NationStates Jolt Archive

TV VIDEO
Daily Mirror has sparked a firestorm after reporting President Bush sought to bomb al-Jazeera. NBC's Preston Mendenhall reports.

LONDON Nov. 22, 2005 - A civil servant has been charged under Britain’s Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo that a newspaper said Tuesday suggested that Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

The Daily Mirror reported that Bush spoke of targeting Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar, when he met Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004. The Bush administration has regularly accused Al-Jazeera of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiments.
...
Blair’s office declined to comment on the report, stressing it never discussed leaked documents.

Al-Jazeera said in a statement that it was investigating the report. “If the report is correct then this would be both shocking and worrisome not only to Al-Jazeera but to media organizations across the world,” it said.

In Qatar, Al-Jazeera said it was aware of the report, but did not wish to comment. The U.S. Embassy in London said it was making no comment.

The document was described as a transcript of a conversation between the two leaders.

A civil servant has been charged under Britain’s Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo ...
Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.

Leaking CLASSIFIED information can only be justified if the leak would save innocent lives - and even then the leaker should be prepared to suffer for violating an oath. But to leak somthing that not only has not current relevance, but was a privileged conversation between Heads of State is utterly irresponsible. Period. :mad:

This is interesting...I'd like to hear how Bush could've argued that point.

But I'll reserve judgement until it is confirmed.

The only news organization that I hope get's bombed is FOX NEWS!

A civil servant has been charged under Britain’s Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking a government memo that a newspaper said Tuesday suggested that Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded President Bush not to bomb the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.


Draw and quarter the bastard. As was stated before, unless he is saving lots of lives, it's not worth it.

Plus, blowing up Al-Jazeera might be a good thing. The last thing the universe needs is more propoganda.

That's why, hypothetically, to save the intellect of our children, Bush should have put into the memo to blow up MTV and VH1. It's along the same lines as Al-Jazeera. Worthless television meant to warp the minds of ignorant people.

Fuck saving the environment! Save the minds of our society! Destroy mass televised media!

Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.
I think bombing a civilian installation for holding a different viewpoint trumps non-critical information leakage like this.

I think bombing a civilian installation for holding a different viewpoint trumps non-critical information leakage like this.

Then he'd be trying to blow up NBC, CBS, and CNN too.

And anyways, the three above stations aren't giving aid to the enemy. We don't know if Al-Jazeera is.

And while I care if they're civilians this is war the last time I checked. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Oh Gods I nearly burst my gut laughing.

"Ha-hah!" *points finger*

And anyways, the three above stations aren't giving aid to the enemy. We don't know if Al-Jazeera is.
Indeed...

And while I care if they're civilians this is war the last time I checked. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
That is the eternal excuse. "War is Hell" - therefore we're excused from proper behaviour.
That is a f*cked way of thinking. It's not the first time people argued that way either by the way - and last time it ended in the Nuremberg Trials.

Indeed...


That is the eternal excuse. "War is Hell" - therefore we're excused from proper behaviour.
That is a f*cked way of thinking. It's not the first time people argued that way either by the way - and last time it ended in the Nuremberg Trials.

Yes, there is a proper behaviour for war. You won't find me being all happy that Al-Jazeera was bombed. In fact, I would probably condemn the act for killing civilians and for being a dumb-ass political move.

But that doesn't mean I don't agree with it.

Do you know why you blow up a munitions factory being worked in by civilians during war time? Because the munitions factory helps the enemy.

Do you know why you blow up a government building being worked in by civilians during war time? Because the government building helps the enemy.

Do you know why we destroy crops being worked on by civilians during war time? Because the food helps the enemy.

Do you know why we destroy communication buildings being worked in by civilians during war time? Because the propaganda and information it spreads helps the enemy.

Yes, War is Hell. Get it over with as soon as possible.

If Bush can prove to me that there was a legtimate need to blow up Al-Jazeera, he can go a blow it up. They might be civilians, but they damn straight aren't innocent civilians. And they aren't too 'civil' either, since they're helping to kill our men.

If he can't, impeach his ass.

Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.

Leaking CLASSIFIED information can only be justified if the leak would save innocent lives - and even then the leaker should be prepared to suffer for violating an oath. But to leak somthing that not only has not current relevance, but was a privileged conversation between Heads of State is utterly irresponsible. Period. :mad:
we nuked Japanese schoolchildren to save American soldier lives...

everything the bushites do is "to save US Lives"...murder, torture, rape, bomb journalists, bomb hospitals, bomb churches, ....everything the bushites do is "to save US Lives"...so they are justified at everything they do.

Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.

Leaking CLASSIFIED information can only be justified if the leak would save innocent lives - and even then the leaker should be prepared to suffer for violating an oath. But to leak somthing that not only has not current relevance, but was a privileged conversation between Heads of State is utterly irresponsible. Period. :mad:

I'm surprised that's what you're pissed about. Our president tried to bomb one of our allies and now you're mad at whoever exposed him. You must also think Nixon had a right to confidentiality.

Yes, War is Hell. Get it over with as soon as possible.
I agree with most of your post, but not this.

I will not "get over it". I may in a few months be serving in the German military (although things are by no means certain as of yet), and I do not intend to "get over it" then either.

If everyone "gets over it" there will be no improvement. Since when does humanity simply resignate to whatever the facts of the time may be?

The only news organization that I hope get's bombed is FOX NEWS!

Amen brother!

Lying scumsucking bastards on Republican payroll!

I agree with most of your post, but not this.

I will not "get over it". I may in a few months be serving in the German military (although things are by no means certain as of yet), and I do not intend to "get over it" then either.

If everyone "gets over it" there will be no improvement. Since when does humanity simply resignate to whatever the facts of the time may be?

I think you misread what I wrote. I said "Get it over with" not "Get over it". Ie, "Get it over with it" means "Be done with war as soon as possible."

Amen brother!

Lying scumsucking bastards on Republican payroll!

What about CNN, NBC, and CBS? You gonna blow them up to?

Or are you a politicist?

I say blow them all up.

Bush hates freedom. Quelle surprise! :p

I think bombing a civilian installation for holding a different viewpoint trumps non-critical information leakage like this.
Tosh. The point is, it was a trial balloon in an "brainstorming/idea session" that never came close to becomming policy.

Brainstorming sessions are famous for stating that "no idea is too crazy to mention"... even if it gets cut immediately.

Leaking it was Pure Partisan Hackery - no matter how you slice it.

I think you misread what I wrote. I said "Get it over with" not "Get over it". Ie, "Get it over with it" means "Be done with war as soon as possible."
So I did... I appologise. :headbang:

Leaking it was Pure Partisan Hackery - no matter how you slice it.
It's the wonders of democracy, my friend, and I for one am happier having learned this story than I would've been had I not heard it.

Leaking it was Pure Partisan Hackery - no matter how you slice it.

Partisan hackery by a British leak?

I say blow them all up.

great idea considering there is no unbiased news station in the us. I may be a dem but i think there needs to be unbiased stations
* cough CBS cough FOXNEWS cough *

al-jazeera might have been a good idea. we're already hated throughout the world. how much worse could it get?

So I did... I appologise. :headbang:


It's the wonders of democracy, my friend, and I for one am happier having learned this story than I would've been had I not heard it.

It's all good. No hard feelings :D

However, I also agree with you that I'm happy to have heard about it. It's good to know that my president will consider every possible avenue for maintaining my protection :p


Partisan hackery by a British leak?

Yes, partisan. It A) Makes Blair look bad and B) Makes Bush look bad in the eyes in of these insane Liberals.

I'm surprised that's what you're pissed about. Our president tried to bomb one of our allies and now you're mad at whoever exposed him. You must also think Nixon had a right to confidentiality.
Actually, I think we should have invaded/destroyed our "ally". The 9/11 terrorists were all Saudis, funded by Saudis, supporting a Wahabbist Saudi agenda as expressed by Saudi Osama bin Laden.

Saddam was a bastard, but he was a mostly secular bastard that kept the Jihadis at bay (through admittedly barbaric tactics - but then the Jihadis are Barbaric...)

As someone with a perpetual TSBI clearance, I take issue with ANYONE from ANY government that violates their oath. I give a certain amount of moral clearance to someone exposing a wrong BEFORE IT HAPPENS (to stop it), but otherwise keep your trap shut. If it wasn't worth leaking before the fact, it is doubly not worth leaking after the fact.

Yes, partisan. It A) Makes Blair look bad and B) Makes Bush look bad in the eyes in of these insane Liberals.

What? How does that make it partisan? Anything that makes anyone look bad (and believe me, making those two look bad is not that much of an achievement, as they manage just fine themselves) is suddenly partisan?

Tosh. The point is, it was a trial balloon in an "brainstorming/idea session" that never came close to becomming policy.

Brainstorming sessions are famous for stating that "no idea is too crazy to mention"... even if it gets cut immediately.

Leaking it was Pure Partisan Hackery - no matter how you slice it.
And you have proof of this from......

your own ass, I suspect.

Look at the story again--the claim is that Blair had to talk Bush out of it which sounds to me like this was far more than just a brainstorming session.

Partisan hackery by a British leak?
Yes. Partisan as in "US = Bad", Blair treats with the US thus "Blair = US = Bad".

There was no reason to leak it other than to embarass - through innuendo, since AFAIK there is no steno documentation/tape of the actual conversation - and really, what's the point? Does Bush really need to be "embarrassed" by tangental brainstorming ideas? He embarrasses himself enough with genuine actions. Why suppose other things - except to be a partisan hack?

I say it's about damn time! These fascist bastards keep all this information away from us so we follow like good little chickens while they plot to stab us in the back! "For the greater good" my ass... if the government really cared about the people and the international community, they wouldn't have to keep secrets!

Yes. Partisan as in "US = Bad", Blair treats with the US thus "Blair = US = Bad".

There was no reason to leak it other than to embarass - through innuendo, since AFAIK there is no steno documentation/tape of the actual conversation - and really, what's the point? Does Bush really need to be "embarrassed" by tangental brainstorming ideas? He embarrasses himself enough with genuine actions. Why suppose other things - except to be a partisan hack?

Again, what? Just because it makes someone look bad somehow makes it partisan? What?!?

What? How does that make it partisan? Anything that makes anyone look bad (and believe me, making those two look bad is not that much of an achievement, as they manage just fine themselves) is suddenly partisan?

It's partisan because it has NO POINT in being in a newspaper beucase it's god damned CLASSIFIED and the only reason why you'd print it, especially since it's classified but bears no actual plans for performing the actions, is to make the other side look bad so you can sway public opinion more to the other camp. I don't care if you tell me Bush looks like a monkey, because he does, or even that he's an idiot, because he's probably that too. But they published a memo talking about something to consider. It's not like these were concrete plans.

And, it's just the fact that they gave more fuel to the enemy that REALLY pisses me off. They intentionally try to make it harder for us to wage this war, and don't bring us real concerns, just sensationalist headlines to try and make them look like pigs. That's why it's partisan. It's the same idea with calling liberals communist in the USA during the 50s. It's meant to slander.

I put it in bold incase you missed my point.

Yes, partisan. It A) Makes Blair look bad and B) Makes Bush look bad in the eyes in of these insane Liberals.
Note to Empyria: maybe neither of them are really bad people. But they sure as Hell aren't good ones, either.

Note to Empyria: maybe neither of them are really bad people. But they sure as Hell aren't good ones, either.

Hah. Thanks for the clarification. I'll make sure to remember that.

Something really does tell me though that Bush isn't a bad guy, and that he actually stands by what he does and genuinely feels that he is helping America this way. That's why I'm having such a hard time disliking him as a person, and I even agree with most of the things he's done. I just wish that he would be a little forthcoming every once in a while. :headbang:

It's partisan because it has NO POINT in being in a newspaper beucase it's god damned CLASSIFIED

Oh, please. Classification or not, this has everything to do in a paper. When the leader of a country seeks to bomb a legitimite media source to silence it due to dissent, it is of self-evident news value.

and the only reason why you'd print it, especially since it's classified but bears no actual plans for performing the actions, is to make the other side look bad so you can sway public opinion more to the other camp.

And which camp would that be? You know the motives of the British civil servant?

I don't care if you tell me Bush looks like a monkey, because he does, or even that he's an idiot, because he's probably that too. But they published a memo talking about something to consider. It's not like these were concrete plans.

Again, it has news value, and is actually a pretty good thing to know about what sort of idiocy is even comtemplated by government.

And, it's just the fact that they gave more fuel to the enemy that REALLY pisses me off. Stop making it so hard on us to stop them.

What? Oh, dear, you're one of those "news about our bad actions fuels the enemy, hence it should be silenced" people. If you are, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

And you have proof of this from......

your own ass, I suspect.

Look at the story again--the claim is that Blair had to talk Bush out of it which sounds to me like this was far more than just a brainstorming session.
How about adjusting your bolds a bit? A story in a paper claims somthing. Show me tapes a'la Nixon. I don't give a damn about actions that were not taken. Bush could have "immoral thoughts" about Condi Rice for all I care. Unless she is caught with a stain on her dress while he lies about it to the world, I don't give a damn. (Actually, I still wouldn't give a damn - unless he lied about it in Court and to his Wife...)

I have worked out numerous (simple) plans for destabilizing the entire infrastructure of the US. Is it really important? Not unless I begin to take action on them.

So what if he threw up a trial balloon? At least he was smart enough let it go if & when Blair said "Fuck No!".

The way I see it is everyone is bad in some aspect. It's not their fault most of the time, it could be influenced by a higher power (role model, propaganda, et cetera), but the way I see it is:
A LIFE=A LIFE
Both armies (and I use that term lightly) are as bad as each other.

...It's the same idea with calling liberals communist in the USA during the 50s. It's meant to slander...
http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/explode.gif

What "Liberal" means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

Oh, please. Classification or not, this has everything to do in a paper. When the leader of a country seeks to bomb a legitimite media source to silence it due to dissent, it is of self-evident news value.Two words: Tokyo Rose.

If I weren't on dial-up I would post a maximum-character post of all the objectively false (i.e. utter propaganda) crap produced by AJ within the past 72 hours.

AJ is no less a tool than FOX. Worse because they support/glorify the killing of innocents through "mayrter" bombings.

Again, it has news value, and is actually a pretty good thing to know about what sort of idiocy is even comtemplated by government. Tautology. Government = Idiocy. Period.
What? Oh, dear, you're one of those "news about our bad actions fuels the enemy, hence it should be silenced" people. If you are, then I have nothing to discuss with you.
Um.... that is an objectively verifiable concept regardless of the actors. Why should you discount it?

It's partisan because it has NO POINT in being in a newspaper beucase it's god damned CLASSIFIED and the only reason why you'd print it, especially since it's classified but bears no actual plans for performing the actions, is to make the other side look bad so you can sway public opinion more to the other camp. I don't care if you tell me Bush looks like a monkey, because he does, or even that he's an idiot, because he's probably that too. But they published a memo talking about something to consider. It's not like these were concrete plans.

And, it's just the fact that they gave more fuel to the enemy that REALLY pisses me off. They intentionally try to make it harder for us to wage this war, and don't bring us real concerns, just sensationalist headlines to try and make them look like pigs. That's why it's partisan. It's the same idea with calling liberals communist in the USA during the 50s. It's meant to slander.

I put it in bold incase you missed my point.


So, the next question would be, do you think it was partisan hackery that got the Plame case to the courts?

How about adjusting your bolds a bit? A story in a paper claims somthing.Its a matter of credibility...one London Newspaper.. or...Bush & Blair...

Who is got more credibility ???

Daily Mirror is not a known good newspaper....But

Bush & Blair have almost no credibility left...
The President is Pathetic...and Blair is sinking with him.

So, the next question would be, do you think it was partisan hackery that got the Plame case to the courts?
Yes. Just ask Woodward... :rolleyes:

If I weren't on dial-up I would post a maximum-character post of all the objectively false (i.e. utter propaganda) crap produced by AJ within the past 72 hours.
Hardly a reason to claim things without backing them up.

AJ is no less a tool than FOX. Worse because they support/glorify the killing of innocents through "mayrter" bombings.
They have never done that. It is slander that you would say such a thing without backing it up.

Its a matter of credibility...a London tabloid.. or...Bush & Blair...

Who is got more credibility ???

London tabloids have very little credibility...But

Bush & Blair have even less...it would be very funny..if it was not so sad.
The President is Pathetic...and Blair is sinking with him.
Hmm. At least the Tabs have Page 3 Girls....

But Blair was sinking quite well on his own. If anything, his supposed bitch-slap of Bush should boost his ranking...

Haha, I love how the right-wingers (in general) are calling the people opposed to the war "unpatriotic", but then end up turning around and saying it's okay for the right-wingers to say what they want even though what they say splits our nation further apart.

Just an interesting thing I thought I'd point out.

Yes. Just ask Woodward... :rolleyes:

Dude, you might want to wipe the foam off your mouth. You could have made a point there, but you missed it.

How about adjusting your bolds a bit? A story in a paper claims somthing. Show me tapes a'la Nixon. I don't give a damn about actions that were not taken. Bush could have "immoral thoughts" about Condi Rice for all I care. Unless she is caught with a stain on her dress while he lies about it to the world, I don't give a damn. (Actually, I still wouldn't give a damn - unless he lied about it in Court and to his Wife...)

I have worked out numerous (simple) plans for destabilizing the entire infrastructure of the US. Is it really important? Not unless I begin to take action on them.

So what if he threw up a trial balloon? At least he was smart enough let it go if & when Blair said "Fuck No!".
Nice try, but no--the way you use the word "story," it sounds like it's something with no possible basis in reality, but this story is based on classified documents from a meeting between Bush and Blair and, one would presume, their respective staffs. Tapes? Probably not--but why aren't classified docs as good as tapes for you? Is it perhaps because you don't want to admit that your boy was considering something that most of the civilized world would consider despicable and you don't want to acknowledge that he had to be talked out of it?

Oh, please. Classification or not, this has everything to do in a paper. When the leader of a country seeks to bomb a legitimite media source to silence it due to dissent, it is of self-evident news value.

And which camp would that be? You know the motives of the British civil servant?

Again, it has news value, and is actually a pretty good thing to know about what sort of idiocy is even comtemplated by government.

What? Oh, dear, you're one of those "news about our bad actions fuels the enemy, hence it should be silenced" people. If you are, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

I will answer your questions, but please stop with the borderline-flaming. I have not attacked you in any way, so please do not attack me.

First: The camp would be the anti-war movement. While I'm also anti-war, the printing of a classified document is a nice big offense. There is a reason it's classified. And since this memo had no plans on anything actually happening, but just an idea with no substantial hard evidence that this was going to happen, the only purpose it serves is to the slander the government.

And yes, it does have a news value. A "sensationalist" value. Even the Plame Affair has more credibility. He criticized the government because he actually investigated the matter. He thought the documents were flimsy. And his point wasn't to be anti-war, but to report news. What he did was an act of good journalism, except for leaking the name...

And yes, I am one of those people who doesn't like giving ammunition to the enemy. I don't like giving an enemy something anything which can be used to hurt me, especially if it can be used to hurt me and other people.

Hardly a reason to claim things without backing them up.
You try it some time. I'm on 14.4k cellular access on a laptop and 12oz of brandy down. When I get to the office on Friday I can set up my Spider. I'm going on pure MEMRI memory. If you want proof sooner I suggest you lok at the MEMRI website.
They have never done that. It is slander that you would say such a thing without backing it up.
Well then. Untill I get the chance to post a researched citation, why don't YOU prove otherwise? Oh, and don't lookat the Al-Jazeera English sites, look at what they are saying to the "Arab Street". It doesn't do them any good to lie to the West when they need "maryters" from the Middle East. :rolleyes: But here's today's sample: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP102905

Al-Jazeera reminds me of Pravda. At least I'm old enough to remember when you would read Pravda to find out what was happening by what was not being said, for example, the announcement that there was not a large explosion in Siberia made everyone stay tuned to see what caused the explosion...

You try it some time. I'm on 14.4k cellular access on a laptop and 12oz of brandy down. When I get to the office on Friday I can set up my Spider. I'm going on pure MEMRI memory. If you want proof sooner I suggest you lok at the MEMRI website.

Well then. Untill I get the chance to post a researched citation, why don't YOU prove otherwise? Oh, and don't lookat the Al-Jazeera English sites, look at what they are saying to the "Arab Street". It doesn't do them any good to lie to the West when they need "maryters" from the Middle East. :rolleyes: But here's today's sample: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP102905

Al-Jazeera reminds me of Pravda. At least I'm old enough to remember when you would read Pravda to find out what was happening by what was not being said, for example, the announcement that there was not a large explosion in Siberia made everyone stay tuned to see what caused the explosion...
You are asking me to read MEMRI to get an unbiased look at Arab Press? You're kidding.
It's been shown that they are quite happy to misrepresent, mistranslate and choose their article very selectively.

But to address the source...
I do not believe it even mentions the word "martyr" on the link you gave me.
It mentions that the conspiracies that were being assumed at the time did not get air time on AJ, while the video of the guy claiming responsibility for Hariri's death was shown often. Fair enough, may be true. Then however it goes on to say "make heroes of" - WTF?
It calls AJ "revenge seeking" (no evidence provided) and then blames it for not solving the problems it reports on itself - WTF?
And it concludes with saying that Arabs (and it says "Arabs" - clearly a racial thing) shouldn't run their own news stations - WTF!

Al-Jazeera represents both sides of the story, and even if it will concentrate on the Arabic side more than Western media, you will not find another station in the area that is as serious and as professional about news.
I was more than impressed with the risks AJ reporters took on themselves to show the side of Bin Laden, the Taliban and Iraq, when Western Media were too scared to even get close (instead being mouthpieces for Allied Command).

I would wish that our media would be as serious about getting things done, but I have given up hope lately.

You are asking me to read MEMRI to get an unbiased look at Arab Press? You're kidding.
It's been shown that they are quite happy to misrepresent, mistranslate and choose their article very selectively.

But to address the source...
I do not believe it even mentions the word "martyr" on the link you gave me.
It mentions that the conspiracies that were being assumed at the time did not get air time on AJ, while the video of the guy claiming responsibility for Hariri's death was shown often. Fair enough, may be true. Then however it goes on to say "make heroes of" - WTF?
It calls AJ "revenge seeking" (no evidence provided) and then blames it for not solving the problems it reports on itself - WTF?
And it concludes with saying that Arabs (and it says "Arabs" - clearly a racial thing) shouldn't run their own news stations - WTF!

Al-Jazeera represents both sides of the story, and even if it will concentrate on the Arabic side more than Western media, you will not find another station in the area that is as serious and as professional about news.
I was more than impressed with the risks AJ reporters took on themselves to show the side of Bin Laden, the Taliban and Iraq, when Western Media were too scared to even get close (instead being mouthpieces for Allied Command).

I would wish that our media would be as serious about getting things done, but I have given up hope lately.
WTF indeed...

Cynigal, let's turn this around for a sec to see what you're arguing for. Let's replace Bush and Blair with bin Laden and Zawahiri, and let's replace the bombing of al Jazeerah with the bombing of the Fox News Network. Suppose Bin Laden said something like: We're talking about a news organization, so called, that is promoting Bush, that is promoting Cheney, that is promoting torture, that is promoting secret prisons, that is in other ways enabling the propaganda aspects of this war to be fought by our enemies, and I think that puts it squarely in the target category. Whether the best way to do it is with [suicide] bombs or through other means is something we could discuss, but I think it's fair game, under these circumstances, given the way it conducts itself."
The quote above is a modified quote taken from a guy named Frank Gaffney who appeared on the BBC last night defending the notion of bombing al Jazeerah. I replaced Bin Laden and Zawahiri with Bush and Cheney, etc.

But is that a legitimate argument? Much as I dislike Fox News, I say no. That's the thinking of a thug, of a terrorist group. The Bush administration suggesting it doesn't make it any more morally palatable.

The document was described as a transcript of a conversation between the two leaders

Hmmmm .

(...)
And it concludes with saying that Arabs (and it says "Arabs" - clearly a racial thing) shouldn't run their own news stations - WTF!
(...)
As much as I disagree with that source, the words "Arab" and "Arabic" are used as regional adjectives, pretty much calling FoxNews "American" or "Western".

Always interesting to see argumentation enfold when the "freedom of speech"-thing backfires and is used for an agenda different from the U.S.' point of view.

"Bush Wanted to Bomb al-Jazeera "

Too bad he didn't. They so richly deserve it. :D

"Bush Wanted to Bomb al-Jazeera "

Too bad he didn't. They so richly deserve it. :D

If bombing a TV station is a crime, and an attempt to silence your critics, then why did Canada bomb the main TV station in Serbia and kill dozens of journalists at their desks? Bush wasn't even President then.

Maybe we could ask ex-PM Chretien about that target selection, eh?

Last time I saw something on tv I just switched the channel.

If bombing a TV station is a crime, and an attempt to silence your critics, then why did Canada bomb the main TV station in Serbia and kill dozens of journalists at their desks? Bush wasn't even President then.

Maybe we could ask ex-PM Chretien about that target selection, eh?
I don't know the situation you're describing, but hey, ask him. Wrong is wrong. Why must you make everything a partisan issue?

I don't know the situation you're describing, but hey, ask him. Wrong is wrong. Why must you make everything a partisan issue?

Because everyone makes it a partisan issue. Is that the only argument you ever pose to me?

I've noticed that when someone else does something, either you conveniently ignore it, or sweep it under the rug, or claim it was a good thing to do. But if Bush does it, it's bad, evil, and reprehensible.

Your obvious double standard is quite partisan. You answer first - why are you deliberately ignoring the bombing of the TV station in Serbia by the Canadian Air Force? No one except the Serbs at the time said it was a bad thing. Not one news agency said it was bad or evil. And you claim ignorance of it - an ignorance that I find incredulous to say the least.

Because everyone makes it a partisan issue. Is that the only argument you ever pose to me?

I've noticed that when someone else does something, either you conveniently ignore it, or sweep it under the rug, or claim it was a good thing to do. But if Bush does it, it's bad, evil, and reprehensible.

Your obvious double standard is quite partisan. You answer first - why are you deliberately ignoring the bombing of the TV station in Serbia by the Canadian Air Force? No one except the Serbs at the time said it was a bad thing. Not one news agency said it was bad or evil. And you claim ignorance of it - an ignorance that I find incredulous to say the least.Oh bite me. I'm as critical of my own side as I am of the Bush administration--my side happens to not be in power right now, and so is not responsible for the vast majority of the shit that has gone wrong in this country.

As to the bombing of the TV station--I'm serious when I say I don't know the story. Sorry for not being up on my (relatively) recent Eastern European history--sue me. And I'm serious when I say that if the TV station was deliberately targeted, then that's bullshit, just like I would say if someone targeted Fox News.

Oh bite me. I'm as critical of my own side as I am of the Bush administration--my side happens to not be in power right now, and so is not responsible for the vast majority of the shit that has gone wrong in this country.

As to the bombing of the TV station--I'm serious when I say I don't know the story. Sorry for not being up on my (relatively) recent Eastern European history--sue me. And I'm serious when I say that if the TV station was deliberately targeted, then that's bullshit, just like I would say if someone targeted Fox News.

The Canadian Air Force gets credit for intentionally silencing the Serbian national TV station by dropping a GPS guided bomb right on target and killing 16 people.

Considered an essential target in the psychological warfare campaign that accompanied the bombings.

But NO ONE said a word except the Serbs, who were naturally pissed off. And suddenly, it's a crime to even consider bombing a news station.

No one said it was a crime to do it when we invaded Iraq - we took "Baghdad Bob" off the air several times on purpose. And everyone thought that was funny.

Then he'd be trying to blow up NBC, CBS, and CNN too.

And anyways, the three above stations aren't giving aid to the enemy. We don't know if Al-Jazeera is.

And while I care if they're civilians this is war the last time I checked. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

As it happens, no it is not war. You should check again. King George IV announced that the war was over last year - or about 1000 US casualties ago.

The one thing we should note is that there is no attempt by the Brits to say this leak is untrue. The knowledge that Bush is a dangerous madman is not a state secret and shouldn't be protected from publication. If the man with his finger on the button lacks political judgment and is willing to act like a world-dictator, the whole world needs to know it. The personal embarrassment that comes to Bush from revealing what he's really like is his problem.

It's a measure of Bush's ignorance that he doesn't understand what's really happening in Iraq. It's a measure of his narrow-minded, self-serving disrespect for human rights that he'd even consider bombing a civilian news agency. And it's a measure of Blair's servile brown-nosing mentality that he'd approve the misuse of Britain's official secrets act to hide the lunacy of our president and hide his own foolishness for aligning himself with such a dangerously stupid man.

There's little point in Bush trying to keep up the pretense that he doesn't approve of all the civilian casualties we've caused in Iraq - complete with bombing and strafing women and children fleeing a bombed-out building - when now we know that he's quite happy to cause new civilian casualties on allied soil, just to silence someone he doesn't approve of. And we can see where he gets it from: he's supported by the kind of diseased minds who think it's a good idea to silence any news agency that says things he doesn't want said.

And we can see where he gets it from: he's supported by the kind of diseased minds who think it's a good idea to silence any news agency that says things he doesn't want said.

Oh, like ex-PM Chretien? Who silenced Serbian TV by intentionally bombing it and killing 16 civilians?

There was so little opposition to his actions on that count, that I think you would have to count yourself in as a "diseased mind" if you didn't protest against it.

Oh, like ex-PM Chretien? Who silenced Serbian TV by intentionally bombing it and killing 16 civilians?

There was so little opposition to his actions on that count, that I think you would have to count yourself in as a "diseased mind" if you didn't protest against it.

Sierra, Sierra, Sierra...

Your narrow-minded obcession with Candians bombing Serb television is all ready tired and worn out. I'm sorry but Ad Hominem Tu Quoque to justify Bush's desire to bomb Al Jazeera is blatant partisan hackery. But oh wait, since the other side is doing partisan hackery it's okay too according to you.

More Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

:rolleyes:

... As someone with a perpetual TSBI clearance, I take issue with ANYONE from ANY government that violates their oath. I give a certain amount of moral clearance to someone exposing a wrong BEFORE IT HAPPENS (to stop it), but otherwise keep your trap shut. If it wasn't worth leaking before the fact, it is doubly not worth leaking after the fact.

Your clearance is irrelevant (except that it might prove you have a vested interest in hiding your own indiscretions at times?) We're trying to live in a democracy, and to be ruled by informed consent. Letting people like Bush hide their lack of political judgment behind a cloak of secrecy is a disservice to our land. You're arguing that we shouldn't be told a lot of things on the grounds that a confidentiality oath was taken, but what about the oath of office taken by Bush? How is attacking the news agency of a sovereign nation being faithful to his oath?

Pick a US news agency, any agency you like. Even if you disapproved of them, would you approve of some foreign country bombing them on our soil? Oh no, wait, that's what we'd call a "terrorist act", right? We'd all weep and wail over the death of our citizens, and our president would make a public appearance as soon as he decided he'd be safe enough showing his face, and he'd make a speech about waging war against terrorism. So how does something that we know is wrong when it's done to us suddenly become right when it's done by us?

If we followed your argument about not leaking, we'd seldom catch our politicians in acts of personal immorality, in crimes or high crimes, or even in acts against our nation. Maybe never catch them. They'd be able to hide the evidence behind "confidentiality", as Nixon once tried to do.

As a friend of mine just said to me, let's use the argument on our politicians that they use when they want to tap our phones, read our e-mails and video-tape us on the streets: "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".

Sierra, Sierra, Sierra...

Your narrow-minded obcession with Candians bombing Serb television is all ready tired and worn out. I'm sorry but Ad Hominem Tu Quoque to justify Bush's desire to bomb Al Jazeera is blatant partisan hackery. But oh wait, since the other side is doing partisan hackery it's okay too according to you.

More Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

:rolleyes:

It's a perfectly valid point, and it demonstrates your willingness to accept any atrocity by anyone except the US - and you'll hold the US to such a high standard that if they merely discuss the idea of doing something - and then don't do it - you'll act as though they went ahead with doing it.

If you're looking at hackery, look at what you've been posting.

Your clearance is irrelevant (except that it might prove you have a vested interest in hiding your own indiscretions at times?) We're trying to live in a democracy, and to be ruled by informed consent. Letting people like Bush hide their lack of political judgment behind a cloak of secrecy is a disservice to our land. You're arguing that we shouldn't be told a lot of things on the grounds that a confidentiality oath was taken, but what about the oath of office taken by Bush? How is attacking the news agency of a sovereign nation being faithful to his oath?

Pick a US news agency, any agency you like. Even if you disapproved of them, would you approve of some foreign country bombing them on our soil? Oh no, wait, that's what we'd call a "terrorist act", right? We'd all weep and wail over the death of our citizens, and our president would make a public appearance as soon as he decided he'd be safe enough showing his face, and he'd make a speech about waging war against terrorism. So how does something that we know is wrong when it's done to us suddenly become right when it's done by us?

If we followed your argument about not leaking, we'd seldom catch our politicians in acts of personal immorality, in crimes or high crimes, or even in acts against our nation. Maybe never catch them. They'd be able to hide the evidence behind "confidentiality", as Nixon once tried to do.

As a friend of mine just said to me, let's use the argument on our politicians that they use when they want to tap our phones, read our e-mails and video-tape us on the streets: "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide".

And that brings up an interesting side note. If the Busheviks were so keen on being impartial with this whole secrecy deal, nobody would have ever heard about the Clinton Blowjob, ever.

It's a perfectly valid point, and it demonstrates your willingness to accept any atrocity by anyone except the US - and you'll hold the US to such a high standard that if they merely discuss the idea of doing something - and then don't do it - you'll act as though they went ahead with doing it.

If you're looking at hackery, look at what you've been posting.

So we acknowlege that the Canadian PM did a bad thing and he got roundly blasted for it (in the UK anyway) but you keep bitching on about it.

You can be no-one but Sierra.

Or a puppet of Corneliu, haven't seen him in a while...

So we acknowlege that the Canadian PM did a bad thing and he got roundly blasted for it (in the UK anyway) but you keep bitching on about it.

You can be no-one but Sierra.

Or a puppet of Corneliu, haven't seen him in a while...

There's another difference.

The Canadian PM actually bombed a TV station.

Bush talked about bombing a TV station, and DID NOT BOMB.

But many are carrying on as though bodies have just been pulled from the rubble... Go figure...

There's another difference.

The Canadian PM actually bombed a TV station.

Bush talked about bombing a TV station, and DID NOT BOMB.

But many are carrying on as though bodies have just been pulled from the rubble... Go figure...Slight correction--Bush would have bombed, but Blair talked him out of it. And there are still the accusations that US forces targeted al Jazeera offices both in Kabul (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,597067,00.html) and in Baghdad (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567667355.html) during the fighting there.

Slight correction--Bush would have bombed, but Blair talked him out of it.

And this is more evil and bad than actually bombing a TV station in what way?

BTW, while bombing Qatar would have been against the rules, bombing a propaganda outlet in a war zone is perfectly legal.

Of course, I thought it was funnier to leave al-J on the air during the recent Iraq invasion, as they were buying into everything that the Iraqi Information Minister was telling them.

Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.

Leaking CLASSIFIED information can only be justified if the leak would save innocent lives - and even then the leaker should be prepared to suffer for violating an oath. But to leak somthing that not only has not current relevance, but was a privileged conversation between Heads of State is utterly irresponsible. Period. :mad:

There are some things that need to be leaked. Just because it's classified doesn't mean it shouldn't be leaked out. I believe it was a justifiable(spelling) act and I believe that person did the right thing.

Because everyone makes it a partisan issue.

I've noticed that when someone else does something, either you conveniently ignore it, or sweep it under the rug, or claim it was a good thing to do. But if Bush does it, it's bad, evil, and reprehensible.

Sorry, but this isn't partisan to some of us. I don't give a f*** which party's doing it. If it's a bad thing to do, it's a bad thing to do. Period.

Your obvious double standard is quite partisan. You answer first - why are you deliberately ignoring the bombing of the TV station in Serbia by the Canadian Air Force? No one except the Serbs at the time said it was a bad thing. Not one news agency said it was bad or evil. And you claim ignorance of it - an ignorance that I find incredulous to say the least.

First, just to keep it all straight, "Canadian" isn't the name of an American political party. So failure to criticize the Canadians isn't "partisan". I can say I know Canadians who questioned it at the time.

Second, some people might like to distinguish between a news agency within the combat zone from a news agency in a third (supposedly allied) country. that applies to the "Baghdad Bob" thing too. The ability to notice the difference between a country you're at war with and an allied country is part of being trustworthy as a politician with international power. If Bush really can't tell the difference, he should consider stepping down for reasons of incompetence. He could end up a hero yet.

PS - I don't need to go on about the Canadians because the Canadians themselves have done that job, as is their right (I don't happen to believe in telling other countries how to behave while our country still behaves so badly). I do consider it right to criticize US misconduct and bad policy because it's my country.

As someone else has posted in different words, if we insist on wrapping our international intrigues in a cloak of high-minded morality and the best of intentions, and if we insist on calling anyone who disagrees with us "evil-doers" and similar crap, we'd damn well better be on the high moral ground for real, and not just using the pretense as a disguise for being like everybody else.

There are some things that need to be leaked. Just because it's classified doesn't mean it shouldn't be leaked out. I believe it was a justifiable(spelling) act and I believe that person did the right thing.

I'm all for punishing leakers no matter what their reason was.

White House leak about a CIA agent? Grand Jury investigation and prosecutions all around. Fine.

CIA leak about secret prison system? Why aren't we doing the same thing?

Screw everyone who leaks.

I'm all for punishing leakers no matter what their reason was.

...

Screw everyone who leaks.

You're pretty rough on people suffering from incontinence, aren't you?

:D

Sorry, I just felt it was time for a laugh. We can get back to the verbal warfare now, if you like.

Al Jazeera's a civilian news organization. Bombing it would be terrorism. Maybe we need a war on hypocrisy.

And this is more evil and bad than actually bombing a TV station in what way?
Nice. You would be right in calling me out for hypocrisy, if, you know, I'd ever said that. But of course, I didn't, and you erected a nice little straw man to topple. But I'm still here, standing astride your pathetic little argument.

BTW, while bombing Qatar would have been against the rules, bombing a propaganda outlet in a war zone is perfectly legal. And who decides what's a propaganda outlet as opposed to a legitimate news gathering organization? The one with the bombs, I assume. Well, don't take offense if some people disagree with your characterization of just who the propaganda outfit is.

The Canadian Air Force gets credit for intentionally silencing the Serbian national TV station by dropping a GPS guided bomb right on target and killing 16 people.

Considered an essential target in the psychological warfare campaign that accompanied the bombings.

But NO ONE said a word except the Serbs, who were naturally pissed off. And suddenly, it's a crime to even consider bombing a news station.

No one said it was a crime to do it when we invaded Iraq - we took "Baghdad Bob" off the air several times on purpose. And everyone thought that was funny.
I remember there were a lot of protests, marches, lawsuits, etc. brought on by NATO's bombing of civilian targets, including the TV station, which NATO justified by saying it was a source of propaganda.

It is dumb to say that 'Canada' or the PM had responsibility in this action, since the Canadian forces were there as part of a much larger coalition under NATO command. Maybe he could have ordered an investigation into the strike and decide to retire the troops if he saw they were being misused.

In any case, the Serbian TV station strike was not justified, there were protests, and an military attack on al-Jazeera is not justified either.

And who decides what's a propaganda outlet as opposed to a legitimate news gathering organization? The one with the bombs, I assume. Well, don't take offense if some people disagree with your characterization of just who the propaganda outfit is.

Why don't we ask ex-PM Chretien what a legitimate news gathering organization is?

This is interesting...I'd like to hear how Bush could've argued that point.
Why? We are talking about the person who said "We do not torture" while lobbying Congress to disclude the CIA from the anti-torture bill. I am sure it would go something like "They support terrorism by reporting news that show America in a bad light, we should bomb them immediately." I am surprised he didn't have to be talked out of bombing different US and British news headquarters.

Why don't we ask ex-PM Chretien what a legitimate news gathering organization is?
I'll give you this much--when you find a point, you stick to it. Of course, since you rarely have one, I can understand the attachment you feel for it.

Let me make this as simple as I can for you, in hopes that you may understand. The Serbian bombing, assuming you are telling the truth, was fucked up. However, the fucked-uppedness of it does not excuse future fucked-up suggestions from a different political entity.

The last thing the universe needs is more propoganda.




Haha, honestly, you think we don't have way too much propaganda here?

I'll give you this much--when you find a point, you stick to it. Of course, since you rarely have one, I can understand the attachment you feel for it.

Let me make this as simple as I can for you, in hopes that you may understand. The Serbian bombing, assuming you are telling the truth, was fucked up. However, the fucked-uppedness of it does not excuse future fucked-up suggestions from a different political entity.

I'm not talking about how fucked up Chretien is. I'm talking about the dearth of criticism he received from the press.

I see your weasel defense of Canadian bombing is to say that somehow I'm making it up.

Four CF-18 fighters based out of Aviano bombed the Serbian TV station on April 23, resulting in the destruction of the main building and transmitter, and killing 16 civilians inside.

I might add that General Wesley Clark (then in charge of the NATO attacks on Serbia), wanted to bomb the CNN Bureau in Belgrade to shut them up - and yet I never saw any media criticize his judgment - in fact, many Democrats saw him as a viable choice for President.

Your anti-Bush slip is showing... You'll say anything and reject anything just to say that Bush sucks.

And that brings up an interesting side note. If the Busheviks were so keen on being impartial with this whole secrecy deal, nobody would have ever heard about the Clinton Blowjob, ever.

I admit, this was in the back of my mind too. but mainly I was thinking of things like the My Lai massacre and Watergate and the Iran Contra affair and a load of other stuff that no US government should ever do and no one should ever be willing to hide once they've been done.

I grew up being taught to believe in the ideals of our country. when I saw for myself that the people teaching me those ideals were abusing them themselves, I got mad. I'm still mad. there's not much wrong with those ideals except for when they're misinterpreted or when they're ignored. what we're talking about here isn't exactly rocket science, it's just common decency and respect for other people's rights to be different. Oh yeah, and having the integrity not to abuse power. Come to think of it, I could just say "lack of integrity" and stop there.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I'm not talking about how fucked up Chretien is. I'm talking about the dearth of criticism he received from the press.
QUOTE]

And I've already told you that that is simply not true. It just depends upon which press you are talking about.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I'm not talking about how fucked up Chretien is. I'm talking about the dearth of criticism he received from the press.
QUOTE]

And I've already told you that that is simply not true. It just depends upon which press you are talking about.

Not a word in the US press - not on TV, not on the radio, not on NPR, not in the papers. Not one word of international reaction in those outlets at all (and we do hear foreign news here). And I never heard a single word of reaction on BBC World News (radio).

I also NEVER heard anyone criticize Gen. Wesley Clark for wanting to bomb the CNN Bureau in Belgrade. The comment I usually heard from Democrats here was, "a better military leader than Kerry".

Yeah, right. Look, if people are going to criticise an error in judgment, then be even handed about it. Singling out one leader because you don't like him and excusing the others (as some here do by saying the Canadians never bombed anyone) is outright partisan bias - not logical judgment.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I'm not talking about how fucked up Chretien is. I'm talking about the dearth of criticism he received from the press.
QUOTE]

And I've already told you that that is simply not true. It jus:p epends upon which press you are talking about.

Maybe he means Fox News? :p

[QUOTE=Fenland Friends]

Maybe he means Fox News? :p

Nope. I'm including the BBC World News radio. NPR. Etc., etc.

[QUOTE=The Beach Boys]

Nope. I'm including the radio. NPR. Etc., etc.

If you think you get a good representation of foreign opinion from those, you need to get out more. even the BBC World News as it now broadcasts in the US isn't unfiltered anymore - the radio and TV stations that carry it tend to pick and choose which bits they carry. You'd do better to get the straight BBC World Service on shortwave. You'd have heard the protests you say didn't happen. You'd also hear a lot of stuff we just don't get here.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]

If you think you get a good representation of foreign opinion from those, you need to get out more. even the BBC World News as it now broadcasts in the US isn't unfiltered anymore - the radio and TV stations that carry it tend to pick and choose which bits they carry. You'd do better to get the straight BBC World Service on shortwave. You'd have heard the protests you say didn't happen. You'd also hear a lot of stuff we just don't get here.

Already have a Grundig shortwave that I've listened to for the past eight years.

"Bush Wanted to Bomb al-Jazeera "

Too bad he didn't. They so richly deserve it. :D

The thing is if you listen to the whole transcript he was talking about stopping by the office and laying a big stinky beer fart . But of course they would only leak the part about " laying a bomb on ' em " I'm sure that secret transcripts of conversations between world leaders are ALWAYS leaked and taken out of contest that way .

But at any rate , its fun watching this cluster fuck radical Bush orgy develope on such fine and credable information .

And while I care if they're civilians this is war the last time I checked. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Oh, the irony.

That is exactly the justification used by Osama Bin Laden in his attacks on civilians. That the US public was not innocent because they in turn elected governments that in his view were hostile to Islam.

Nonetheless, while perhaps to a degree it is a logical view, I would disagree with it out of the need to minimise human suffering and anguish.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]

If you think you get a good representation of foreign opinion from those, you need to get out more. even the BBC World News as it now broadcasts in the US isn't unfiltered anymore - the radio and TV stations that carry it tend to pick and choose which bits they carry. You'd do better to get the straight BBC World Service on shortwave. You'd have heard the protests you say didn't happen. You'd also hear a lot of stuff we just don't get here.


Beach Boys, nice to see you here.

The thing is, in the UK (where I'm currently living) the BBC didn't limit discussion of things like the Canadian attack on Serbian broadcasting just to their news programmes. They also hold in-depth discussions on special programmes that address issues of international current events, international law, and so on. Programmes like "From Our Own Correspondent" address these issues at considerable length. Special documentaries also are broadcast on such topics.

Check the BBC webpage if it bothers you, you probably can find their broadcasts on it from the time.

BTW, I just did a quick and dirty google, and came up with over 16,000 hits including BBC pages. Reuters also covered the subject well, as I recall. So, hardly a secret, eh?

This page is interesting, since Mr Ignatieff, of the London School of Economic Science and Politics, broadcasts so much on the BBC:
http://www.fathom.com/feature/2175/ (The Rules of Engagement) Do a page-find on "TV" and he addresses this incident directly. It's a little more complicated than Deep Kimchi lets on. (And Deep Kimchi, your claim "No one except the Serbs at the time said it was a bad thing. Not one news agency said it was bad or evil." is just plain wrong. Were you unconscious at the time, or are you hoping the whole rest of the world was?)

Did I see that someone wants to claim this thread is partisan? And claims that it's all getting at Dubya? Someone needs a calendar, or a memory longer than Bush's.

Anyone who is familiar with Amnesty International will remember that they made quite a protest against it as well, only for NATO to rubbish them (and NATO cheerleaders to nod approvingly).

Yes, Beach Boys, it is about "lack of integrity". Or as it's more commonly known, "politics". I go with those who say we have a right to know what our leaders are really like, no matter in what light it shows them.

Plus, blowing up Al-Jazeera might be a good thing. The last thing the universe needs is more propoganda.

Well, I guess it would be OK to blow up "Voice of America" then. Don't know if we still have "Radio Free Europe". Propoganda is propoganda If you believe in getting rid of it, let's get rid of ALL of it.

Oh, the irony.

That is exactly the justification used by Osama Bin Laden in his attacks on civilians. That the US public was not innocent because they in turn elected governments that in his view were hostile to Islam.

Nonetheless, while perhaps to a degree it is a logical view, I would disagree with it out of the need to minimise human suffering and anguish.
Disgusting...

Hmmm, is this going to be like the other Downing Street memo, Fake but Accurate?

Hmmm, is this going to be like the other Downing Street memo, Fake but Accurate?was there a GAG order for the "other one" ?

Disgusting...

Erm...

Are you criticising the viewpoint or me, by chance?

I hope I did not convey myself in the wrong way. I was merely stating that I can understand how Bin Laden arrived at the conclusion and not that I necessarily agree with it.

Your obvious double standard is quite partisan. You answer first - why are you deliberately ignoring the bombing of the TV station in Serbia by the Canadian Air Force? No one except the Serbs at the time said it was a bad thing. Not one news agency said it was bad or evil. And you claim ignorance of it - an ignorance that I find incredulous to say the least.

WEll, officially maybe, but I know no one personally, who thought it was a good thing. Even those for the war not.

Might be because I am a pacifist traitor? :)

well, this is how it gets done. everybody blows off steam, but nobody does anything about it. so now that everyone is finished talking about it and doesn't care it happened, it all goes under the carpet right?

just like this business with 'extraordinary rendition'. we've been depending on other countries to do our torture for us for so long and lying ourselves blind about it, it's a well practiced habit now. we don't even pay attention when they do it to us now.

we did it in Viet Nam too - those South Koreans even scared Charlie. and we haven't had any reason to change our routine, have we? now we just use more countries to do it.

time we started living up to what we claim. we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting.

Erm...

Are you criticising the viewpoint or me, by chance?

I hope I did not convey myself in the wrong way. I was merely stating that I can understand how Bin Laden arrived at the conclusion and not that I necessarily agree with it.
I was agreeing with you.

Good. Throw the book. There was no critical need to leak such a document. It was obviously done out of pure malicious partiasinship.

Leaking CLASSIFIED information can only be justified if the leak would save innocent lives - and even then the leaker should be prepared to suffer for violating an oath. But to leak somthing that not only has not current relevance, but was a privileged conversation between Heads of State is utterly irresponsible. Period. :mad:

Way to start cutting down trees so you can find that forest.

Way to start cutting down trees so you can find that forest.
Actually, any sort of leak of classified information, whether it's the identity of Valerie Plame, or the leak of a secret prison system, is illegal. Regardless of motive.

wasn't this topic dead?

Well, I guess it would be OK to blow up "Voice of America" then. Don't know if we still have "Radio Free Europe". Propoganda is propoganda If you believe in getting rid of it, let's get rid of ALL of it.its OK when "we" do it

Actually, any sort of leak of classified information, whether it's the identity of Valerie Plame, or the leak of a secret prison system, is illegal. Regardless of motive.

And yet you've been an apologist for the Plame leaker.

And yet you've been an apologist for the Plame leaker.its OK when "we" (neocons) do it

Actually, any sort of leak of classified information, whether it's the identity of Valerie Plame, or the leak of a secret prison system, is illegal. Regardless of motive.


you make it sound like we don't have a right to know what our elected paid employees are planning, doing or thinking about doing in our name.

we live in a world where if I work at a desk on a computer, my employer considers it his right to monitor how I use that computer, even intercepting my e-mail and using a key-stroke recorder to make sure he approves of what I do, if that's what he wants to do. in many companies where I've worked, it was company policy to have the guards search brief-cases and lunch-boxes on our way out to our cars. I even know companies that have cameras up to monitor how employees do their jobs.

so why not Bush? he's our elected, paid employee. not our king. not our master. not one of the great and the good. he's not president because he has some kind of "divine right of kings" or because it's his right. we hired him. we have a right to know what he's doing and we have a right to monitor him any way that proves convenient and effective. considering the power he wields on our behalf and the consequences of his mistakes, he has no reason to belly-ache. every time he gets caught with a stupid idea in his head he shouldn't be allowed to hide it behind some kind of "classified" or "official secret" label. if he doesn't like it, he's welcome to resign.

same with Dubya's lap-poodle, Blair. he's an employee of the Brits. they already have a queen and Blair isn't it.

like one of my buddies says, "what's that we're always being told when some bunch of spooks wants to read our e-mails or tap our phones: 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'." right then. if King George the IV and his bitch have nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear. so let's knock off the secrecy malarky and just get real. Dubya wanted to do something galactically stupid. Blair managed to talk him out of it this time. somebody had the good sense to tell us so we'd all know just what a damned lunatic is in the White House. end of story.