So my question is this: Did he actually leak? Or did he cut through a bunch of redtape and declassify a document so that it could get out to the media and other opponents to justify or damn the war in Iraq?

Along the lines of PJ thoughts.... who cares which of the two it was. The Bush-haters would want to cruxify him anyway, irrespective of the judicial angle on this.

An update of the situation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5326130.stm

Not sure how reliable this source is. I was bored and just hit news on the google website. This was the first link for news to pop up on the right hand side.

There are alot of related articles on this site so feel free to re-open discussion.

That's good, but the story is pretty much dead now.

Originally Posted by Team Infidel

That's good, but the story is pretty much dead now.

It was Richard Armitage who leaked it. And I wonder what dems have to say about it...

They should apologize to public for accusing Bush of what he didnt do.

Originally Posted by Team Infidel

That's good, but the story is pretty much dead now.

That is pretty much the point I was making.

A new light gets shed on the topic and the media will hardly touch it. It seems to me they are - as always - only interested in the negative aspects of the reign of the current POTUS and Co.

No one wants to admit they may have been wrong or correct themselves.

Go figure. . . no moral integrity, but we already knew that didn't we?

C'mon
Where is the moral integrity in invading a country that has NOT attacked you and where every justification defense has been disproved.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

C'mon
Where is the moral integrity in invading a country that has NOT attacked you and where every justification defense has been disproved.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Give it a rest will you?

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

C'mon
Where is the moral integrity in invading a country that has NOT attacked you and where every justification defense has been disproved.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Speaking of the media more than anyone else. We all know how they like to bring to light any and all negative aspects of those in power. I don't recall talking about the war or any aspect other than the information about the agent being leaked.

I guess their take on it is it is better to point the finger with the rest of the world rather than maintain an objective and impartial view. So now that the spotlight on this topic is off the top dogs the media is no longer too interested in it.

TI:

Why give it a rest? It is a valid topic.

Ok, ok, ok, I admit it I was the third gunman on the grassy knoll and was the spotter for Lee Harvey and for the past few years I have been leaking, leaking in the street, in the john and pretty much anywhere the spirit moves me. I am... The Leaker... !!! And this is my sidekick, Drippy. Beware the yellow stain of revenge.

Originally Posted by Team Infidel

Give it a rest will you?

TI
Why should I give it a rest?

This was the most recent news (sorry couldn't remember #2 AlQaeda's name) 9-12-06:

From the Senate Intelligence Committee, comes the latest report about the connection (or lack of connection) of AlQaeda with Saddam Hussein and his government prior to the invasion of Iraq. It seems that the connection of AlQaeda’s number two man and Saddam was misrepresented (or) incorrect. When #2 was wounded, he entered a hospital sponsored by Saddam’s son (Uday?), under an assumed name and before Saddam, his intelligence agency (or) his son was able to identify him, he received his treatment and then fled into Northern Iraq … an area NOT then under Saddam’s iron control.

As has been demonstrated by this report, Saddam had absolutely no direct connection with AlQaeda … as a matter of fact … this report seems to imply that Saddam actually set out to arrest #2 but missed catching him by just a matter of hours. It seems that Saddam didn’t have any more use for the AlQaeda than we did.

This latest report is just another finding that GW and his administration were 100% wrong when they said that Saddam was a danger because of his ties to AlQaeda.

This seems to dispose of yet another one of the justifications used by GW to excuse his invasion of a country that was NOT guilty of attacking us.