Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
I haven't seen one article that mentions that Armitage told Cheney what he did...I've seen no article that mentions Cheney knew of Armitage's admission even though it was mentioned in the very begining of the non-public testimony to Fitzgerald...HE knew the scoop more than Cheney...and I don't think he told anyone in the administration...
|
In the military, we had a fairly strict standard of the Captain of the ship being responsible for what happened underneath him.
If the sonar-man screws up and fails to report a contact that the Officer of the Deck doesn't notice, and a collision takes place, the Captain is responsible.
He qualified the OOD.
He qualifies the superiors of the sonar watch.
He is responsible.
Cheney? Bush?
Not so much so when the people under them break the law.
No visible concern over being lied to either...
Ignorance is not an excuse.
Not for something this agregious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
here's the general public myth that you continue to believe...That the leaking was intentional and with evil purpose...
Your secretary may be involved with leaking information, but she was not involved in MALICIOUSLY leaking information...According to the law, that's the difference between night and day...
|
Can you QUOTE THE LAW which makes such a distinction in outing a CIA operative?
Please.
Let's not make up crap as we go along...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
If it was found that your secretary did leak information but had no idea she was doing so and later publicly stated that she felt like a fool for doing so, you wouldn't prosecute the way you would if it was found out she had done so to undermine your company...
|
Wrong.
Prosecution works off of guilt or innocence.
The secretary would be guilty either way.
Factors like "motive" go to the issue of SENTENCING.
Or in Bush's case, you just waive the entire sentence when such gross negligence is demonstrated.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
I also need to point out that Armitage LEFT the Administration before it was found out what happened...If he was still there, Bush may or may not have done something, but since he went into non-governmental service, it's kinda tough to throw him out of a position he already left...
|
I would have hoped that "you're fired" would be something taken as read, if that had been the scenario instead of what actually played out.
I would have hoped that what prison sentence is appropriate would be the necessary issue at hand.
That, and the concern over what type of situation was in place to allow such gross misconduct to occur in the first place.
If this type of crap had occurred in the civilian sector, the government would be looking into how to crawl further up the civilian's lives to violate our privacy in order to make sure it doesn't happen again.
But in the Bush administration house-hold, it's a "whoops!" and business as usual.
You ever stop to think about that discrepancy?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
There's no such thing as this expanding powers crap...It's a myth...get it out of your head...
|
Nothing like denial to refute the facts.
Do you need me to quote all sorts of crap to refute you sticking your head in the sand?
Or would you just dig your head in deeper?
USATODAY.com - Congress, courts push back against Bush's assertions of presidential power
The Founders Never Imagined a Bush Administration
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Vice President Cheney and The Fight Over "Inherent" Presidential Powers His Attempt to Swing the Pendulum Back Began Long Before 9/11
Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
|
You have got to be s####ing me.
A simple "Excuse me boys and girls, but I have some business to attend to..." and you excuse yourself quietly from the room.
He spent SEVEN MINUTES in that classroom because he didn't want to scare some kids?
Give me a freakin' break.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Tinfoil have a sale this week?... |
Hardly "tinfoil" at all.
All I am saying is that Bush has shown multiple examples of absurd ineptitude.
If you want to throw the "tinfoil" line out there to ignore that, that's your choice...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
And who was indicted for it?...oh yeah...NO ONE...
|
As another poster pointed out, Bush took a hard-line on that issue.
Looks like he failed at that too, eh?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
Number of people indicted for leaking the name of a CIA agent=0
Anything after that ain't facts...just speculation and wishful thinking...
|
At the very root of this, do you get what the hell you think you're saying?
It's like saying "I know I've got a murder victim with a knife stabbing through the back, but we've got no conviction so no crime was committed..."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cnredd
If you hate Bush for 45 reasons, go right ahead...
|
I swear.
People hating Bush is not a viable defense against Bush's incompetence.
When kids are sometimes punished for things they did wrong, a complaint can be heard when the child whines that they are being punished because the parent hates them.
Most people outgrow that tactic.
If I hated Bush, that wouldn't somehow make Bush's faults disappear.
On the flip side, I think some people's love of Bush forgives a lot of shortcomings...
How about when I point out what Bush has done wrong, or his shortcomings, you put up something a little more substantial than "you hate bush!"?