| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 05:24:17 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Has this rant gone cold? No response for nearly an hour?
OK I'll concentrate on the other rants to vent my spleen!!!
:))))
P |
Sorry, I have to head for work. |
What time is it with you? Or do you do night work?
Whatever the answer have a good time!
:)
P
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:08:38 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The people of San Francisco have no say over whether the Navy berths ships at Federal facilities there ... I have no idea what you're talking about there. I know that they're kinda P-O'd that the Navy has yet to clean up the now-closed (by Congress) Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard -- a toxic wasteland which has been affecting the health of neighbors for years. The redevelopment of the former Treasure Island base is proceeding with the usual political scandals, but lately there's emerged what sounds like a more viable plan.
There were about a half-million people at Crissy Field a few weeks ago to watch the Blue Angels fly and to visit the ships docked during the annual Fleet Week festivities.
As far as I know, the Navy and San Francisco get along fine as long as they're not trying to recruit schoolkids without the parents' explicit permission (an opt-in program, rather than the opt-out option favored by the Feds). |
[url=//www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3PH0G0.html ]//www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3PH0G0.html [/url]
[url=//blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/10/031848.php ]//blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/10/031848.php [/url]
[url=//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_el_ge/san_francisco_measures ]//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_el_ge/san_francisco_measures [/url]
[url=//news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051110/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsvotemilitary_051110044427 ]
//news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051110/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsvotemilitary_051110044427 [/url]
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:10:30 AM · #278 |
I can't seem to provide the actual links to the articles. Above are some articles relating to the mindset of a portion of San Franciscan's. They also reference their strong anti-war support and even Senator Diane Feinstein was taken aback at the level to which San Franciscan's would politicize the war in regards to the refusal of the retired ship.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 10:19:19.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 10:41:50 AM · #279 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I do not see any indication that the military are despised from the info I have read. The people were indicating their disillusionment with the govt. Also I do not see that this community would be any more a target than any other in the USA or anywhere else. Is a city without naval presence (like Kansas City) more likely to be attacked? I do not think that Leeds (our nearest city) is more at danger from "predators" than New York because our people are not armed.
As a parent I would be horrified if military recruiters were allowed to come into my childrens' schools to glorify life in the services. Young men in particular are easily swayed by uniforms, guns, "derring-do", and the thought of "being a man" and fighting for their country. They will not be told of the horrors of war, the facts about casualties, the hate many people in the invaded country feel against their invaders. It is not in the interests of recruiters to do so. I am not against the military as a career, my own son would have been in the RAF if colour-blindness had not put that direction out of the question, but a non-biased approach is needed with all the facts laid out before any young person before such life/death decisions are made, particularly when a country is at war.
To answr your final question, if this wonderful city of SF was a target, I would assume it would be dealt with in the way that all cities London, New York are dealing with the threat of terrorist action- but not necessarily by the army/navy. If the USA as a whole was atacked by another country then the military would respond as in any country but I don't think anyone will start a war with SF alone!
My thoughts. |
Appreciate your thoughts, however you did not answer the question of how safe you would feel in such a community. You replied with many points, but did not address the main point. That of living in a community as described. Regardless of whether SF is that community today, it is apparent that members of SF would like it to be. So, given that they would be successful, would you like to live there?
My positions were stated:
[My position on this issue comes from many years researching and studying predators. Thugs, street hoodlums, outlaw bikers, gangs, and just plain bully's. Add to this mix religious zealots on a "holy war" and the truism's are even more so. I do not recall ever seeing predators preying on the strongest. It is the weak, the infirm, the unprotected, and the unsuspecting. That is who gets choosen. Most every defensive tactics instructor around the world, teaches that awareness and preparation are the vital keys to avoiding and preventing becoming a victim.
Choosing to be vulnerable in the pressence of predators is not wise in my opinion.
However, you can make your own choices.]
"If the USA as a whole was atacked by another country then the military would respond".... What military would respond if there were no recruits to fill the ranks?
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 10:53:29.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:10:12 AM · #280 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What military ships are being banned in San Francisco that O'Reilly is referring to? Are these ships currently in active use or are they relics to be used as a museum? |
It appears that the ship was a retired vessel that Senator Diane Feinstein had secured 3 million dollars for. This was from last August and all I remembered (until I found this article), was the scuttlebutt regarding the anti-war San Franciscan's not wanting a ship(s). After finding the article, it appears as more of a political position than an actual removal of the current military, however the sentiment is the same and a group of activists have even their own leadership scratching their heads at the level to which they would go. I see no benefit garnered for San Francisco in this refusal. It simply strengthened outsiders opinions that SF truly is at odds with the rest of the country. They don't want military ships, they don't want recruitment, and they don't want personal defensive weapons. My guess is they would want the country to respond if they were in trouble. Or maybe they wouldn't.
[url=//www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3PH0G0.html ]//www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3PH0G0.html [/url]
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:18:54 AM · #281 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If the USA as a whole was atacked by another country then the military would respond.... What military would respond if there were no recruits to fill the ranks? |
************
I agree with you, Flash, we need our military here at home for defense. However, there does not seem to be any certainty as to whether or not the steps taken by San Franciscans are attempts to weaken their defenses. I would like to see more specifics on this.
O'Reilly's tirade against San Franciscans seems quite a bit disingenuous to me because I haven't heard him taking issue over the pending military base closings that the Pentagon is recommending, to the chagrin of many of our political leaders. The Pentagon is attempting to close 33 major military bases accross the United States, as well as, a total of 775 minor military base closures or realignments. This will include the loss of over 10,000 military personnel and thousands of civilian jobs as well. Many of these closures would reassign military personnel to overseas operations, and would leave citizens in the states very vulnerable. Why isn't O'Reilly railing his voice against this?
Truth is that the Bush administration has left us very vulnerable at home to either attack or natural disaster. FEMA has been gutted and nearly half of reservists and National Guard are overseas fighting a needless war. Along with the torture abuses we are dishing out, we are making many more enemies than we are capturing terrorists and this will stretch our defenses here at home to the limits. I want to hear O'Reilly speak out about this.
Also, San Franciscans, to my knowledge, have not stopped other military recruiting practices, just ones in schools.
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 11:19:59. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 11:36:36 AM · #282 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Appreciate your thoughts, however you did not answer the question of how safe you would feel in such a community. You replied with many points, but did not address the main point. That of living in a community as described. Regardless of whether SF is that community today, it is apparent that members of SF would like it to be. So, given that they would be successful, would you like to live there?
My positions were stated:
[My position on this issue comes from many years researching and studying predators. Thugs, street hoodlums, outlaw bikers, gangs, and just plain bully's. Add to this mix religious zealots on a "holy war" and the truism's are even more so. I do not recall ever seeing predators preying on the strongest. It is the weak, the infirm, the unprotected, and the unsuspecting. That is who gets choosen. Most every defensive tactics instructor around the world, teaches that awareness and preparation are the vital keys to avoiding and preventing becoming a victim.
Choosing to be vulnerable in the pressence of predators is not wise in my opinion.
However, you can make your own choices.]
"If the USA as a whole was atacked by another country then the military would respond".... What military would respond if there were no recruits to fill the ranks? |
You forget, I do live in a community that does not have personal weapons ( in fact owning a gun in the UK is illegal). We have our own thugs ect. and you cannot say we do not have the danger of terrorism. Indeed Leeds, where the British bombers came from, is my nearest city, 20 miles away. We have had decades of being bombed by the IRA, I have lived in London for 18 years which is now said to be more dangerous than NY. I am completely at ease in my community, relying on our police force and trusting them even if they aren't perfect by a long way.
I have been to SF and have said for a long time that it is the city in the USA that I would move to tomorrow if possible. It is cosmopolitan, cultured and one of the few cities I felt at home in. Probably because I was a stranger, I did not feel comfortable in LA, or Miami.
I did not say I was against military recruitment - indeed I am extremely grateful to the military for being there and defending our shores. What I am against are recruiters going into schools to recruit actively. OK if the youngsters go to them at a career day or into a recruitment office. If a young person is interested in joining up and seeks them out then fine. I don't mind them going into universities but schools are a different matter.
Hope this clarifies my opinions for you.
P
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 12:31:41 PM · #283 |
The REAL problem is that all this debate is over things that are not even TRUE.
Although the voters in San Francisco DID pass Propostion H, which bans the ownership of HANDguns, and the sale, and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition, they did NOT vote to ban the ownership of guns other than handguns OR to ban military recruiters from recruiting in schools.
Proposition I, is a SYMBOLIC measure that makes it city policy to oppose military recruiting in public schools, and develop programs to offer scholarships to training that would provide alternatives to military service.
By FEDERAL law, if a school accepts federal funding it can NOT forbid military recruiting. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:31:27 PM · #284 |
Although the voters in San Francisco DID pass Propostion H, which bans the ownership of HANDguns, and the sale, and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition, they did NOT vote to ban the ownership of guns other than handguns OR to ban military recruiters from recruiting in schools.
They would if they could
and that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 01:36:56 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
You forget, I do live in a community that does not have personal weapons ( in fact owning a gun in the UK is illegal). |
I did not forget. I knew full well your current residence. I did want you on the record as being in support of a dis-armed populace, one that rely's on the local police and the military for crime control and defense.
I do however truly appreciate your firm stand in support of your military. I also believe that the indebtedness owed through history, is long and deep.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:29:18 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
O'Reilly's tirade against San Franciscans seems quite a bit disingenuous to me because I haven't heard him taking issue over the pending military base closings that the Pentagon is recommending, to the chagrin of many of our political leaders. |
O'Reily has a knack of irritating just about everyone, including me. I much prefer Chris Matthews for my political commentary or Tim Russert. However, the accusation of O'Reily "calling" for the destruction of the Coit Tower, was overboard in my opinion. It was another example of an attempt (by the left) to paint a comment intended for one purpose, and transform it into a "fatwah" for which it never was. My illustrations of the mindset of San Franciscan's was an attempt to place into context the framework from whence O'Reily's comment came.
There is much that our news media could and should do in regards to accurately portraying balanced coverage. It does seem odd that O'Reily gets as many criticisms from the right as being too liberal as he does form the left for being too conservative. Sounds like an attempt to be balanced to me.
Although I have to turn the channel sometimes as his bodaciousness is just too much for me.
This thread started due to accusations of lying, and the charge against O'Reily seemed more of the same. Context is important. As President Clinton so elequently showed us.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:27:25 PM · #287 |
So now Bob Woodward of The Washington Post is involved. He was told by a senior administration official of Plames identity a month before the Novak article came out, and he's unwilling to reveal his source.
The plot thickens. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:31:10 PM · #288 |
AND he is the one who broke Watergate, so we already know that he is not beholding to Republicans. Wonder if he has the real facts that may actually exonerate Libby. Wouldn't that be a shocker!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:19:37 AM · #289 |
Sounds like a little obstruction of justice charge might be in order for Mr. Woodward.
And a slight clarification on the comment that "he's unwilling to reveal his source": It appears from that article that it was the source, i.e. the administration official, who told Fitzgerald about the conversation. From the above wording, it sounds like a Judith Miller scenario. But, in fact, the source already signed an agreement which freed Woodward to discuss the conversation with the SP. He just isn't free to discuss it publicly.
"Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony." |
|
|
|
11/24/2005 10:37:36 AM · #290 |
A few paragraphs from this article:
   Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
    The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.
...
The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.
Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.
...
    The Plame affair was not so much a reflection of any personal animus toward Wilson or Plame, says one former senior administration official who knows most of the principals involved, but rather the direct result of long-standing antipathy toward the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and others involved. They viewed Wilson's outspoken criticism of the Bush administration as an indirect attack by the spy agency.
    Those grievances were also perhaps illustrated by comments that Vice President Cheney himself wrote on one of Feith's reports detailing purported evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In barely legible handwriting, Cheney wrote in the margin of the report:
    "This is very good indeed â€Â¦ Encouraging â€Â¦ Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA." |
|
|
|
11/24/2005 11:02:23 AM · #291 |
I had read a similar article yesterday on either a CNN or MSNBC news site. It appears to indicate that initially (10 days after 9-11) there was no connection, however in the successive 2 years that followed, much more information was assessed and concensus was documented amongst many world intelligence agencies.
Regarding the Plame "outing", several commentators on Chris Matthew's "HardBall" (of which I am a fan), continue to present this as a simple "offhand" remark that has taken on a life of its own by the Democrats. This is coming on a program chaired by an ex hill staffer and speechwriter. Chris is not a secret Democrat, but a rather highly regarded "fairminded" commentator who staffed for a highly prominent Democrat (of whom I cannot remember his name now - "Tip" O'Neal I believe) during the Reagan administration. Chris's sources continue to state that this is political opportunism on the part of Democrats, but what would they/he know about politics?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 10:20:57 AM · #292 |
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 10:52:55 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
So what we have is a Reuters reporter, interpreting / reporting on a National Journal article that interprets / reports on statements made by "attorneys familiar with the matter" who interpret / report on the actual documents?
Such is all too typical of most attacks / charges against the Bush administration.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make our OWN determination based on actual documents instead of "rumor"????? |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 11:30:53 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
So what we have is a Reuters reporter, interpreting / reporting on a National Journal article that interprets / reports on statements made by "attorneys familiar with the matter" who interpret / report on the actual documents?
Such is all too typical of most attacks / charges against the Bush administration.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make our OWN determination based on actual documents instead of "rumor"????? |
*******
Yes, I see your point. Just like the Bush administration using a falsified Italian intelligence document as basis for their assertion that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. We must not make hasty judgements or decisions based on rumor. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 11:47:51 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
So what we have is a Reuters reporter, interpreting / reporting on a National Journal article that interprets / reports on statements made by "attorneys familiar with the matter" who interpret / report on the actual documents?
Such is all too typical of most attacks / charges against the Bush administration.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make our OWN determination based on actual documents instead of "rumor"????? |
*******
Yes, I see your point. Just like the Bush administration using a falsified Italian intelligence document as basis for their assertion that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. We must not make hasty judgements or decisions based on rumor. |
At least the Bush administration actually HAD the document they based their assertion on. On the other hand, it appears that neither Reuters, nor the National Journal actually HAD the document they based THEIR reporting on. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 11:49:38 AM · #296 |
And yet more evidence of the lyers from the left attack machine
Harry
Espicially the part where he received donations about the same time as he acted on behalf of "interests".
I clearly understand the zeal of the left to accuse this administration of any and all wrong (and I believe they are guilty of much), but just don't ask me to support your lying representatives who portray themselves as above the stench while wallowing knee deep in the filth.
I cannot support the scoundrels in your party, I have enough in my own.
But...they are my scoundrels, so discipline your own and leave mine to me.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:02:49 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
So what we have is a Reuters reporter, interpreting / reporting on a National Journal article that interprets / reports on statements made by "attorneys familiar with the matter" who interpret / report on the actual documents?
Such is all too typical of most attacks / charges against the Bush administration.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make our OWN determination based on actual documents instead of "rumor"????? |
*******
Yes, I see your point. Just like the Bush administration using a falsified Italian intelligence document as basis for their assertion that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. We must not make hasty judgements or decisions based on rumor. |
At least the Bush administration actually HAD the document they based their assertion on. On the other hand, it appears that neither Reuters, nor the National Journal actually HAD the document they based THEIR reporting on. |
*****
Yes, which begs the question: when did they know it was false. At best, it would show an inept administration, unable to discern their ass from their elbow. At worst, a criminal administration hell bent on going to war and using any means, including deceiving the American public, into believing of its necessity. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:13:03 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The Libby defense: Cheney made me do it.
"Cheney authorized aid to leak in CIA case - report
"Vice President Dick Cheney directed his aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to use classified material to discredit a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort, the National Journal reported on Thursday.
"Court papers released last week show that Libby was authorized to disclose classified information to news reporters by "his superiors," in an effort to counteract diplomat Joe Wilson's charge that the Bush administration twisted intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons to justify the 2003 invasion.
"The National Journal, a U.S. weekly magazine, citing attorneys familiar with the matter, reported that Cheney was among those superiors referred to in a letter from prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers."
From Reuters reporting on an article in the National Journal. |
So what we have is a Reuters reporter, interpreting / reporting on a National Journal article that interprets / reports on statements made by "attorneys familiar with the matter" who interpret / report on the actual documents?
Such is all too typical of most attacks / charges against the Bush administration.
Perhaps sometime in the future we will be able to make our OWN determination based on actual documents instead of "rumor"????? |
*******
Yes, I see your point. Just like the Bush administration using a falsified Italian intelligence document as basis for their assertion that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. We must not make hasty judgements or decisions based on rumor. |
At least the Bush administration actually HAD the document they based their assertion on. On the other hand, it appears that neither Reuters, nor the National Journal actually HAD the document they based THEIR reporting on. |
*****
Yes, which begs the question: when did they know it was false. At best, it would show an inept administration, unable to discern their ass from their elbow. At worst, a criminal administration hell bent on going to war and using any means, including deceiving the American public, into believing of its necessity. |
At least you hold the administration accountable, and rightly so. Not so, it would appear, Reuters or the National Journal - leading me to ask, "Why not"? Or does accountablilty depend on political affiliation? |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:16:48 PM · #299 |
J. Wilson and wife Plame are nothing more than two Liberal hacks. She was not undercover and everyone who has researched this topic thoroughly knows this. The press's inner circle knew well about Valerie and her desk job.
It all depends on your political standing. If you are liberal then you eat into the lies. Read with caution because Wilson is a confirmed liar and the media loved this story because it had threatened to reach the top, now it may involve the very press that brought it to light.
There is more due on this because Valerie was too popular and all that Novak did was bring her name to the masses. Most inside reporters knew about Valerie. The implication here is that many persons are subject to exposure once a trial gets moving. It is highly feared because many press members will be implicated.
I would like to see this thread a year from now.
Notice the big deal the media made about this leak, yet when national security leaks takes place, they call it a witch hunt. Amazing to observe the patterns of the true believers.
This story has been analysed to death and all the facts and lies are before your eyes. Also notice that the prosecutor did not and could not indict anybody for the main charge of exposing an agent, rather for supposed lies. Yet, all of the facts mean nothing to a Liberal mind. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 10:14:17 PM · #300 |
|
