Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

The military goes where they are told and fights who we are told to fight, no more and no less.

For you to suggest that the military can refuse on its own to carry out the orders of our govt, or that the military can do whatever it wants, is to suggest that a military coup take place.

Its not a soldiers job to decide if our countries foreign policy is correct or not, our job is to be an arm of that policy, nothing more.

JTT,
I was on that "highway of death" after the war, and I know what was there.
Soldiers are "out of combat" if they have laid down their weapons, are wounded or otherwise incapable of fighting, or have already surrendered.
Those soldiers were fleeing with their weapons and supplies, and were fully capable of continuing the fight.
Its apparent that whoever wrote that article you quoted has no idea what happened, nor was that person ever anywhere that highway at the time.

Do yourself a favor and dont try to tell someone who was there what actually happened.

A duly elected government sent the troops to Iraq, after the intelligence agency, the CIA, advised Bush in regard to possible WMD. Now, ci wants us to all believe Bush made it all up and called the Pentagon one day and told them to attack Iraq. ci lives in a dream, not reality.

okie, You really don't know anything do you?

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

President 'revealed reasons for war in private meeting'


By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Friday, 7 October 2005


President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.


The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal



(Clockwise from top left) Naji Sabri, George W. Bush, Colin Powell and George Tenet.

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

60 Minutes: CIA Official Reveals Bush, Cheney, Rice Were Personally Told Iraq Had No WMD in Fall 2002

Provide a link for this claim, please.

mm, Go find it yourself. Don't ask me any questions, because I quit answering your infantile questions.

Interesting.

Your assertions get challenged, you ar forced to defend your claims, and you resort to calling names.

And you call me infantile??
I suggest you look in the mirror.
I am willing to defend my assertions while you apparently are not.

Sad, isn't it. Goodbye.

First of all, I have asked you before, please learn how to quote without making it look like I said what you insert. Blue lettering helps, but it is still not correct. If you need help to know how to do it, I will be glad to help.

Secondly, no proof is needed for proving what happened. It happened, period. We elected Congress and the president. Congress authorized war, and Bush acted. Do you wish to argue with that? And the CIA advised Bush that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. Do you wish to argue with that?

You still don't understand what congress approved. Are you so latent as not to understand what Tenent and two other CIA agents said about NO WMDs, and Bush and company ignored those warnings?

And god told Bush to attack Iraq befire 9-11?

No, c.i., you prove time and again that it is YOU who does not understand what Congress approved. I have posted many times the link to the AUMF, but I'm convinced you have not read that document ... not once.

You either didn't read it, or if you read it, you failed to pay attention ... or you cannot understand simple English ... or you have an aversion to reality.

One of the above must be correct.

From Wiki:

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush didn't attempt any diplomatic effort. The UN weapon's inspectors were in Iraq to look for WMDs.
Bush did not have the UN's approval to invade Iraq.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Since Saddam didn't have the means to attack the US, there was no justification to attack Iraq. There was no threat from Iraq; our national security was not at stake. Again; UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq to make sure he didn't pose any threat to the US or anybody else. Bush chased them out to start his illegal war.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

Why do you keep ignoring that part?

Basically, the summary of it says that we authorize you to go to war if you feel it is necessary and warranted. We are behind you 100% in this decision. It was hashed and rehashed and everyone knew what it meant, it meant war was just over the horizon. As far as diplomacy and inspections, that had been going on for years upon years, and the president and congress had essentially given up on that when this resolution was passed. The provisions for that were only window dressing on the document, leaving the door open if Hussein happened to do something spectacular or capitulated in some significant way, but of course he didn't. The rest is history.

Well, now we know there were no WMD, or anything else justifying invasion. Therefore, we should get out posthaste.

Edwards had it right. We should quickly limit our role to training Iraqis, and do almost all of this outside the country. We should leave a few thousand US troops to guard the embassy.

It is no wonder that the White House turned to Bob Novak to out Val Plame.

Novak's 'malpractice'
Friday, February 22, 2008


Bob Novak rarely let's the truth get in the way of a good sentence ("Security vs. the lawyers' lobby," Feb. 19 and PghTrib.com).
His most recent instance of journalistic malpractice came in a column about renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the nation's intelligence surveillance law.

Mr. Novak said that huge telecommunications special interests have been lobbying Washington for months to get a retroactive immunity in the law for private telecommunications firms that had been asked by the government to eavesdrop, which has delayed its passage.

But when Novak said that the nation's torts bar has been lobbying against the immunity provision -- which is absolutely untrue -- the confusion he creates makes it even more difficult to pass a law we need that balances national security with personal security.

But Novak is not a newcomer to endangering the work of the intelligence community, as we saw from the Valerie Plame episode, nor to insulting our intelligence.
William F. Goodrich
Downtown
The writer is an attorney and member of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice's board of governors.