Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

In today's society, this is not surprising when you see lawsuits right and left for anything and everything. It is always someone else's fault.

Quote:

In today's society, this is not surprising when you see lawsuits right and left for anything and everything. It is always someone else's fault.

I assume you are referencing Bush's lawsuit to stop the count in Florida.

Well, I do think it is instructive to go back to the original basis for alot of this controversy, which is political, the WMD in Iraq. It was the central reason for going to Iraq, and it was approved by Congress. It is important to revisit all of this to understand the political winds that have blown so feverishly since then, most of it in an effort to blame Bush for lying about WMD and removing each and every Democrat from any responsibility in this entire scenario. The Valerie Plame issue was one leg of the many legs that the Bush opponents have tried to build under this entire house of cards to build the case of the "big lie" and bring down the Bush presidency.

Some of us have never swallowed the Democratic media blitz surrounding this entire chain of events, and I remain convinced it is one of the most dastardly, low-down, and pathetic political maneuvers that I have ever witnessed in politics in my lifetime. It is plainly a case of politicians, Democrats in this case and even a few Republicans, not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. In today's society, this is not surprising when you see lawsuits right and left for anything and everything. It is always someone else's fault.

Bush screwed up in regard to what? Are we so sure of history that is still being written that we know the end result of all of this, and why apologize for decisions made in the best interest of this country, wherein we do not know yet the ultimate results?

It is not wise for presidents to go around apologizing all the time, in my opinion. For example, even if he would now wish he had not entered Iraq, would apologizing make any sense to the 3,000 plus soldiers families that have died? And what about the hundreds of thousands perhaps that have been saved because we have done what we have done. Second guessers are for football coaches, not presidents.

He screwed up, because he was a poor leader. His pre-war intelligence was incorrect, and either willingly went forward knowing it was incorrect, or he was an idiot and believed what he wanted to believe - there was plenty of evidence against the position he decided to took. Either way, it was a serious error that a responsible person would apologize for.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He screwed up, because he was a poor leader. His pre-war intelligence was incorrect, and either willingly went forward knowing it was incorrect, or he was an idiot and believed what he wanted to believe - there was plenty of evidence against the position he decided to took. Either way, it was a serious error that a responsible person would apologize for.

Cycloptichorn

We still don't know everything about this, and what do you want a president to do, go gather the intelligence personally? You have just indicted the CIA, cyclops, and I have been saying for a long time that is the real issue. The CIA has failed us miserably and still is, and alot of blame squarely belongs in the laps of Democrats.

Nobody held a gun to the heads of congressmen when they voted for authorization. It isn't unreasonable for us, the citizens, to expect our representatives to take responsibility for their decisions, and isn't too much to expect the bureaucracy to do its job, namely the CIA.

My opinion is, lets succeed, lets be successful in Iraq, good riddance to the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, the world is better off, and we should never apologize for our actions when we believe them to be the right thing to do and they probably were. What are we to do, apologize and cry ourselves to sleep, for what?

Will you agree that Bush is unable to, and shouldn't, take credit for anything good that has happened as a result of his decisions? After all, you don't know how things are going to turn out in the end - what looks good today might turn out to be bad, according to your logic. Bush and you can't have it both ways. Either he's responsible for everything, or nothing at all.

Bush screwed up in regard to what? Are we so sure of history that is still being written that we know the end result of all of this, and why apologize for decisions made in the best interest of this country, wherein we do not know yet the ultimate results?

It is not wise for presidents to go around apologizing all the time, in my opinion. For example, even if he would now wish he had not entered Iraq, would apologizing make any sense to the 3,000 plus soldiers families that have died? And what about the hundreds of thousands perhaps that have been saved because we have done what we have done. Second guessers are for football coaches, not presidents.

Central to this entire argument, the Left has propagated what they believe as the "LIE." This is nothing more than political spin, cyclops. Much has been written about this, reams and books, but as I love to point out in Valerie Plame's own words, she feared for our soldiers being subjected to WMD when we entered Iraq. Here is an expert that studied this every day, it was part of her job, she was one of the experts on WMD in the CIA, and she has admitted she feared WMD. I'm sorry, cyclops, but I think this alone amply demonstrates Bush did not make all of this up, nor could he if he had tried. He simply responded to the evidence and made a decision based on his judgement of the evidence. Admittedly, there was conflicting evidence, but Bush figured he shouldn't gamble. And Congress supported him based on the same intelligence. Most decisions made by presidents are not made on ironclad 100% sure things, especially when you are talking about intelligence work. And we still don't know the full story, so why do you and others pretend that we do? It will be a long time and we may never know fully in regard to WMD. What we do know is we are rid of the threat for now, so why apologize?

I find it tiring to have to keep pointing out the obvious repeatedly.

okie wrote:

Central to this entire argument, the Left has propagated what they believe as the "LIE." This is nothing more than political spin, cyclops. Much has been written about this, reams and books, but as I love to point out in Valerie Plame's own words, she feared for our soldiers being subjected to WMD when we entered Iraq. Here is an expert that studied this every day, it was part of her job, she was one of the experts on WMD in the CIA, and she has admitted she feared WMD. I'm sorry, cyclops, but I think this alone amply demonstrates Bush did not make all of this up, nor could he if he had tried. He simply responded to the evidence and made a decision based on his judgement of the evidence. Admittedly, there was conflicting evidence, but Bush figured he shouldn't gamble. And Congress supported him based on the same intelligence. Most decisions made by presidents are not made on ironclad 100% sure things, especially when you are talking about intelligence work. And we still don't know the full story, so why do you and others pretend that we do? It will be a long time and we may never know fully in regard to WMD. What we do know is we are rid of the threat for now, so why apologize?

I find it tiring to have to keep pointing out the obvious repeatedly.

Does the buck stop at the top, Okie? yes or no.

This is an exceedingly simple question which will tell me whether you really are a Republican or not.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Central to this entire argument, the Left has propagated what they believe as the "LIE." This is nothing more than political spin, cyclops. Much has been written about this, reams and books, but as I love to point out in Valerie Plame's own words, she feared for our soldiers being subjected to WMD when we entered Iraq. Here is an expert that studied this every day, it was part of her job, she was one of the experts on WMD in the CIA, and she has admitted she feared WMD. I'm sorry, cyclops, but I think this alone amply demonstrates Bush did not make all of this up, nor could he if he had tried. He simply responded to the evidence and made a decision based on his judgement of the evidence. Admittedly, there was conflicting evidence, but Bush figured he shouldn't gamble. And Congress supported him based on the same intelligence. Most decisions made by presidents are not made on ironclad 100% sure things, especially when you are talking about intelligence work. And we still don't know the full story, so why do you and others pretend that we do? It will be a long time and we may never know fully in regard to WMD. What we do know is we are rid of the threat for now, so why apologize?

I find it tiring to have to keep pointing out the obvious repeatedly.

Does the buck stop at the top, Okie? yes or no.

This is an exceedingly simple question which will tell me whether you really are a Republican or not.

Cycloptichorn

The buck stops at the top, but that does not change anything that I have said. The president still is entitled to rely upon the CIA to make his decisions, and how well the CIA is performing its job may be not only due to the current administration, but upon Congress and past policies by previous administrations, yes or no? If the CIA is failing us, we need to do something about it in my opinion, instead of liberals in the State Department and CIA attempting to run things and thwart the authority of an administration to carry out policies. In other words, who is running the asylum?

I know the CIA does not want to take responsibility for its failures, we already know that. That too is Bush's fault, as everything else is in the liberal mind, from Katrina to who knows what. Liberalism has to be a mental disorder.