Trading biological and chemical weapons at the SOD isn't something that just "doesn't come up" with the President.

"Oh yeah, I forgot to mention a few weeks back, I armed a pseudo-hostile nation with WMDs."

It doesn't work like that. A leader can see so far down his chain of command and I would say his right-hand man's actives should be pretty visible. All the way up to what he does at the gym and what vacations he has planned with his family (I know I can tell you the status of every one of my 45 soldiers all the way down to their parents occupations and kid's likes/dislikes). I'd say it's def. something that should be looked into. Defintely, it's serious and there was a def. potential of wrong doing but given the circumstances it looks like a mistake(hindsight is 20/20). Surely Rummy didn't hand those things over without a Presidential approval.

 

How about outing a CIA agent because her husband contradicted falsified evidence coming from the white house? Do you think that the president would be able to see a choice like that....say, two steps below him?

What about the Iran-contra affair. Reagan said he had no knowlege of trading arms for hostages in that case.

 

In reference to the CIA agent I say she def. should have been outted. Her husband's mistakes and new found investigation comprised her as a member over a covert organization. Publicity is the enemy of governmental secrecy.

As far as Reagan trading arms for hostages I'd have to say it depends on the circumstances involved. I think sometimes it might be better to appease to a kidnapper if it's not a serious trade off. Me personally, I'd have waxed him with a time delayed satchel charge set up in the weapons. Again, it depends on the circumstances.

 

There are proper channels for dealing with someone who is compromising national security, and making a public target of an agent of the CIA isn't among them.
If Joe was such a risk, they should have first fired his wife, then you can out her all you want because at that pooint she is no longer an agent. They didn't do that, they smeared him by outting her on the sly, and that is a treasonous offence.
And besides, what Joe was going public with was just the truth, the President was making bogus claims in an effort to drum up support for his war of choice;

Here's an Intelligence professional's take on the subject:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ert_action.php

The circumstances then were a lot worse than most people remember, congress had passed several laws specifically forbidding sending arms to Iran, yet a secret black ops group deliberately disobeyed those laws and funnelled the money into another militant group, while claiming it was all for spreading democracy and freedom, it was undoubtably quite profitable to those involved as well.

When they got caught, it was revealed that the "permissions" for this clandestine operation came down all the way from ol' Dutch himself- but he pretended not to remember any details, cronyism got most of the convictions overturned and Reagan pardoned everyone else on his way out.

Now Olly North is touted as a hero and given his own Fox news show despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal who knowingly lied while testifying under oath to Congress.

And yes it was the CIA that was bringing in a large majority of the cocaine into the US in the late 70's and 80's

 

But if, as you assert, Reagan should have been aware of all the activities of his subordinates Re. illegal arms sales, and wasn't...in the case of Iran contra, then it stands to reason that he may not have been in the case of Iraq.

It therefore stands to reason that the secretary of defense (then and now) D. Rumsfeld may need to be accoutable for his actions Re. Iraq (then and now)

 

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think she should have lost her job as unfortunate as that may be. It's the nature of the business and she was compromised for obvious reasons. I agree that it should have been done differently. She should have disappeared into the shadows of CIA secrecy just as many former spys and operators due when they reach retirement. They're erased from the roles and the general public knows none the better. That is what should have happened.

 

i say we exhile them all to the moon

 

Just why do you think "she should have lost her job"?


what did she do wrong?


how again was she "compromised for obvious reasons"?


what did her husband do?



The people that did the wrong thing were the WHIG (White House Iraq Group) and OSP (Office of special plans) who made up bogus claims- outright lies in an effort to justify their plans for an illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country.

If anyone should be fired it is these cretins who have hijacked our government for their own agenda of delivering war and suffering around the world so that they and their corporate benefactors can make themselves even wealthier.

 

Because she became too public. How are you expected to sustain a life in a clandestine organization when your last name is topping the news?


She didn't do anything wrong. Like I said, it's very unfortunate but the fact of the matter is that in her superiors eyes she has become a liability to them and has put the mission and her peers at a greater risk. (and don't play stupid and ask what risk, you know what I'm talking about)


Justified or not her name is in the news. If U.S. Army Special Operations Forces can't even tell their own families what they do at work or where they get deployed to I'd say a CIA official of any kind should probably not be in news highlights and still be kept mission capable.




I'm not entirely sure to be honest with you. I don't think any of us will ever know in totality. That's not the concern in our case and it will be decided by the proper officials. All I can be sure of is that his wife was in fact compromised due to the poor handling of the case by her supervisors (both immediate and higher).


What made this war so illegal as far as the invasion goes. Is any war really "legal"? You're forcing a country to due something against their will because politics have failed and you're forced to other measures.

Again, I think you're blowing it way out of proportion with your conspiracy theory. You could say Clinton forced the military into fiscal starvation during his term to better the economy, in turn making his portfolio look better. Regardless of who is President things are going to happen to benefit them personally whether they be intentional or not. I think Bush could have found a much better and discreet way to fill his pockets than starting a global war.

 

Actually a lot of the worst incidences occured in days gone by, well before you signed up, hell before you were born, but there are some nasty skeletons in the DOD closet:

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/curren...hart_8_3.shtml

 

All that says is that they tested agents in the field. That seems pretty obvious. The military tests everything before it's put into the field. And I know a lot worse things have happened but like I said, you're blowing it up into this "Big Brother" conspiracy theory thing when it is not nearly the deal you make it out to be.

 

Hmm, just a thought but whatever happened to svx8dr and lojasmo?
They were posting quite a bit for awhile.

Weather I agree with either of them or not, they each provided good insight as do most others here.

I was bored and viewing some of the first threads in TPF and I never realized how much better the content is in recent posts is, than the posts from even just a year ago. I believe the friendly debate, well thought and composed recent string of posts has greatly attributed to each of us growing as individuals. Sadly, lately it seems as if the partisan,close minded bickering has recurred once again.