Deep state leaker or a patriot?

[3leftsdoo]

A bunch of phony baloney is standard operating procedure for the democrooks.

Democrooks!

:thumbs:

 

[ludin]

Oh heck yeah! Democrats and Republicans have been meddling in elections all over the world since forever. Now the Democrats clutch their pearls because some WB gets the vapors over a phone call with Ukraine.

Ol lord it gets even worse for democrats now.

Bill Clinton asked UK'''s Tony Blair to '''take a look at''' fixing problem during 2000 '''political season''': document | Fox News

‘In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it.’ Tony Blair responded that he would.”
clinton asking a foreign government for a favor in order to help Al Gore's election campaign.

Lets get the pitch forks and torches.

 

[ludin]

Is this the same Ted Kennedy the democrats adored and praised. The same Kennedy that got away with manslaughter when he got drunk and killed a woman, the low life Kennedy that ran from the scene. This guy is the democrats mentor.

It would be the one and the same.

 

[Aristaeus]

Moderator's Warning:

To the bolded, please don't make comments like that on DP. Violent rhetoric has no place anywhere on the board.

Sorry. I was satirizing Trump supporters' comments.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Ol lord it gets even worse for democrats now.

Bill Clinton asked UK'''s Tony Blair to '''take a look at''' fixing problem during 2000 '''political season''': document | Fox News

‘In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it.’ Tony Blair responded that he would.”
clinton asking a foreign government for a favor in order to help Al Gore's election campaign.

Lets get the pitch forks and torches.

Needs its own thread.

Democrat corruption and hypocrisy are boundless.

 

[ludin]

And why do you suppose our president wants to confront his whistle-blower face to face?

see the constitution and the right to face your accuser.
The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

see the 6th amendment.

 

[Slavister]

I find it comical when I read claims such as this, here’s a bit of history about the “deep state”. Before the smoke even cleared from WWll the CIA was gaining strength, influence and power. They have been influencing elections abroad and possibly in the US since that time.

So your history of "deep state" is that CIA may have fixed US elections? Good one.

We now have 16 intelligence agencies in that community.

Oh wow, 16 ?! Now I am convinced... In fact, a company I worked for had 29 departments. I can't imagine the depth of conspiracies going on there! :lamo

Denying the existence of deep state players within those agencies is akin to denying the very existence of said agencies.

I guess deep state exists in EVERY country of the world then, since every country has analogous agencies.

The top tier players operate without regard to our laws and constitution, some glaring examples are the testimonies of Comey, Brennen and McCabe before congress. The facts, not conspiracy theories show perjury, leaking of classified information and a host of oath of office violations. I mean come on, it was even televised.

Yes, we almost daily see host of oath of office violations by the President. Still, Comey, Brennen and McCabe are walking free despite perjury and leaking of classified information. I guess it's either inability of Trump's / Barr's DOJ to even indict them for such obvious crimes, or ... these are fictional / unimportant enough crimes.

Heck, even President leaked classified information about our operations to Russians. Maybe they were taking example from him?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Have you ever heard of sour grapes? When intelligent people stop taking job offers, talk to me.

Yeah, that has to be it. We can't see that the dude is an idiot from his actual words or anything.

 

[bongsaway]

see the constitution and the right to face your accuser.
The Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

see the 6th amendment.

I didn't realize this was a legal undertaking like a trial. I'm hoping the president in the setting of a trial has the opportunity to under oath say what he wishes.

 

[Acadia]

Ol lord it gets even worse for democrats now.

Bill Clinton asked UK'''s Tony Blair to '''take a look at''' fixing problem during 2000 '''political season''': document | Fox News

‘In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it.’ Tony Blair responded that he would.”
clinton asking a foreign government for a favor in order to help Al Gore's election campaign.

Lets get the pitch forks and torches.

It matters not to Democrats.

 

[Jay59]

Yeah, that has to be it. We can't see that the dude is an idiot from his actual words or anything.

Close. Haters gotta hate and it and it makes the stupid. They can't see past his words to what he is getting done.

I didn't realize this was a legal undertaking like a trial. I'm hoping the president in the setting of a trial has the opportunity to under oath say what he wishes.

Of course it's a trial, even though it's only in the court of opinion.

 

[veritas1]

That "engagement" sounds awfully transactional. You've already suggested that the US shouldn't be involved because we don't need their oil (which is not true, Persian Gulf nations still make up 16% of oil imports). Your position seems to be "sure, we can sacrifice American lives, but only if we get a bunch of oil out of it!" It is incredibly difficult to see that as a morally sound position.

Plus, the idea of "win today, leave immediately" is unrealistic. That isn't how modern warfare works, and that has to be a consideration before engaging military action. Too late for that now.

And yet again! Wringing your hands is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that withdrawing now will be a disaster for the Kurds and, to a lesser extent, the US.



And again, that's just ahistorical nonsense. The Sunnis and Shiites haven't spent the last 1400 years slaughtering each other non-stop. The sectarian conflict is really about the political conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq didn't have a ton of sectarian tension before the US invasion, in no small part because Hussein hated both Iran and the Saudis. When the US took him out, Iran (90% Shia) started to back Shia groups in Iraq (61% Shia). The conflict is not theological or ethnic, it's about political power.

We're not even talking about a sectarian conflict in northern Syria! It's all political. Assad started the war because he didn't want to be deposed and replaced by a democracy. The US backed pro-democracy rebels to kill ISIL, and to take out another autocrat that backs terrorism and hates Israel. Russia stepped in because Assad is their last ally in the region, and Syria has the only Russian base in the Middle East. Turkey stepped in because they wanted to take out the Kurds.

That's nothing new, by the way. Most sectarian conflicts are really about politics. E.g. in Northern Ireland, the split between Catholics and Protestants is really about English vs Irish control. The IRA wasn't bombing buildings because most Brits don't go to confession, it's because they hated being under British control. In most cases, religion is merely recruited by the political actors to justify the violence. (See https://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence/dp/0307946967)

And again, even with longer conflicts, the "Endless War" claim is complete nonsense. We could have said the same thing about the Chinese and Japanese, the Protestants and Catholics, the FSLN and the Contras, the French and Germans, the list goes on. Enemies yesterday, allies today. It happens over and over.



And those Kurdish soldier's lives are worth more to their families. See how that works?

1. I never said a word about fighting for oil. I certainly don't want to spill our blood so others, who do little to nothing, can have their oil supplies protected.

2. I've heard about the Kurds for years and most administrations have been loathe to arm them directly. How much of an ally is someone you're afraid to openly arm? Again, what is the end game? The Kurds will apparently need our protection and, thus, our presence, indefinitely. Is that what you propose, an indefinite US military presence in the region to protect the Kurds?

3. Whether the conflict be political or religious, the question remains: what is the end game and what benefit is the US deriving from backing one side or the other? If we'd stayed out of the quagmire after the Gulf War, we'd be 100% better off and would have saved a lot of money and suffering.

4. Yes, Kurdish lives are important to their families but would they be sanguine if their family members were dying to protect us in some conflict thousands of miles away? Therein lies the difference. Yes, we have a volunteer army and it's the height of irresponsibility to throw them willy nilly into distant conflicts in which we have neither a clear stake nor any definition of victory. When people with a vested interest in war, either economic or other, put our soldiers into conflict for no discernible national security interest, then I say that is immoral and the American public should rightly oppose it. Wasn't that the claim during Vietnam? Was keeping Ho Chi Minh from taking over S. Vietnam worth 50,000+ American lives? The left said hell no back then. Now, they've reversed themselves 180 degrees solely because Trump is in charge.

5. I nowhere said anything about finishing up in 30 seconds and leaving. My point is that you better have a damn good reason for going in the first place and, in the case of most of what we've done in the ME since 9/11, we have no such imperative.

 

[Visbek]

1. I never said a word about fighting for oil.

You stated that one reason we should withdraw is because "we are no longer beholden to ME oil." So tell us, would US military engagement be justified if we received 20% of our oil from the Middle East, instead of 16%? How about 30%? 40%?

2. I've heard about the Kurds for years and most administrations have been loathe to arm them directly.

You sure about that?

Trump to Arm Syrian Kurds, Even as Turkey Strongly Objects

Barack Obama risks Turkey backlash after lifting military aid restrictions in Syria

Sounds like any "reluctance" is because Presidents didn't want to piss of Erdogan.

Again, what is the end game?

The end game is to stabilize the region. That doesn't mean an indefinite presence, as we have seen over and over from numerous interventions. And again, we're not talking about 100,000 troops that are under constant attack, we're talking about 1000 troops that are deterring more killings just by sitting there.

3. Whether the conflict be political or religious, the question remains: what is the end game and what benefit is the US deriving from backing one side or the other?

Yeah, we've already been over almost all of this. At a bare minimum, the benefits are that we back up our allies, and keep ISIL in check. We also prevented what is happening right now -- Turkey attacking civilians and destabilizing Syria.

If we'd stayed out of the quagmire after the Gulf War, we'd be 100% better off and would have saved a lot of money and suffering.

...and again, the time to discuss that was before the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Whining about the consequences doesn't help the Kurdish civilians who are being killed by Turkish forces right now.

4. Yes, Kurdish lives are important to their families but would they be sanguine if their family members were dying to protect us in some conflict thousands of miles away?

News flash! They DID die in part to protect the US. Even though they were clear that attacking ISIL was not their top priority, they did it anyway.

Yes, we have a volunteer army and it's the height of irresponsibility to throw them willy nilly into distant conflicts in which we have neither a clear stake nor any definition of victory.

It's also irresponsible to betray our allies, and leave them open to attack to an autocrat.

When people with a vested interest in war, either economic or other, put our soldiers into conflict for no discernible national security interest, then I say that is immoral and the American public should rightly oppose it. Wasn't that the claim during Vietnam?

Nope. Not even close.

The "discernible national security interest" was in preventing the spread of Communism. Even if you disagree with that claim, it was very clearly enunciated by both Democratic and Republican parties.

The objections were that young Americans were being conscripted to fight in a country that didn't want us there, to prevent a vote that was not going to go the way the US wanted, to support ruthless autocrats who abused their own citizens. There were also objections to the way the war was waged, ranging from carpet bombing to illegally bombing Cambodia to the use of Agent Orange to cover-ups of war crimes. I'd also say that a lot of Americans were upset because we were losing.

Was keeping Ho Chi Minh from taking over S. Vietnam worth 50,000+ American lives? The left said hell no back then. Now, they've reversed themselves 180 degrees solely because Trump is in charge.

:roll:

1) Parking 1,000 US soldiers in a desert, where they are seeing almost no action, is not the same as putting 500,000 US troops into an active war zone.

2) News flash! EVERYONE is objecting to Trump's action this week. Democrats, Republicans, progressives, conservatives. Even Lindsay Graham, whose lips are usually glued to Trump's backside, has strongly objected. Are you really not paying attention here?

3) Guess what? The critics are already being proven correct. Even as I type, Turkey's military is attacking towns along a 150-mile strip of the border. The news is only going to get worse this week. Are you happy that innocent people are dying, as a direct result of Trump's decision?

 

[Rich2018]

This is why you have lesser crimes for disseminating classified material against the national interest. All three of those elements are clearly present, so have a prosecutor pick the crime....

Isn't it for a court to decide what's in the national interest ?

 

[Jay59]

Isn't it for a court to decide what's in the national interest ?

Never.

Congress and the President jointly decide. It's called making a law.

 

[Bullseye]

Isn't it for a court to decide what's in the national interest ?

Absolutely not. A court decides on violations of laws as written (at least theoretically) not on some nebulous "national interest" criterion.

 

[SCrider]

I don't remember the above ever happening to any president, the deliberate leaking meant to undermine the president of the U.S.
What about the precedence all this partisan leaking is setting for the republic, no matter who sits in the WH? Are people this desperate to have their team take over?
I fear some are so invested in their witch hunt type politics, (whomever this unnamed NSC source is), that they are not giving any forethought to the harm they are doing to the republic. The fact that they don't even care is dangerous.

We are living in scary times.

Maybe because we have never had this big of a ****ing idiot as president. His own people are the ones leaking the info.

 

[ludin]

I didn't realize this was a legal undertaking like a trial. I'm hoping the president in the setting of a trial has the opportunity to under oath say what he wishes.

So you don't like constitutional rights when they get in your way got it.

 

[bongsaway]

So you don't like constitutional rights when they get in your way got it.

And just how did you get that out of my answer? What constitutional rights are being denied trump?

 

[ludin]

And just how did you get that out of my answer? What constitutional rights are being denied trump?

go back and read i already outlined it for you.
are you not paying attention? if not why?

 

[nitroexpress]

Nope but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re part of the “earth is only 6,000 years old” club.

Haven't heard of that one. Got a link?

 

[nitroexpress]

Maybe because we have never had this big of a ****ing idiot as president. His own people are the ones leaking the info.

We now know that Leaker #1 was a Biden staffer. Bit quick on the draw where you?

 

[SCrider]

We now know that Leaker #1 was a Biden staffer. Bit quick on the draw where you?

Got a link to that?

 

[Fraggle Rock]

 

[marke]

Deep state unnamed leaker or a patriot?
I'll let you decide.

Discuss.

Exclusive: Official Who Heard Call Says Trump Got 'Rolled' By Turkey and 'Has No Spine'

Sadly, no 'patriot' leaker preemptively exposed Obama's plan to remove Gaddafi and turn Libya over to his Muslim brothers.