Talk Elections

I just thought I'd make an accurate version of the new jFRAUD thread.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A sacked CIA (news - web sites) official has sued, alleging he was fired for refusing to fake reports supporting the White House position that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction, local media said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041210/ts_alt_afp/usiraqwmdciasuit

Under Clinton the CIA was larded with left-wing hate America types.

Its time to clean out that nest.

Where are the WMD, wise-guy?

Thanks to Bush, military recruitment is 60,000 people short.

Go sign up, now.

Do you hate America? Seriously.

Check out the 500 tons of uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear facility.  Read a newspaper once in while, okay?

Yeah, I hate America for wanting the military to have the soldiers that it needs.

Blaming it on your boogeyman Clinton?  Come on pal do some math.  The guy is a 23-year CIA veteran.  He was sacked in 2004.  This means he was hired in 1981.  Who was President that year?  Oh yeah ... so I guess the real blame for this rests with Ronald Reagan.

Umm ... 500 tons of natural uranium at a nuclear power plant facility isn't WMD's.  In fact back in early 2003, when this story hit the papers Republicans jumped up and yelled "there it is", only to have egg on their faces when the IAEA said they were aware of the site, had monitored it, and that while the material is radioactive and therefore could be used in a dirty bomb it wasn't suitable for creating a 'Nuke'.

Now I'm not a WMD expert, but David Kay is and his report to Congress in 10/03 (7 months after the Tuwaitha story broke) stated that although Saddam would have liked to have had WMD's he did not possess any and had no serious chance of possessing any in a short period of time.

Syria!

ah, a complete ignorance of Wakie's point.

HE WAS HIRED UNDER REAGAN NOT CLINTON. ANSWER THAT.

Let's see, fired in August, been there 23 years.  Is that 23 years one month or 23 years 9 months.  He could have been a late Carter appointee.

Furthermore the people who do the hiring are entrenched bureaucrats of who knows what political bent.

Does that answer you Wakie & BRTD?

You make an excellent point.  Odds are who is President is irrelevant!  In fact I tend to believe it is totally irrelevant.  Mr Hayden implied that this was "Clinton's fault".

1) This guy may have a valid complaint.  We don't know all the details.

2) As you have pointed out, the people who do the hiring at the CIA are entrenched bureaucrats and probably very thinly linked to any one politician.

3) I pointed out that the man joined the CIA in 1981, at the beginning of the Reagan administration.  So if you do want to 'blame' this on a President you should blame it on Reagan.

Unfortuntely, the CIA, like MI5 has had a propensity to hire left wing nut cases from the Ivy League (our version of Oxbridge).

Glad the new CIA director is cleaning house.

The IAEA knew of the site, but could not inspect it because inspectors were blocked by Hussein.  They were not aware of the 500 tons of yellocake.

The material was not suitable for a nuclear device becuase it had not yet been refined.  Hussein was in the process of refining it, and had enriched 1.8 tons to sufficient quality for a low grade bomb.

Why are you happy that we are falling short of recruitment goals?

he's not happy, he's pointing out that this is bad and it's Bush's fault.

Thank God Goss is shaking it up. The Communist Intelligence Agency has been ing up for decades... it makes sense a bureaucrat would blame the latest President, but the problems basically go back to the OSS.

Bush's fault.  Of course.  Everything is Bush's fault.  Don't forget the Florida hurricanes also.

Democrats blame Bush.  Republicans blame Clinton.

It's likely the case that neither is right.

uh.. clinton wasn't president 23 years ago.

Did you sleep through the 90s when everything that happened was Clinton's fault?  Did you miss the beginning of this thread when some jackass blamed Clinton?