Are you more concerned with a TOP-ESCHELON Al Qaida leader's sensativities than gaining the information of their infrastructure which will ultimately save lives?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I honestly didn't know what else needed to be said.
Evidently, in the future I should concentrate on saying a bunch of things to repeat what the article explicitly refuted, so that others won't blindly assume that I have an opinion that the article explicitly refuted.
Does that about cover it? :


An allegation nobody even made...
And the article directly refuted.

Just out of curiousity, is it possible to derive any conclusion about what DID happen instead of fixating comments on what has been explicitly acknowledged as something that did not happen?


These guys aren't "any employee".
These are the people who typically have DAILY DIRECT CONTACT with the president and vice-president.
People who DIRECTLY ADVISE the president and vice-president.

Not omniscience, but if I found out that my secretary was involved in leaking secret company information, I'd be pretty pissed.
I would seek prosecution.
Not do my best to see that the pereson involved receives no real punishment.


For somebody who has no problem with the president's ever expanding power, you sure like to pretend he's powerless...

I have no doubt that somebody can get the wool pulled over their eyes.
But this IS NOT THE FIRST indication of Bush being incompetent and clueless.
"You're doing a heck of a job Brownie..."
Sitting in a classroom for several minutes after he was told the country was UNDER ATTACK...

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's an incompetent president.


I'm sorry, but do you get that outing a CIA agent is a crime in this nation?
This has nothing to do with "partisan", except on the parts of some who feel it is easy to deflect the FACTS of the situation with incessant attempts to try to obfuscate the issue.

Valid criticism is made of Bush and his administration?
Why REFUTE the fact that it is valid criticism (which you don't really deny) when you can just complain that the other person is "partisan".
Or maybe they "hate Bush".

The topic is thoroughly avoided, and instead you've attacked the person pointing it out in a "passive aggressive" stance...

Does that mean that when the al Qaeda member says "stop", like a "training exercise" participant can do, that the torture actually stops?

The funny thing is that people like you can't argue that it isn't really "torture".
Cause it is.
It has been explicitly acknowledged as "torture".

And America just ignores the rules...
Cause the bad guys are doing it, so can we.
Cause we Americans are just that scared, we can torture people and not have a problem with it...

Are you go to answer my question? Instead of asking me more questions while you dance.

__________________
Wine is fine, but whisky's quicker....--Ozzy

As I stated, I've read throughout the week one angle on the story..."Bush lied; Bush lied; Bush lied"...

Then you throw out an article on the same subject...

What was I to think?...mea culpa...

I admitted a defensive reaction...Will 3 Hail Marys help for my confession?...

Bush left that up to DA Fitzgerald to decide...I would think he would work off off those conclusions instead of the media outside with pitchforks...

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...

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...

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...

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...

There's no such thing as this expanding powers crap...It's a myth...get it out of your head...

the first one; agreed...

The second one...I'll let the principal of the school explain it to you...

Tinfoil have a sale this week?...

And who was indicted for it?...oh yeah...NO ONE...

Okay...Let's try again...

Fact -

Number of people indicted for leaking the name of a CIA agent=0

Anything after that ain't facts...just speculation and wishful thinking...

If you hate Bush for 45 reasons, go right ahead...

But DON'T make up an extra 45 to get people to hate him as much as you do...

That must be it...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

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.


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...


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.


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?


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


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.


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...


As another poster pointed out, Bush took a hard-line on that issue.
Looks like he failed at that too, eh?


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..."


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!"?

I'm just going to go to the heart of the matter...Responding to 423 split-up comments is too tedious and an attempt to confuscate...

An accusation of me making up crap...

I expect the next post to say..."You were right cnredd...I was wrong."...

Here's the whole thing courtesy of Cornell Law's webpage...

Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

It's pretty cut and dry, really...

As I've stated on another forum, it's like going up to a guy you know at a bar who's holding hands with a redhead and saying "What happened with that blonde you were here with last week?"...You didn't know the guy told the redhead he dumped that blonde two months ago but was sill seeing her on the side...You now watch a drink get thrown at the guy and a slap across the face from her...

Are you a moron for opening your yap?...Yup...

Did you maliciously do so?...Nope...

The guy you know can fault you for being a moron and breaking the "man code", but he can't blame you for intentionally trying to cause a rift...

And that's what's been decided for Armitage...

Case closed...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Scooter Libby, who's sentence he commuted?


ROFLMAO!!!

Yeah, so much for "The Buck Stops Here", right?

Well didn't we all kind of know it had to have come from the executive branch the minute fingers started pointing at the vice president's office?
I mean, the vice president does not make policy. The president does. The vice prez doesn't have the ultimate responsibility to protect leakage and underhanded
tactics. The prez does.
But, I have the same kind of gut feeling Bush will never answer for any of this.
Nixon wasn't an insider. He got creamed (with a coup involving many in his own party if you ask me).
Bush is an insider. Nothing will touch him unless he f's up with the wrong person.
Then he will be like Sad damned insane. Crawling in a hole somewhere. But that ain't going to happen either.
He can do it. He probably did do it. And he'll get away with it.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP