But he is not innocent of neglect of duty. He has been hired by the people of America to lead the country. And the fact that he has delegated every aspect of his job to others reflects on his incompetence. He has the duty to lead. In fact, his opinion on the issues (does he really have one) doesn't matter one bit. His administration wouldn't listen to him. He's a buffoon and a figurehead. He's a sllightly different kind of figurehead than we're used to. He's not there to make his administration or his country look good. Hardly could he do that. He's there to confuse. In the absense of his own responsibility, we are confused about who we have to blame. Who is actually making the decisions?
That's a really interesting way to think about it. I hadn't really considered it that way, but it really seems right on.
Clearly, his whole problem with talking thing is considered an asset for similar reasons. It brings in confusion in another way because you never know if he means what he says. But what you're pointing out is much more insightful.
Couple that with the Brit Hume interview where he said "he just reads the headlines" other people feed him his information. I understand as president you can get all the info yourself, but this loafer thinks that not only delagation of duty is proper but this spoiled brat thinks that delagation of thinking is a virtue!
As helen thomas was quoted as saying... "Dumbest president ever..."
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.
Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.
*throws hands up in the air*
We're in, what, Day 3 of the scandal so far? Imagine when the ball really starts to roll. Nine pages of chatter just on the motivations of bush leakers and the background of the scandal is pretty good.
Did you check out the number of views this thread has? A whole bunch. Guess there are a lot of "dogs chasing tails" us, dozens of blogs, the washington post, ny times, EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, CIA, CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE, The WORLD...
John W. Dean essentially says sue the bastards (Salon). He brings up a great point about how important the civil suit in Watergate was.
Quote:
Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation. In the case of the DNC's civil suit, Judge Charles Richey, a good Republican, handled it in a manner that was remarkably helpful to the Nixon reelection effort. But any judge getting a lawsuit from Wilson and Plame today would be watched a lot more carefully.
...and much more in the article. very interesting! I hope the Wilsons do it.
And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below
should I run and hide because I know what I'm talking about and you don't like me? I think my life will go on just fine.. thanks though for your entertaining ignorance. It amazes me how upset you got when I posted the law on here first... and gave an accurate analysis of it. It's as though you just can't stand to have someone that's not you be right...
What can i say that was not said before in the wonderful posts above?
Oh I got one,
How do you know CIA agent lives weren't put in danger?
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Use common sense.
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Use common sense.
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
Although your point is well made, it's irrelevant. The only real issue here is that a law was potentially broken. If the law was broken, the individual who did so should be prosecuted.
It is true that what you say was probably on the minds of those who wrote the law, and that may be why they wrote it. Additionally, it might get us worked up, but it's really not the issue. The issue is the law. Not the CIA, not the politics of it.
Quote:
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
Exactly....
(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Here's some great answers:
Quote:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.
Quote:
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
You said:
Quote:
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
Did a Senior Admin Official call at least 6 reporters and tell them that there was a UFO at a base just outside Las Vegas?
Did karl rove call the wife of the UFO pilot "Fair Game"?
What's more real? A UFO or a guy coming back from Niger and then disupting what the president and the vice president claimed as a pretext to war?
You said:
Quote:
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
Yes. Without a doubt.
Quote:
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
Not even worth responding to. No wait i'll let shawnJ respond again:
Quote:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
Try switching channels to a news network instead of a baseball game. You might learn something like the phrase "she's fair game" and the exact number of reporters that a Senior Admin. Official blew the cover of a CIA operative to..
(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.
Thank you for giving me editorial license. Makes the conversations flow more smoothly....
So, be it Bush, Clinton or Rove, I'm in favor of treason charges. Anyone else?
As pressure built on his aides, Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists, which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists.
"I'm against leaks," Bush said, to laughter. "I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information." Turning to the reporter who asked the question, Martin Mbugua of the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest daily newspaper, Bush said, "By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?"
I'm glad he can joke with reporters. I don't want a stuck-up, stuffy tight-ass as president. But this is obscene. It's not a joking matter, but he apparently doesn't understand the importance of a free press.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
But he is not innocent of neglect of duty. He has been hired by the people of America to lead the country. And the fact that he has delegated every aspect of his job to others reflects on his incompetence. He has the duty to lead. In fact, his opinion on the issues (does he really have one) doesn't matter one bit. His administration wouldn't listen to him. He's a buffoon and a figurehead. He's a sllightly different kind of figurehead than we're used to. He's not there to make his administration or his country look good. Hardly could he do that. He's there to confuse. In the absense of his own responsibility, we are confused about who we have to blame. Who is actually making the decisions?
That's a really interesting way to think about it. I hadn't really considered it that way, but it really seems right on.
Clearly, his whole problem with talking thing is considered an asset for similar reasons. It brings in confusion in another way because you never know if he means what he says. But what you're pointing out is much more insightful.
As helen thomas was quoted as saying... "Dumbest president ever..."
Originally posted by giant
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.
Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.
*throws hands up in the air*
We're in, what, Day 3 of the scandal so far? Imagine when the ball really starts to roll. Nine pages of chatter just on the motivations of bush leakers and the background of the scandal is pretty good.
Did you check out the number of views this thread has? A whole bunch. Guess there are a lot of "dogs chasing tails" us, dozens of blogs, the washington post, ny times, EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, CIA, CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE, The WORLD...
Originally posted by Harald
In your own words, why is outing an agent of the CIA a felony?
Did I say that?
Apologies if I did. Working for CIA isn't like being a Supreme Court Justice, and shouldn't be.
I think a President "firing" a Supreme Court Justice would be a felony, but fortunately politics hasn't degraded to that point yet.
Originally posted by giant
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two?
I dunno, but I think it gives me heartburn.
John W. Dean essentially says sue the bastards (Salon). He brings up a great point about how important the civil suit in Watergate was.
Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation. In the case of the DNC's civil suit, Judge Charles Richey, a good Republican, handled it in a manner that was remarkably helpful to the Nixon reelection effort. But any judge getting a lawsuit from Wilson and Plame today would be watched a lot more carefully.
...and much more in the article. very interesting! I hope the Wilsons do it.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
someone asked for this:
A case to prosecute would require the following elements...
Thank you very much.
Aries 1B
aka: "Someone"
You still have the nerve to post here?
And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below
should I run and hide because I know what I'm talking about and you don't like me? I think my life will go on just fine.. thanks though for your entertaining ignorance. It amazes me how upset you got when I posted the law on here first... and gave an accurate analysis of it. It's as though you just can't stand to have someone that's not you be right...
so sad for you.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Oh James...
What can i say that was not said before in the wonderful posts above?
Oh I got one,
How do you know CIA agent lives weren't put in danger?
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Use common sense.
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Use common sense.
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
Although your point is well made, it's irrelevant. The only real issue here is that a law was potentially broken. If the law was broken, the individual who did so should be prosecuted.
It is true that what you say was probably on the minds of those who wrote the law, and that may be why they wrote it. Additionally, it might get us worked up, but it's really not the issue. The issue is the law. Not the CIA, not the politics of it.
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
Exactly....
(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.
If you want to do rhetorical questions:
I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.
Here's some great answers:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
You said:
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.
Did a Senior Admin Official call at least 6 reporters and tell them that there was a UFO at a base just outside Las Vegas?
Did karl rove call the wife of the UFO pilot "Fair Game"?
What's more real? A UFO or a guy coming back from Niger and then disupting what the president and the vice president claimed as a pretext to war?
You said:
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?
Yes. Without a doubt.
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
Not even worth responding to. No wait i'll let shawnJ respond again:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.
Try switching channels to a news network instead of a baseball game. You might learn something like the phrase "she's fair game" and the exact number of reporters that a Senior Admin. Official blew the cover of a CIA operative to..
http://nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03KRUG.html
I red heart Paul Krugman...
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Exactly....
(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.
Thank you for giving me editorial license. Makes the conversations flow more smoothly....
So, be it Bush, Clinton or Rove, I'm in favor of treason charges. Anyone else?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...003Oct2_2.html
From the Washinton Post:
As pressure built on his aides, Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists, which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists.
"I'm against leaks," Bush said, to laughter. "I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information." Turning to the reporter who asked the question, Martin Mbugua of the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest daily newspaper, Bush said, "By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?"
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Oh Jeebus H Christmas, This is getting obscene...
I'm glad he can joke with reporters. I don't want a stuck-up, stuffy tight-ass as president. But this is obscene. It's not a joking matter, but he apparently doesn't understand the importance of a free press.