So anyone want to take bets on

Hobbes

how long before Joseph Wilsons wife will take her life in a field somewhere?

BOP

<moderated>

sovtek

...or someone does it for her :eek:

Victor

Originally posted by Hobbes
how long before Joseph Wilsons wife will take her life in a field somewhere?

Who

sixtysix

i realise that you are not being funny for the sake of it but don't make fun of suicide.
suicide leaves many questions unanswered for those who know the bereaved.

Hobbes

Who was being funny? I was being serious.

First Kelly now JWs wife put out for media frenzy.

Yes lots of unanswered questions.

Hobart

Originally posted by Hobbes
how long before Joseph Wilsons wife will take her life in a field somewhere?

Yea your gas Hobbes. I'm surprised that this thread, while obviously moderated, has not been binned. I, for one, find the title and tone totally inappropiate.

Hobbes

Click the report option if you have an issue with the thread.

swiss

I agree that the title and the opening post could have been phrased in a little more sensitive manner. Let's move past suicide and concentrate on the real thrust of this thread, that Joseph Wilsons wife has been the subject of media scrutiny because of the White House leak that she was/is a CIA operative.

Perhaps she had been named in a an act of against her husbands actions which appeared to undermine the perception the White House tried to create about the war effort.

"I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," he wrote in the New York Times.

However, I haven't come across any articles to indicate that she herself has been targeted by media organisations, although this wouldn't surprise me one bit. The US media isn't famed for taking prisoners.

Hobbes

I must be the only one who doesn't buy the Kellys suicide, especially after the evidence.

However I was pointing out that by speaking out against the illegal actions of the government just leads to your family being put in danger.

Of course she isn't going to commit suicide, however being publically flagged as a CIA employee isn't good, especially being the wife of an ambassador.

It is also somewhat laughable that the group they are claiming released the information want to control the investigation into where the leak came from.

Originally posted by Hobbes

Of course she isn't going to commit suicide, however being publically flagged as a CIA employee isn't good, especially being the wife of an ambassador.

I think you mean CIA field operative there and not employee;)
If simply being an employee of the CIA was risky, there'd be snipers taking them out as they entered hq or on their way home.

There are some similarities though with Kelly in that it could be claimed that her husband when he was dissing the Bush war effort was relying on privileged information his wife had as a CIA insider.

That said it would appear, if it was petty revenge, to be a serious own goal and a bizare lapse of judgement from the Whitehouse in an election year.
Those who would like Bush out of the Whitehouse ironically have more to gain from it than his supporters.
In other words there could be another twist in the tale yet.

mm

Hobart

Originally posted by Hobbes
Click the report option if you have an issue with the thread.

I did, last night. And I don't need you to tell me what to do when I find something offensive.

Originally posted by Hobbes
I must be the only one who doesn't buy the Kellys suicide, especially after the evidence.

Yea you must be. Would you like to expand on what you see as flawed about the idea that it was suicide based on the evidence

However I was pointing out that by speaking out against the illegal actions of the government just leads to your family being put in danger.

What do you mean by Illegal? How where the actions of the US Government illegal?

Of course she isn't going to commit suicide,

So you won't be taking bets then?:rolleyes:

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by Hobart
Yea you must be. Would you like to expand on what you see as flawed about the idea that it was suicide based on the evidence

We were told he killed himself.....the flaw being that any truth is a lie that hasnt been discovered yet...

Of course she isn't going to commit suicide, however being publically flagged as a CIA employee isn't good, especially being the wife of an ambassador.

It is also somewhat laughable that the group they are claiming released the information want to control the investigation into where the leak came from.

its easy to see where lies have to cover lies

Hobart

Originally posted by SearrarD
We were told he killed himself.....the flaw being that any truth is a lie that hasnt been discovered yet...
its easy to see where lies have to cover lies

I was talking about Hobbes reference to the evidence not what we were told.

So by your analagy everything is a lie?:)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Hobart
I did, last night. And I don't need you to tell me what to do when I find something offensive.

Try to give that impression then instead of appearing to be some kind of newbie whiner. Got problems report to Mod, don't bother expanding on it in the thread unless your on topic.

Yea you must be. Would you like to expand on what you see as flawed about the idea that it was suicide based on the evidence

Sure, from the Sky News showing the proceedings of tribunal, of how such a well balanced person who showed no signs that point to someone who is about to commit suicide does so. Or the lying about his mental state by certain people at the tribunal.

You did watch it right? Or do you want me to dig out links to it?

Who's to know if he commited suicide or not, but it's a bit bloody nice of him to do so at a time when his actions were showing what was going on and if anything it was more profitable for him to stay alive.

What do you mean by Illegal? How where the actions of the US Government illegal?

If the US/UK government used false pretenses (ie. lie) to start a war then it is illegal war. The evidence mounting seems to suggest that, along with questions being raised in said governments by others. Of course you may argue this, but then I guess for some lying to start a war is ok, but lying to get your rocks off isn't.

Of course it was an illegal war the moment the US told the UN to go fuk itself IMHO.

Originally posted by Hobbes

Of course it was an illegal war the moment the US told the UN to go fuk itself IMHO.

I'm sure it would have to be declared as such first by the body vested in such matters , the UNSC.
Therefore it's illegality is just an opinion not a fact , a widely held opinion but still only an opinion.

If the US/UK government used false pretenses (ie. lie) to start a war then it is illegal war.

The same would apply to that statement, from my understanding.
The powers that be, set up the network that looks after these matters in such a way that 5 countries ultimately have to agree whether a war is illegal in the way that you have said it is.
And in this case as two of those countries were involved in the war , a declaration of illegality via a unsc resolution was /is impossible.

mm

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by Hobart

So by your analagy everything is a lie?:)

everything...good god no...thats just silly....but anything could be, given the right circumstance and information

Hobbes

Originally posted by Man
a declaration of illegality via a unsc resolution was /is impossible.

mm

Indeed. But how about within thier own countries. They can impeach a president for getting his meat and two veg serviced, I don't see how lying about a war can't.

Hmm, unless you I don't know implemented a law to stop people investigating your actions, ever (oh wait he already did).

Havelock

Oh come on, its an illegal war (thought that begs the question, what is a leagl war?).

Bush and Blairs' administrations lied, where caught lying, still lied, told the UN where it could go f**k itself, because America is America and doesn't need anybody else (that is of course it realises it will cost more than estimated to get the oil out, so in the mean time we'll get help from the UN on that and plan an invasion of Iran, because they have infrastructure and if that doesn't work there is always Saudi. But I degres), goes in, kills loads of people, than declares peace and losses more men in peace time (only in America) than during the war, also kills loads of "friendlies" with "friendly fire".

All this comes under attack by a respected government figure who is silenced by Rice's people (which they would not have done, unless ordered to) when they leak to a journalist that the Ambassor's wife once worked for the CIA.

Now in an administration, that
A) Rigged an Election
Makes Orwellian futures look attractive and
C) is controlled by ruthless power hungry people,

Are you really going to tell me their is no chance the "Authority" took upon them selves to protect them selves in this fashion. And its not only in America, if it where not for the Doctors death, Blair would be out. Think about it, Blair is a meglomanic, he couldn't afford to take such a risk (off topic: How much money did the royal family owe Di?).

If you believe that your government doesn't lie and cheat, or that some of your politicans are not corrupt and mad, at least be sensible enought to believe that it may be possible that they are?

Originally posted by Hobbes
Indeed. But how about within thier own countries. They can impeach a president for getting his meat and two veg serviced, I don't see how lying about a war can't.

The problem with that is (and it applies equally to Blair and to Bush) the fact that one has to show their basis was deliberately false at the time of going to war.
One would have to show that they lied rather than just depend on inteligence which with the benefit of hindsight was less than adequate as a reasoning for the war.

My own opinion for what it's worth on the situation as it stands now, is that regardless of whether he had the weapons or not, he certainly won't have them now.
And secondly while the neo cons were in the driving seat with this war, it has largely been a difficult and painfull journey , and one that has made it less of a prospect that it would be repeated.

The ultimate disaster for the planners of the events of the last year or so, would be their influence being swept out of office in the states and that is looking increasingly likely.

mm

bonkey

Right...

having started out on rocky terrain due to Hobbes choice of wording, and having progressed through people breaking the rules to complain in-thread that the thread is breaking the rules, and the associated punch-and-judy of both sides having to make their point about this, and now progressed nicely to being off-topic and degenerating into yet another "it was an illegal war / oh not it wasnt / oh yes it was" thread.....

I see no merit in leaving this thread open....

But, I'm going to do so, because regardless of how Hobbes worded the first post, it is an interesting and current topic (if slightly "Consipiracy Theory"-esque).

If it gets back on track, it will be left open. Otherwise, it will be closed.

If people persist in posting their grievances with others and/or the moderating, they will pick up an immediate one-week ban. I don't care who you are, or what your grievance is, whether you're berating someone, or responding to that beratement with one of your own.

The mods have noticed this growing trend both in people assuming they have the right to tell other people what to do with regards to acceptable content, and a coincident increase in "fight teh powah" posts from people who don't like being told what the rules are when the mods do step in.

The people doing this have clearly either forgotten the rules, or never read them in the first place, and to be quite honest, we're fed up to the back teeth of putting up with it.

Its time to put a stop to it, and this thread is right where I'm starting.

jc

Hobart

Good man for the above.


Now to address the issues here:

Originally posted by Hobbes
Sure, from the Sky News showing the proceedings of tribunal, of how such a well balanced person who showed no signs that point to someone who is about to commit suicide does so. Or the lying about his mental state by certain people at the tribunal.


You did watch it right? Or do you want me to dig out links to it?

Yes. I watched some of the reconstruction that they did, but not all. So by all means post a link to the content you seem to believe shows that it was not a suicide.

Originally posted by Hobbes
Who's to know if he commited suicide or not, but it's a bit bloody nice of him to do so at a time when his actions were showing what was going on and if anything it was more profitable for him to stay alive.

He is not the only man saying that this "war" was unjustified. Are we in for a mass killing in the UK? Anybody who disagrees with the Labour Party Policies is a marked man/woman?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Hobbes
If the US/UK government used false pretenses (ie. lie) to start a war then it is illegal war.

By what contention? Or are you just flaming??

Originally posted by Hobbes
The evidence mounting seems to suggest that,

What evidence?

Originally posted by Hobbes
Of course it was an illegal war the moment the US told the UN to go fuk itself IMHO.

Yes indeed. Your Opinion.

Hobart

Seems like the White House was not just to blame for exposing Ms. Plame as a CIA opp. They aslo exposed her CIA fronting company, from front page of Ireland.com, I have'nt got a sub to Ireland.com so I can't give the full txt, but I have read the print edition and it makes for very interesting reading.


BTW Hobbes. Still waiting on those links you offered me.