Librarians turned snitch?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Source

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop “chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.” SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

Put down your weapon and grab your tool, soldier. It's party time!

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Put down your weapon and grab your tool, soldier. It's party time!

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay.

Well, hopefully only the cute enemies...

[Not Afraid]

I might have to turn in my Hag Card if this is true.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Well, hopefully only the cute enemies...

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.

Oh, nothing a little shaving cream and a full body manicure wouldn't fix.

NA- They can take away my card, but the secret handshake? Never!!!!

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Have you seen the members of Al Qaeda? Think you're out of luck.

Oded Fehr plays a terrorist on Showtime.
'Wouldn't kick him out of bed.


I don't think I'd get into a serious relationship with a gay terrorist. I hear they have explosive personalities...

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Oded Fehr plays a terrorist on Showtime.
'Wouldn't kick him out of bed.

Hollywood, shmolleywood. You ever seen a street with as many hot women as Wisteria Lane?????

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I don't think I'd get into a serious relationship with a gay terrorist. I hear they have explosive personalities...

I hear Bin Laden has a hard time recruiting gays. Something about 72 female virgins not being any gay man's idea of paradise.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

I hear Bin Laden has a hard time recruiting gays. Something about 72 female virgins not being any gay man's idea of paradise.

Plus, it's hard to find a belt packed with explosives that's also fashionable.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Pelosi and Reid have both given statements that they were, in fact, briefed on the program. Apparently, they weren't concerned about any legal violations or civil rights violations until the story hit in the NYT.

I'm probably late to the game, but I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of their responses. It's quite possible these statements hit after your post.

Originally Posted by Harry Reid

The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that "leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

We need to investigate this program and the President's legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.

Originally Posted by Nancy Pelosi

We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President's statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful.

I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.

And just for grins, Here's Daschle (remember him?)

Originally Posted by Tom Daschle

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.

Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.

To other matters...

Originally Posted by Name

I have a hard time believing a former spy(Mr. Frost) would go into such depths on what would be highly classified information on a national news program and not be in Fort Levenworth. He would have to get a lot of clearances from the many organizations to be able to appear and disclose such things, and they would only be disclosed by the approval of the organizations. I can't imagine they would approve of him disclosing those things. Once you are no longer a spy, your responsibility for safeguarding classified information does not stop. Sounds a lot like a smokescreen and scare tactics to me.

Bless you, my son