07 Mar 07
1 edit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6424319.stm
"Senate majority leader Harry Reid said: "I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
Is Libby just a fall guy? Does this reduce the Administrations credibility even further?
Is possible to defend the US Administrations actions and credibility in its reasons for going to war with Iraq?
And most importantly, is this the sort of Government worthy of 3000+ troops dying for?
08 Mar 07
Originally posted by EsotericNo. No.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6424319.stm
"Senate majority leader Harry Reid said: "I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
Is Libby just a fall guy? Does this reduce the Administrations credibility even fur ...[text shortened]... ?
And most importantly, is this the sort of Government worthy of 3000+ troops dying for?
Yes.
Yes.
10 Mar 07
Originally posted by EsotericThe fact that this guy worked for Cheney and the information that Wilson's wife's identity as a secret CIA agent the day after that Wilson said Sadam didn't come to his country to buy yellow cake is very interesting indeed. So Bush and Cheney knew that there was no WMD's and screwed the guy saying that they were lying. What do you think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6424319.stm
"Senate majority leader Harry Reid said: "I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."
Is Libby just a fall guy? Does this reduce the Administrations credibility even fur ...[text shortened]... ?
And most importantly, is this the sort of Government worthy of 3000+ troops dying for?
10 Mar 07
Originally posted by pizzinteaMy thoughts on the Bush Govn. are probably well documented on these forums. I think bush has been incredibly detrimental to the image America projects to the world. Most people outside of the US will now look at America's intention with alot of cynicism. This trial is just the tip of the iceberg of a farcical self serving administration.
The fact that this guy worked for Cheney and the information that Wilson's wife's identity as a secret CIA agent the day after that Wilson said Sadam didn't come to his country to buy yellow cake is very interesting indeed. So Bush and Cheney knew that there was no WMD's and screwed the guy saying that they were lying. What do you think?
10 Mar 07
Originally posted by pizzinteaThe WMD argument was not solely based on the yellowcake so this doesn't make the entire WMD argument a lie. Also, Wilson wasn't Intel, so what he says isn't gospel either.
The fact that this guy worked for Cheney and the information that Wilson's wife's identity as a secret CIA agent the day after that Wilson said Sadam didn't come to his country to buy yellow cake is very interesting indeed. So Bush and Cheney knew that there was no WMD's and screwed the guy saying that they were lying. What do you think?