Pakistan Source Under Cover When U.S. Confirmed Name

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    i see politics comes before actually protecting the country from terrorism. i wonder if this is incompetence or malice.
     
  2. SuperChuck macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #2
    Didn't you see the name of the exposed agent, Zim? This administration has little regard for anybody named Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan.
     
  3. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #3
    Nothing they do is good enough. First it was timing to make the DNC look bad or something like that. Prove that it wasn't and now that is wrong too. Damn if they do and Damn if they don't.
     
  4. SuperChuck macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #4
    Exposing the name of a spy who is currently undercover and working for us?

    Yeah - that's not good enough.

    That's actually a monumental blunder that will possibly get a man killed. Kinda hard to argue that calling this one DUMB is politically motivated.
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    from the article:
    this administration has repeatedly stressed how difficult and important it is to infiltrate AQ w/ human intelligence. the ISI had a guy in there, who was providing intelligence, and the bush administration up and outs him.

    wtf kind of response is, "it's never good enough?" LH, do you not comprehend what's going on? these are the actions of an administration that, judging by its actions, wants AQ to keep on attacking, and you want to let them off the hook for the simple reason that a couple of nobodies in a political chat forum think bush is doing a bad job?!?!

    what's wrong w/ you? can you see past politics and simply make a determination if outing a spy working for you is a good or bad thing? are you capable of making that determination?
     
  6. SuperChuck macrumors 6502

    SuperChuck

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Location:
    Chucktown, SC
    #6
    Is CNN (not to mention our government) failing connecting the dots?

    The following is from a CNN article just posted online, which claims that "chatter" has come to a halt in recent days:

    Pakistan authorities arrested a key al Qaeda suspect, Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan, in mid-July. Officials said chatter continued after that arrest, but has fallen off in recent days.

    Full article here...

    Notice the name...it's the same guy the Reuter's article is talking about.

    Now, I'm no genius, but I think when you expose your spy, the chatter might drop off a bit.
     
  7. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #7
    And had they not said anything you would've been talking about how they weren't doing enough. Besides I think he was already exposed that is why they pulled him and since the enemy already knew who he was there was no reason to hide him from the press any longer.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Think again:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....F3SFEUCRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=5902856
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    So where are all the people who were so incensed over the Sandy Berger incident?

    (I know, I know -- they've moved onto the next story. That one was all about creating a distraction before the DNC.)
     
  10. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    i am ****ing furious at this administration. how ****ing stupid do you have to be to blow a deep cover agent for political gain? how far gone is the american public to 1) not understand what this means, and 2) care more about terms like "flip-flopping" than actually bringing down AQ?
     
  11. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #11
    Apparently they fell out of practice, out intelligent agencies that is. Been awhile I guess since they actually had to work for their paychecks. :confused:

    Nevertheless in this forum Bush can't win. People are only looking for more things to slam Bush with.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    No, Leo, I think they are looking for honest leadership.
     
  13. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #13
    Kerry isn't it.
     
  14. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #14
    Better than Bush.

    With regard to this spy thing, the Bush administration outs its own spies, let alone those from Pakistan! It's truly the height of stupidity, but I guess relying on the ISI in the first place isn't all that smart either.

    After all, the ISI used to prop up the Taliban. Musharraf has reformed them somewhat, but does anyone really believe that it's been completely purged? That organization is still promoting violence in Afghanistan and Kashmir, more likely than not. However, we do have to deal with them and their intelligence is appreciated; it would be nice and smart not to out their spies.

    However, all this reliance on Pakistan and ignorance of India makes me nervous...As always under Republican presidents, we snub the world's largest democracy in favor of what is essentially a dictatorship, and that means the U.S. possibly having a hand in disrupting the balance of power in South Asia. That military arms package is not going to help stabilize the region.
     
  15. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    In this regard, Leo, you are right. If they don't provide solid evidence they will take heat for playing political games with terror alerts. If they out Intelligence assets to provide that evidence they hurt our ability to get at al Qaeda. What does it tell you about an Administration that choose the second of two bad alternatives? As President, Bush's first job is supposed to be to protect us, not guarantee his reelection. Spend some time thinking about that, Leo, and try not to respond with the first partisan knee jerk answer that comes to mind.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    Which appears to be the only kind of answer Slyvolhubbard has for us.

    No matter what the original subject, it seems tend to flow to John Kerry and why he's scum.
     
  17. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #17
    I think we should also point out that the original terra alert as announced by tom ridge was politicized from the word go:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040801.html

    This is why the British don't make terror threat announcements unless there is something that specifically can be done. In fact, this is why they have openly criticized the bush administration for making these announcements.
    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1278826,00.html
     

Share This Page