Reply With Quote
i'll say this one more time.
they got caught lying and their solution was to out an operative.
I'll make just one more comment on this aspect of the tangent. If you want more, bring up an old thread, or start one on topic.
The one report by her husband does not mean that the information he brought back was accurate, nor does it mean that Saddam didn't try to get it by other sources. That was one of many sources. Just because it fits your agenda, doesn't make it as fact. there are many things we don't know, and the government's position is generally not to confirm or deny. You are really stupid if you believe this is the end all be all of Saddam's wishes.
i'll say this one more time.
they got caught lying and their solution was to out an operative.
If the president fibbed, the fact that his source was wrong or that he might accidentally turn out to be right, erases any responsibility for the truth of his own comments that might ordinarily attach.
Wow.
I already expressed my thoughts about this a while back. Let me reiterate.
Your ing is completely misplaced. It's not the people that leaked the info that are necessarily at fault, is the people in charge of securing the do ents that failed miserably at their jobs that you should be angry with.
This is not a left/right issue as you would like to make it. It's an issue of incompetent people failing to follow basic security protocols, and a system that's in place that it's obviously dated and obsolete. With the advent of public key cryptography and the ability to keep a trust mechanism in place, along with trust revocation when necessary, the fact that somebody can walk in with a pen drive or a CD and walk out with unencrypted secret information is a utter failure of the system and it's watchdogs.
But since you are more interested in pandering to the ideological aspect of this, instead of the actual problem, you might aswell go back to posting irrelevant YouTube videos with the soundbite of the day.
Only opinions that matter in this thread is Manny's. And chumpdumper if he decided to write something proactive for once. Which never happens, so.
It didn't deceive me. I clearly understood what the President meant when he said it.
In fact, the British Intelligence Agency from which that intelligence was gained stands by the statement -- today.
So what? They were wrong.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-01-2010 at 05:50 AM.
I think if we can assassinate the Iranian scientist trying to expunge the Stuxnet Virus, we can assassinate this piece of trash.
And turn him into a martyr? Do you think that will stop the leaks?
Yep. Well, you have to execute the assholes that leaked the information, as well.
, make it look like the French did it. I don't care...
Loud and clear, Pierre.
Manny didn't post in this thread. Did he respond to it elsewhere?
theres news of him releasing do ents that could take 1-2 usa banks down....here
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...130-18emh.html
Next time around. Cheeky.
If Citi and BofA go down, I'd almost accept that in lieu of a real resolution authority.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-30-2010 at 12:16 AM.
I never had any doubt about that.
We agree for the most part, but I want to see the guy executed for treason. Just because security isn't as secure as it should be to others entrusted, that gives them no right to exceed their known security bounds. I completely agree with the pen drive thing.
Dream on, brother.
(repe ion)
Yes
yes what?
the question is whose passing these classified do ents to him?
there has to be someone higher up the chain...
What guy, the Australian? How could he be a traitor?
I think he means the soldier who leaked the docs in the first place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions