Bush 'involved' in CIA leak case - Page 2

cnredd · #11 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I didn't see what commentary was needed.
When the article says that Bush didn't lie, do I need to parrot that so people won't assume I believe he was lying?

I'd think you had SOME thoughts on the issue...considering you made it a thread...

Did you want the article to do your speaking for you?...

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

But now that I have stated my position, and you still haven't commented on it, allow me to repeat...

I did comment...I pointed out McClellan never said that Bush lied...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Bush was clueless as to what people were doing underneath him.

Are you asking for omniscience for our presidents now?...Do CEOs know what every employee does?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

He either didn't ask, which I qualify as incompetent, or he did ask and they lied to him, and then he provided no penalty, which I also qualify as incompetent.

Of course you would...

When somebody tells the president something, he can just look into his crystal ball, handed down from president to president, to learn the truth...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

It boils down quite simply.
Either Bush knew what he was having repeated was inaccurate => lie. (I don't believe this option)
Or Bush did not know that what he was repeating was inaccurate. And considering the corruption was within his own house, that's pretty damn scary.

Considering the PRECONCEIVED notion of corruption created for partisan purposes, I could see how it's so easy for you to believe that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

So while Bush may have not lied, the alternative is hardly flattering...

Do you even understand why presidents have cabinet members and other personell?...

team_barlo · #12 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 09:56 AM

Okay--what about the fact that there was no penalty for the blabbermouth as was promised? This issue has been addressed by foundit but not you redd.

cnredd · #13 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by team_barlo

Okay--what about the fact that there was no penalty for the blabbermouth as was promised? This issue has been addressed by foundit but not you redd.

Simple...

The people who just hate Bush interpret his statement of involvement as "involvement even if they didn't do anything wrong"...

Which is nearsighted and done on purpose...

As AG Fitzgerald found out, there was NO malicious behavior on anyone's part...In fact, the person who actually DID leak the name (Armitage) did so without recognizing what he did...

Quote:

The man who revealed that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA said that he was "extraordinarily foolish" to leak her name.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview broadcast Sunday that he did not realize Plame was a covert agent when he discussed her with syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Novak, a former CNN contributor, wrote the July 2003 column in which Plame was named as a CIA employee. He later cited his sources as Armitage and Karl Rove, then President Bush's top political adviser.

Armitage said he had seen a memo that said Plame was publicly chairing a meeting, so he assumed her CIA employment was not a secret.

"There was no ill intent on my part, and I had never seen, ever in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo,"

These two sentences tell the WHOLE story...

Quote:

Neither Armitage nor Rove was charged with a crime in the leak.

Wilson and Plame have accused Rove and other Bush officials of leaking her identity as a CIA officer in retaliation for her husband's emergence as an administration critic.

The second sentence is obviously false due to NOT ONE PERSON being indicted for leaking...

But Bush-haters continue to believe the second sentence with absolutely nothing to fall back on...

The funny thing is is that, for as many people who consider waterboarding torture, I think that if the next president ordered Bush, Cheney, and Rove to be waterboarded, those same people would be clapping and crying tears of joy...

independent_thinker2002 · #14 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

The funny thing is is that, for as many people who consider waterboarding torture, I think that if the next president ordered Bush, Cheney, and Rove to be waterboarded, those same people would be clapping and crying tears of joy...

I don't think the next president should do it. I think they should volunteer to demonstrate it to the country. It's not torture right?

cnredd · #15 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I don't think the next president should do it. I think they should volunteer to demonstrate it to the country. It's not torture right?

In extreme instances when a TOP-ESCHELON Al Qaida member we know was involved in meetings and strategies is captured and refuses to give information by other techniques, no...

independent_thinker2002 · #16 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

In extreme instances when a TOP-ESCHELON Al Qaida member we know was involved in meetings and strategies is captured and refuses to give information by other techniques, no...

Bush insists that we don't torture. Why doesn't he demostrate it for the country? If it isn't torture then why would we use it only in extreme circumstances?

cnredd · #17 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Bush insists that we don't torture. Why doesn't he demostrate it for the country? If it isn't torture then why would we use it only in extreme circumstances?

We also use it in training exercises...

independent_thinker2002 · #18 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

We also use it in training exercises...

You didn't answer my questions.

In training exercises they know that they aren't going to die.

cnredd · #19 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

You didn't answer my questions.

In training exercises they know that they aren't going to die.

Since when does torture involve whether or not one knows if they're going to die or not?...

:

independent_thinker2002 · #20 (**permalink**) 11-24-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Since when does torture involve whether or not one knows if they're going to die or not?...

:

You still haven't answered my question.

It doesn't. This form of torture does though. That's how it works.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/news-current-events/580-bush-involved-cia-leak-case.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	11-23-2007 03:24 PM