribing blame to Bush for the London attacks, in order to be intellectally consistent, must now argue IN FAVOR of Gitmo.

Furthermore, the case against the ACLU and IN FAVOR of Gitmo is actually stronger than the case against Bush.

In Bush's case, there was clearly no intent. Even if we accept the whomod premise, it is clear that the actions of the Bush administration were inadvertent and not specificially designed to allow suspected terrorist to go free. After all, the suspected terrorists were not RELEASED by Bush. And the British government, by Paul's own admission, was on its way to get them when the escaped.

In the case of the ACLU/Gitmo opponents, the intent is clear: to release a suspected criminal, in order to preserve his or her rights.

Therefore, in order to attack Bush for inadvertently and indirectly causing a suspected terrorist to go free, an intellectally consistent person MUST attack the ACLU/Gitmo opponents for intentionally and purposefully causing such persons to go free.

Of course, none of them are likely to do so. In fact, each of them is likely to continue to call Gitmo a concentration camp, and continue to send their annual donation to the ACLU.

As such, one can only speculate, once again, as to whether the actual motiviation is anything other than the latest round in the game of "blame Bush."

---

---