Prior to 9/11 Guiliani's numbers were in the toilet. He was front page tabloid fodder because of his divorce and affair and their was a lot of tension because of his rather prickly personality, and tendency to be a bit heavy handed with blacks and the poor, i.e. Abner Louima. New Yorkers were counting down the days left in his term. He was a prick prior to 9/11. He had his resurgance after Chimpy went AWOL for three days following the attack and he grabbed a bullhorn and calmed everyone down. After the emergency was over, he went back to being a prick.
You have an uncanny ability to change the past to fit into your belief system. The reason I know about NY is because I grew up there, went to school at a major metropolitan university and worked for 2 years at a financial house in the WTC during the late 80s.
They say that 9/11 changed everything. Unfortunately it also changed your memory of what really was happening prior to that tragedy. Oddly, it also made you think it is OK for those who are supposed to be taking care of this nation to get a pass on all their fuckups.
P.S. you said "But then again, we all knew that already." Who is "we?" I did not know I was dealing with someone with multiple personality disorder. That explains a lot.
If anyone remembers back during the Democratic Convention, the terror level was raised to orange because a laptop of a captured Al Qaeda leader, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan was found to have plans for several attacks in the U.S. and Europe--including bombing the London subways. Apparently the Pakistanis and Brits were keeping this guys arrest secret because he was giving them information. Of course Bush's reelection was more important than actually fighting the War on Terra so the White House released the guy's name and some of the targets to distract the news during the Democratic Convention. Many of the people in the terror cell scattered when news of the arrest was made public. Also the Brits and Pakistanis complained at the time that the operation was thwarted.
Apparently the terrorists who did the London bombing have been linked to this captured Al Qaeda leader.
Sorry, England, but better that we fight the terrorist over there than over here.
And here's the link to the original blowing of the cover story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/terror.wrap/
endless thread on this subject. I'll leave that to you guys. But think of it this way:
(1) Terrorists were responsible for the bombings in London.
(2) Bush is fighting terrorists.
(3) Therefore, Bush is responsible for the bombings in London.
That makes as much sense as the following:
(1) Diseases are responsible for a multitude of deaths.
(2) Doctors are fighting diseases.
(3) Therefore, Doctors are responsible for a multitude of deaths.
It's one thing to say that the Bush administration has made many errors in the fight against terrorism. Nobody with a brain would deny that. But it's quite another thing to say that Bush is RESPONSIBLE for acts of terrorism. That I don't buy at all. It's the sick, demented, repulsive people who formulate and carry out these acts of terrorism that are responsible. Believe me, if John Kerry was President, the same stuff would be happening. It happened under Clinton, didn't it, except nowadays the terrorists have gotten more sophisticated and have become even more deranged. Clinton is no more responsible than Bush, which is to say not at all. Let's keep the argument to the methods of fighting terrorism - responsibility lies solely with the terrorists!
-- Modified on 7/17/2005 7:23:08 AM
Bush and his administration leaked classified information for political purposes thwarting an investigation that would have likely led to the arrest of these particular terrorists. I see no indication that Clinton did or Kerry would have leaked classified info for political purposes. Yes, terrorism happens, but Bush seems to be helping these killers. It is time to send him and his cell to GITMO.
because it was nonsensical. Your point #2 that Bush is "fighting terrorists" is debatable because he seems to be creating much faster than we can kill them them with his folly in Iraq and he shares some responsibility since he is willing to sell out national security for political gain.
Your concept of Bush's RESPONSIBILITY for the bombings in London is refuted by a principle called the FALLACY OF DIVISION. So, let me try this once more:
(1) Terrorists were responsible for the bombings in London.
(2) Bush is fighting (if you don't like that word, then substitute the word against) terrorists.
(3) Therefore, Bush is responsible for the bombings in London.
This is an example of INCORRECT logic. It's equivalent to saying:
(1) Native Americans are disappearing.
(2) That man is a Native American.
(3) Therefore, that man is disappearing.
Pick up a copy of Copi's book. The fallacy of division is covered on pages 80-81.
Again, I strongly disagree with your use of the word RESPONSIBLE. Questioning the Bush Administration's tactics and strategy in fighting terrorism is a totally valid issue, but calling Bush RESPONSIBLE for terrorist acts is, to me, totally invalid and just plain wrong. If you still don't understand what I'm trying to point out, then my guess is that you never will.
-- Modified on 7/18/2005 6:32:47 PM
Let's change RESPONSIBILITY to ENABLING because he cares more for the accumulation of power and money for himself and his cronies than he does for the national security of the United States.
Remember that the the Defense Deparment had three chances to take out Zarqawi when he was in Northern Iraq before the war but was stopped by the Administration because taking him out would have hurt the argument that there were terrorists in Iraq. I'm sure that all those soldiers who have since been blown up are happy that Chimpy got kept his reason for war.
So go ahead and argue your semantics while American soldiers die and more and more terrorists are recruited. People are getting sick of the lies and the corruption of this administration so that kind of defense is sure to go over well.
"to make feasible or possible - to give legal power, capacity, or sanction to; permit." Terrorism was certainly around before Bush, so he has not ENABLED terrorism. Again, many errors have been made by Bush's Administration in dealing with terrorism, both in a strategic sense and a tactical sense. But Bush is NOT responsible for terrorism, and he has not enabled it. What he HAS done is make some poor decisions in dealing with it. Some of these decisions have cost many lives, and he's got to live with that. But the past is the past, and I'm not going to be a Monday morning QB and dwell on all the errors. What matters is where do we go from here? Got any ideas?
you concur basically that the Bush policy is pretty much a disaster and he has made decisions that have unnecessarily cost lives but you won't Monday morning quaterback? Poor Chimpy has to live with the knowledge that people are dead over his incompentence? Well, Boo-hoo! I'm sure that the soldiers at Walter Reed and the parents and brothers of loved ones lost feel sorry that he has to live with it too.
You can use all the word games you want to try to deflect responsibility from this administration for the disaster it has created but that does not change the fact that they screwed up royally in not finishing the job in Afghanistan and letting Al Qaeda get away, in invading a country that never attacked us and recruiting more terrorist to the cause and in using classified information for political gain to the detriment of our national security.
As far as ideas on where we go from here, a good start would be to stop doing all the destructive things that this administration is doing to our military, our intelligence services and our reputation around the world.
Oh and I did not say that Bush is responsible for terrorism as a tactic. I never said that he invented it. I said that he enabled and held some responsibility for the specific act that occurred in London. He certainly made it "feasible and possible" by blowing the Pakistanis ability to round these guys up when they had the chance.
to make between responsibility (and enabling) for terrorism and the strategy and tactics of fighting terrorism. Saying Bush is responsible for the terrorist acts in London is the SAME THING as saying society is responsible for murders and rapes (as opposed to murderers and rapists). Do you believe that too? These are NOT word games - they are concepts that you and I will likely never agree on.
I actually agree with what you proposed as a start, but where do you go from there? Do we stay in Iraq (albeit with a different approach, strategy and tactics perhaps), or do we just pull up and leave? How do we end the mess?
-- Modified on 7/19/2005 9:15:29 AM
argue points that I never made, I will try one more time and then leave it--I did not say that Bush is responsible for "terrorism." He is responsiblibe for screwing up an investigation that could have very likely rounded up the people who committed one, specific, terrorist act in London. Was he responsible for making the bombs, planting the bombs and detonating the bombs? No. He was responsibile for using classified information for personal gain with the resulting repurcussion that these terrorists had the opportunity to complete their mission.
As far as ending this situation in Iraq, it cannot come to an acceptable conclusion until the current administration is no longer calling the shots. The U.S. has no credibility left in the world and no one will help until there is a change. The current policy is headed towards either civil war or an alliance with Iran. (Last week the newly elected PM of Iraq went to Tehran and laid a reef on the grave of the Ayatollah Khomeini and said what a great guy he was. Is that what our soldiers are fighting and dying for?
Your words - not mine! I say TERRORISTS were RESPONSIBLE for the London bombings. Like I've said numerous times in this thread, the Bush Administration may have made methodological mistakes (both in strategy and tactics) in fighting terrorism, but Bush DID NOT CAUSE the London bombings. In my view, your use of the word "responsible" in your post starting this thread was completely wrong, and to some extent, irresponsible. I'm simply trying to make you understand that and acknowledge it. It's your use of the word "responsible" in many of your posts that I disagree with. Bush is responsible for actions of his Administration, some of which may have hindered the fight against terrorism (the same could be said about Clinton), but only TERRORISTS are responsible for their bombings. Indeed, that is the ONLY point I've been trying to make in this entire thread, and I will CONTINUE to make it even if this thread continues into the next century!
As for the situation in Iraq, I hope you're wrong, but fear that you may be right. While I think the U.S. has more credibility than you think, it has certainly lessened because of the war. I would agree that no other country will step in to help, but in the final analysis, it's up to the Iraqis to determine their future. To me, civil war seems more likely, but I don't say that with any degree of certainty. While I sincerely hope this situation does not drag on into 2009, changing Administrations may not solve anything. It certainly didn't during the Vietnam War.
-- Modified on 7/20/2005 8:18:20 AM
for you top be discussing logic, or the lack thereof.
He's like a woman who has killed her man because she caught him in an affair..
in having discussions with this crowd because the Bushies can do no wrong. As long as their is no BJ going on, there is nothing to investigate. I find it amusing that after all the talk in the past administration of parsing words and "Clintonian" explanations, the shoe is now on the other foot and it is the Republicans parsing what the definition of "operative" or "classified" is.
And no I am not "like a woman who has killed her man because she caught him in an affair." I am more "like a woman who has killed her man because she caught him senselessly causing the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and innocent women and children.
Your latest post has nothing to do with your use of the term "responsible" in your post that started this thread. Why can't you just acknowledge that Bush is NOT responsible for the London bombings? Why can't you just say that TERRORISTS were responsible for the London bombings? If you persist in avoiding this subject and posting rants on topics that only interest you, then I, for one, will keep on reminding you of your total misunderstanding of the word "responsible." BTW, I am not a "Bushie," nor was I a "Clintonian." I just get annoyed when either of them gets trashed unfairly.
I was responding to the person making snide personal attacks at me. I was not referring to you.
And finally, I am bored of this semantic argument so I will now stop responding. Using your logic, Bin Laden was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks since he did not fly a plane into the WTC. My final answer is that Bush was responsible for blowing the investigation that could have captured these terrorists and avoided this attack. He is responsible because he used the information for his own political gain. Had he not done so, the investigation would have continued and they could have stopped this. As a result of his actions, the terrorists scattered and were given the opportunity to carry out their attack. Is he the only one responsible? No. Does he share responsibilty? Absolutely. He did not just make a bad decision, he misused classified information for personal gain to the detriment of national security. Do I hold him to a higher standard than I do a terrorist? I would hope so. He's the freakin' president of the United States. He ran on being the best one to wage the War on Terra. Instead, he seems to do everything to make the terrorists stronger and more effective.
I long for the days when a president would say, "The buck stops here." Sadly the buck stops everywhere but the president's desk these days.
-- Modified on 7/21/2005 6:37:41 PM
the same irrelevant posts ad nauseum about how Bush screwed up an investigation. That has NOTHING to do with the point I'm trying to make. Ineptitude in fighting terrorism is not the same thing as RESPONSIBILITY As to your inane comment about Bin Laden, those planning a terrorist attack bear the SAME responsibility as those carrying out the attack. I think that was obvious to EVERYONE but you, but now that I've spelled it out in unmistakeable terms, hopefully you'll understand that facet of the argument as well.
BTW, how are you going to factor Bush into the 7/21 bombings in London? Is he "responsible" for that too? Will Bush be "responsible" for every terrorist attack yet to come anywhere in the world? And the scumbags who plan and carry out these attacks, do you believe they are not responsible for these actions?
So, let's keep on asking the ORIGINAL AND ONLY question that I've brought up in these posts. Do you still want to stick to your original post that started this thread and insist that "Bush is responsible for the London bombings?" Remember now (if that's even possible with you), we're not talking about blown investigations or any other facets of Bush's performance in office - we're talking about RESPONSIBILITY for terrorist acts!
-- Modified on 7/22/2005 3:35:08 PM
-- Modified on 7/23/2005 2:37:14 PM
for the President of the United States than you do. He should know that because of his position in the world, his actions have consequences. You think that he bears no responsibilty for his lies and incompetence. I think he does.
-- Modified on 7/24/2005 8:13:53 AM
No-one has said that you are a hack or an apologist. I will, however, say that you're very stubborn. I suppose you think that Bush is "responsible" for the bombings in Egypt as well!
-- Modified on 7/25/2005 6:15:49 AM
partially responsible, but since we live in an age where President's are not accountable for their policies or actions, I guess that that is OK.
-- Modified on 7/25/2005 8:49:26 PM
we may as well have a ham sandwich as president considering that nothing he does effects anything in the world.
completely hopeless! Why are you incapable of sticking to the subject? Why does every post of yours contain some irrelevant rant about Bush's policies effecting things in the world? Of course they do, but that's NOT the issue. The issue is who is RESPONSIBLE for terrorist actions? Talking to you is like talking to a wall, but the difference is that a wall gives a more intelligent response. All you're doing is making a fool of yourself by constantly avoiding the issue and trying to weasel out of the obvious answer! You want to be a stubborn mule? Fine. I'll keep going for years on this if necessary until you either state that TERRORISTS are RESPONSIBLE for their actions, or you just plain give up. And trust me, when I travel, I'll be sure to come back and continue this. I'm retired, and have plenty of time. You're going to have to check this thread EVERY FUCKING DAY, because I will be there. As you will soon find out, you've met your match when it comes to being tenacious. Talk to you soon, buddy!
is how it keeps going further and further to the right side of the screen. I'm curious if this effect is limitless. I am not sure, though, whether I will go past the second page of postings in order to continue this experiment.
All that being said, you continue with your black and white view of the world where responsibility is an all or nothing propostition. I never said that terrorists are not responsible for their actions. But Bush is responsible for his policies and criminal decisions that help them on their way. He is doing what Al Qaeda wants. That means he is aiding and abetting the enemy and he shares responsibility. Next.
Bush is aiding and abetting the enemy? Your outta your mind! I strongly suggest that you think more carefully before choosing your words, just to avoid idiotic statements like that. I would suppose then, in your twisted sense of things, that Clinton shares responsibility too. Hell, he could have gotten Bin Laden, and chose to pass on the opportunity. That's where your "logic" would lead you, and that's totally wrong also. Like I said before, you're hopeless!!
I too am curious about how much further to the right this will go. But I'm pretty sure we'll find out.
-- Modified on 7/26/2005 5:16:27 PM
as a wingnut. Sorry, but the story of Clinton turning down Osama is B.S. only regurgitated by the Hannity clones out there.
As far as "aiding & abetting" I like to use the old "Deep Throat" advise "follow the money." Only three people benefitted from 9/11 and they were Osama Bin Laden, Rudy Guiliani and George W. Bush. Bin Laden for obvious reasons. Rudy because he would have left N.Y. as a disgraced, womanizer that New Yorkers were tired of and GWB because his administration was in the toilet on 9/10. Did Rudy & GWB plan it? No. But it was the best thing that ever happened to them and they took advantage. What Bush learned was that his only chance of staying in office was perpetual fear and a never-ending war. That is why he has done nothing to catch Osama or fight Al Qaeda. It is not in his best interest and that makes him responsible.
Terrorists were responsible for the London bombings. You still can't bring yourself to admit this, can you? Bush was not responsible for the London bombings, and neither was Blair. Your illogical thinking would place responsibility on Blair too, I'll bet. Of course, sticking to the subject is very hard for you, basically because your logic is so pathetically weak. Only you could tie responsibility for the London bombings to who benefitted (in your mind) from 9/11. Giuliani, by the way, couldn't run for Mayor again by law. If he could have, he would have EASILY won had he so desired. You think he was disgraced and despised by New Yorkers? That's not even close! I live in NY, and know full well how much people here appreciate Rudy and all he did for NY. NY was dying when Giuliani took over, and he cleaned this place up BIG TIME. He virtually eliminated crime in my area within two weeks of taking office. It's clear that you don't live here, and it's also clear that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. But then again, we all knew that already. 
)
-- Modified on 7/27/2005 6:44:54 PM
Prior to 9/11 Guiliani's numbers were in the toilet. He was front page tabloid fodder because of his divorce and affair and their was a lot of tension because of his rather prickly personality, and tendency to be a bit heavy handed with blacks and the poor, i.e. Abner Louima. New Yorkers were counting down the days left in his term. He was a prick prior to 9/11. He had his resurgance after Chimpy went AWOL for three days following the attack and he grabbed a bullhorn and calmed everyone down. After the emergency was over, he went back to being a prick.
You have an uncanny ability to change the past to fit into your belief system. The reason I know about NY is because I grew up there, went to school at a major metropolitan university and worked for 2 years at a financial house in the WTC during the late 80s.
They say that 9/11 changed everything. Unfortunately it also changed your memory of what really was happening prior to that tragedy. Oddly, it also made you think it is OK for those who are supposed to be taking care of this nation to get a pass on all their fuckups.
P.S. you said "But then again, we all knew that already." Who is "we?" I did not know I was dealing with someone with multiple personality disorder. That explains a lot.
then they ought to rescind your degree (if in fact you earned one)! Giuliani may have a prickly personality, but he was effective, and did wonders here in NY. Despite his divorce and cancer treatments (how come you didn't mention that?), he STILL would have been reelected Mayor had he been able to run.
BTW, like most of your ilk, you make statements about people that fit your dumbass perceptions, rather than basing them on facts. What is my belief system? How would you know what I think about those running the country? You're just making assumptions, and as can be expected, you're wrong about most of them. In truth, I think you're rather stupid, and incredibly stubborn too. You worked for 2 years at a "financial house" in the WTC? What did you do there? Were you a janitor? Clearly you were nobody of importance. If you were, you likely would have stayed longer.
-- Modified on 7/28/2005 6:13:46 AM
I notice that the # of reads on your responses is in the 30s even down here in the bowels of the thread while mine are only about 3. So my guess is that you sit around reading your posts to yourself over and over. That means you are probably a little OCD as well. What a sad little man.
you don't know shit about anything! Personally, I think you're just some looney guy who can't admit he used the word "responsibility" incorrectly, and will do anything to avoid admitting he's wrong. Maybe the hits my posts are getting are from people who enjoy watching you twist in the wind. You're a loser - come to grips with it!
-- Modified on 7/28/2005 6:08:20 AM
You are down to about 20 reads on the last couple. Better hit the refresh button a few times.
is...yadda...RESPONSIBLE!
and, yada, yada, stubborn, yada, yada, as always!
-- Modified on 7/29/2005 6:57:27 PM
for those terrorist attacks, it's not funny. He did it so he could keep up a good supply of babies for Dick Cheney to eat.
Bush's policies are still responisble for creating more terrorists in the world.
Your original post was wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong! Your limited mind can't seem to grasp the concept that terrorists and terrorism existed long before Bush took office. Saying that Bush is "responsible" for the actions of terrorists is just plain dumb, and you are one dumb bunny for saying it! Apparently, that's never going to change, and I will always be around to remind you of it.
There, I said it in a language that you might understand.
your incredibly weak attempt to be insulting is pathetic. As is typical of lefty loonies like you, if you can't persuade someone, you resort to implying that he (she) is a Nazi. Well, for your information, I'm Jewish, and in fact lost some family to the Nazis during WWII. You owe me an apology, bub. While I don't speak German, I do speak English well enough to know by now that my command of it is considerably better than yours, but even you should be capable of acknowledging an error such as you made and say as much. You and I may strongly disagree on terminology, but don't be an asshole about it. If you are in fact capable of thought, then think about what I just said.
-- Modified on 8/1/2005 5:45:43 AM
President Bush is farantwortlich oif dem zeschpreitn fun schrek.
I would call you an asshole, but that's totally obvious already!
-- Modified on 8/4/2005 12:01:25 PM
I was away for a few days, but I'm back now to continue to harass you!
-- Modified on 8/4/2005 3:10:42 PM
to post bail. Don't worry, something like that happens to all the wingnuts sooner or later. Sadly your case of infantilism is getting worse. You are just babbling at this point. Sad to see that you find your own culture so offensive. I'm sure that if you click on the link, this book will help you to overcome whatever trauma you may have suffered in the past.
Actually, asshole, I was in the Hamptons for a few days. What you consider babbling appears to be the only language you understand. I'm doing just fine in the American culture, by the way. However, you seem to be having an incredibly difficult time adjusting to the fact that Bush was re-elected President. Bitch and moan about it all you want - after all, you do have three more years to complain. Perhaps it would be best for you to take a course in remedial English for the next three years so you can better understand the true meaning of the word "responsible." HaHa!
"And then there are the boys of summer who like the other boys of summer. From the Memorial Day kickoff of the Miracle House Benefit at the Bridgehampton Tennis & Surf Club to the weekly rounds of cocktail parties (and the occasional twirl around the concrete dance floor at The Swamp in Wainscott), being a gay man in the summertime Hamptons can be as breakneck a life as any social aspirant, gay or straight, could hope. After all, the halcyon, non-networky days of Fire Island Pines are behind us. Extreme partying for gay men in the Hamptons means staying out Sunday night to go to the groovy triple-D scene (that's drinks, dinner, and dancing) at Tsunami in East Hampton and driving back into town early Monday."
I hope you had fun.
You left New York because you couldn't make it here. Just because you're a loser and a failure doesn't mean others are. You're an asshole and I'm laughing at you!
P.S. Bush is the President of the U.S. Deal with it! )
-- Modified on 8/5/2005 6:18:16 AM
Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.
The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue — with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.
Who cares about Bush? More important, who cares what you think about Bush, or about anything really. If you want to rant on and on about Bush, go ahead. I have no interest in that topic. What I do know, however, is that terrorists were responsible for the London bombings, something that everyone on this planet, with the sole exception of you and perhaps a few other crazies, knows. As for Bush, he'll be President for 3 more years. I've adjusted to that FACT, and if you can't, that's your problem. It's most certainly not mine.
How did I miss that? Well, I'm sure that Bush is somewhow responsible.
You must have been too busy ranting and raving about Bush to have noticed.
-- Modified on 8/6/2005 7:09:57 AM
Bush bombed the London subways twice last month? I wonder how he got away with that?
-- Modified on 8/7/2005 5:54:40 AM
anything. Is Bush not responsible for the U.S. military not going after Bin Laden either? I'm imagine that you think they did that on their own. Why do you hate the troops?
Exclusive: CIA Commander: We Let bin Laden Slip Away
arguments are weak and totally unsupportable. You've got "Bush on the brain" (if indeed you have a brain), and direct all your mutterings toward him. Fact is, your concept of responsibility for the London bombings is all screwed up, and everyone reading these posts (those few who are left) knows it very well.
-- Modified on 8/8/2005 4:59:23 PM
sulking back here like a furry, little rodent. Bush is still oh sooo responsible!
asinine posts.
who has difficulty with the English language! BTW, while Sean Hannity may be your hero, I don't think he would agree with your interpretation of responsibility for the bombings in London either.
-- Modified on 12/13/2005 2:05:20 PM
lost down here in the bowels of the thread, I remain undaunted as history continues to vindicate me.
that you can read about 400 times. Congratulations on the finely honed OCD not to mention the incredible amount of free time they provide you at the institution. I'll check back in the middle of May to see if you have chewed off your ankles yet.
fuck would be your mother. The proof of that looks you in the mirror every day.
dumb, idiotic, irrelevant, and totally worthless.
the one person who continues to return for more. The passage of time only serves to prove me more and more right and you more and more wrong.
We are the ony ones here. I'll be proven even more right next month when your retard president fucks up even more.
certainly not right about the original topic of this thread. You are one stubborn and stupid motherfucker, and judging from subsequent postings in this forum, there are many people who agree with that!
facsist loons disagree with me. Since that is who you take your marching orders from, I am not surprised that you cannot see clearly either. I'll stay on the side of the majority while you can stay with the frothing knuckledraggers.
about my political views. I just think it's moronic to say that Bush was responsible for the London bombings. But your hatred of Bush destroys your logical capability, and that seems to be true throughout this board, where you have become a running joke. Sorry, bub, but you'll never convince anybody of anything with your closed mind!
Jeremy;
It's pretty clear what you posted. The White House released information prematurely, causing members of the cell responsible to disperse, thwarting the investigation. Very simple.
It is very simple. Responsibility for terrorism is one thing - ineptitude in dealing with terrorism is another.
Jeremy,
So if I understand your point, leaking of classified information should be punished by law and the perpetrators sent to GITMO. If I understand that correctly, then at last there is something that we agree upon! If Rove broke the law, and the independent cousel is looking into that, he should be prosecuted. Let it not be said that I am a partisan hack. I wonder, can I count on you to lead the charge on the following;
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont who in fact did leak a TOP SECRET memo dated 1985 in a 1987 interview with San Diego Union-Tribune. That leak cost the life of at least 1 Egyptian operative.
1100 FBI Files that were improperly collected and and pored over by the Clinton whitehouse at the request of white house counsel Bernie Nussbaum in the largest privacy scandal in whitehouse history.
Perhaps you will agree that the leak of Linda Tripp's DOD Personnel file to the New Yorker Magazine in 1998 should also be investigated and prosecuted.
Of course there is always Paula Jones Tax Return data, which was leaked to the New York Daily news in 1997. Should not the confidentiality of such documents be maintained and shouldn't the breach of that confidentiality merit investigations and indictments?
Glad to see you are on board. I await your call for investigations and prosecutions!!!!!
so I will remind you that the case of the FBI files was investigated and the Clintons were exonerated. To imply that the Clintons were not sufficiently investigated is absurd on its face. As far as the other two you mentioned, whatever. While the information was private it was not Top Secret confidential information with national security implications. I'm sure that if Ken Starr wanted to throw those on the barbie, he would have.
It is so absurd to even have this discussion because you know full well that if Clinton or whatever Democrat had these charges leveled against them the Republicans would be screaming treason.