"DSK" wrote in message
news
The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?


NOYB wrote:
You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Why do you want to know their names? Thinking of another Plame type
'outing'? Sorry.

The CIA and the Army (or, to be yet a little more specific, the Pentagon
and the DIA) have offices for disseminating information to the public.

One presumes that the info released is screened to as not to give away
important secrets, but then, sometimes mistakes are made (who *did*
release that Plame ID anyway?? Didn't President Bush vow to find & punish
them?).

I just read that Newsweek is ready to release the name so that their
reporter doesn't sit in jail.


One also might assume that the info is often given some political spin, but
unless one assumes that all military, CIA, and State Department
counter-terrorist operatives are very strongly anti-Bush, why would they
contradict Bush & Cheney's rosy pronouncements?

The CIA is responsible for missing the warning signs before 9/11, and losing
track of what happened to large quantities of unaccounted for WMD's in Iraq.
Goss has been weeding out the bad apples and there are a lot with an axe to
grind. So, yes, it is likely that there are numerous anti-Bush folks in the
CIA.

BTW--generals work for the DoD. Why did you mention the State Dept. when we
have been talking about "generals and CIA operatives"?



And given the blatantly mendacious statements that Bush & Cheney have both
uttered in the past, who do you give more credibility to? Wait, I already
know...



Do you agree with his statement?


Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to
get the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely
different group.

Oh, I see... let's just make a new definition of 'terrorist.' That helps a
lot.



What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that
we'll be there forever?


Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.

In other words, you think President Bush is lying?



Bush never said that we'd withdraw. Go read the transcript of his speech
again:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS...sh.transcript/

Now tell me where he said that we'd withdraw from Iraq.


Here is how he addressed the question about how long we'll stay:

"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will
stand down." (stand down doesn't mean withdraw)

" We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer. " (as
long as we are needed)


And you can bet that as long as we're reliant on oil, a US troop presence in
Iraq will be "needed". Get it, Doug?




And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again &
again? I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,


A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties
to terrorists.

That's no surprise. But we're still waiting to see some proof of Iraq's
ties to anti-US terror, to Al-Queda, and to Sept 11th. So far, a couple of
years of intense investigation hasn't come up with any.

It's come up with plenty. You just haven't been paying attention.



... I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

Are you saying that Al-Queda is the main terrorist organization operating
in Iraq?

Yes.





why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?


Which generals?


Got a short memory, eh?

There was a major falling out in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs, most of
whom wanted a bigger invasion force and much bigger and better armored
occupation force. Of course, the FACT that they were right and Rumsfeld
was wrong would be embarassing if it had to be admitted, so let's just
pretend it never happened.

Good. Then name the generals.




Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?



They don't need more in Iraq.


Really? Why have they been asking for more then? Why is the Army in such a
flap over recruiting shortfalls?

The army isn't requesting more troops in Iraq.