I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've heard
on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that after all
of the rhetoric from Bush about releasing classified data and putting our
CIA and such people in harms way is tantamount to treason and that he would
not stand for it now comes to light that he is the one who authorized the
leak. Has this man any conscience what so ever about what he has done to
this country? This so called leader is unbelievable. Nothing is sacred to
him, no laws, no constraints, no limits and absolutely no MORALES. Whatever
he wants he makes sure is done irregardless of the consequences to the
country or the people in it or the countries laws. This whole gang of thugs
have taken over my country and have made it one of the most hated countries
on earth. These people are the epitome of the "Hooray for me and **** you
attitude"

When will people finally open their eyes.
Dick Neighbors

--
Richard H. Neighbors
Building and repairing fine billiard cues for real pool players at
affordable prices.
Over 35 years exp. Located in Cincinnati OH
ph.# 513 233-7499
e-mail
web site http://www.dickiecues.com

"Dick" wrote in message
. ..
I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've
heard
on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that after
all
of the rhetoric from Bush about releasing classified data and putting our
CIA and such people in harms way is tantamount to treason and that he
would
not stand for it now comes to light that he is the one who authorized the
leak. Has this man any conscience what so ever about what he has done to
this country? This so called leader is unbelievable. Nothing is sacred to
him, no laws, no constraints, no limits and absolutely no MORALES.
Whatever
he wants he makes sure is done irregardless of the consequences to the
country or the people in it or the countries laws. This whole gang of
thugs
have taken over my country and have made it one of the most hated
countries
on earth. These people are the epitome of the "Hooray for me and **** you
attitude"

When will people finally open their eyes.
Dick Neighbors

--

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these people.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these people.

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

hat goes on

And explain that there was a really good reason for this to happen.
It was about national security and the libs could get that through
their thick heads they'd understand we're fighting a war against tangos.

Next I have to say that the democrats did much worse things in the
past, and he would not have had to do what he did except the libs
made him do it. Hillary specifically.

Finally I will say that he's the finest conservative president we
could imagine and all the libs love to take pot-shots at him but
they never give any suggestions about improving matters.

removes hat

Best to you and yours, Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these people.

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

hat goes on

And explain that there was a really good reason for this to happen.
It was about national security and the libs could get that through
their thick heads they'd understand we're fighting a war against tangos.

Next I have to say that the democrats did much worse things in the
past, and he would not have had to do what he did except the libs
made him do it. Hillary specifically.

Finally I will say that he's the finest conservative president we
could imagine and all the libs love to take pot-shots at him but
they never give any suggestions about improving matters.

removes hat

Best to you and yours, Jim

LOL scattered applause

and don't forget, Scooter Libbey will tell them anything to save his butt

On 6 Apr 2006 12:42:24 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

(and now Jim thinks he's qualified to be Gunner's spokesman. Sheesh.)

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...



Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these people.



Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

hat goes on

And explain that there was a really good reason for this to happen.
It was about national security and the libs could get that through
their thick heads they'd understand we're fighting a war against tangos.

Next I have to say that the democrats did much worse things in the
past, and he would not have had to do what he did except the libs
made him do it. Hillary specifically.

Finally I will say that he's the finest conservative president we
could imagine and all the libs love to take pot-shots at him but
they never give any suggestions about improving matters.

removes hat

Best to you and yours, Jim




You forgot that little clicking sound at the end as the needle jumped in
the broken record and kept repeating itself

Koz

I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

"Dick" wrote in message
. ..
I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've
heard on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that
after all
snip

I know I promiced to stay out of the political crap for Lent but...

Any sitting president and Vice President, BY LAW, can disclose ANY
information he wants, however he wants. Big reaction here but all
legal...unlike the Democratic disclosures of late that were ILLEGAL.
Somebody show me a broken law!

I'M ASHAMED OF ALL YOU GUYS FOR NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

PLEASE... leave the "hat" ON! And, while you're at it find a straight
jacket!

If you think that the jerk in the White House is the best President
(conservative or not) that we
could imagine.... well YOU, sir are surly imagining!

Regards,

Al

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these
people.

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

hat goes on

And explain that there was a really good reason for this to happen.
It was about national security and the libs could get that through
their thick heads they'd understand we're fighting a war against tangos.

Next I have to say that the democrats did much worse things in the
past, and he would not have had to do what he did except the libs
made him do it. Hillary specifically.

Finally I will say that he's the finest conservative president we
could imagine and all the libs love to take pot-shots at him but
they never give any suggestions about improving matters.

removes hat

Best to you and yours, Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Can you please provide a reference that supports your comments?

What specific law allows a president to reveal the name of a CIA or any
other intelligence operative to the press or to the public?

John E.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
. net...

"Dick" wrote in message
. ..
I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've
heard on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that
after all
snip

I know I promiced to stay out of the political crap for Lent but...

Any sitting president and Vice President, BY LAW, can disclose ANY
information he wants, however he wants. Big reaction here but all
legal...unlike the Democratic disclosures of late that were ILLEGAL.
Somebody show me a broken law!

I'M ASHAMED OF ALL YOU GUYS FOR NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

So he is allowed to risk national security by revealing secret information
to smear someone who is calling attention to one of his lies? Get real!

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
. net...

"Dick" wrote in message
. ..
I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've
heard on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that
after all
snip

I know I promiced to stay out of the political crap for Lent but...

Any sitting president and Vice President, BY LAW, can disclose ANY
information he wants, however he wants. Big reaction here but all
legal...unlike the Democratic disclosures of late that were ILLEGAL.
Somebody show me a broken law!

I'M ASHAMED OF ALL YOU GUYS FOR NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

Maybe you should learn to read. At no place in this synopsis is there
any mention of the president breaking the law. That, my friend, is your
idea. I just pointed out how two years ago this president ranted and raved
that no one in his cabinet would be so low as to out a under cover CIA agent
and if one was found who did then that person would no longer work at the
White House. Later he changed his criteria for being fired to being found
guilty of a crime.
It's true that a President may declassify any material that they want
to BUT it is truly despicable for a President to out an agent, where
millions of dollars had been spent setting up their image for under cover
work, and putting their life and any other agents around the world who had
communicated with her in peril for no other reason than politics and then
lying to the country about it and then costing the government many more
millions of dollars for special prosecutors to track the culprit down.
It's one thing to be totally inept at his job but as far as I'm
concerned the man is now traitor to his country and should be dealt with
accordingly.
--
Richard H. Neighbors
Building and repairing fine billiard cues for real pool players at
affordable prices.
Over 35 years exp. Located in Cincinnati OH
ph.# 513 233-7499
e-mail
web site http://www.dickiecues.com
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
. net...

"Dick" wrote in message
. ..
I watch many of these political debating's on this group but seldom
respond. I've never started a political post in my life but what I've
heard on the news today has just plain astounded me. It's come out that
after all
snip

I know I promiced to stay out of the political crap for Lent but...

Any sitting president and Vice President, BY LAW, can disclose ANY
information he wants, however he wants. Big reaction here but all
legal...unlike the Democratic disclosures of late that were ILLEGAL.
Somebody show me a broken law!

I'M ASHAMED OF ALL YOU GUYS FOR NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK!!!

I wouldn't get too worked up about it until I found out just what
"leaked information" they're talking about.

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wouldn't get too worked up about it until I found out just what
"leaked information" they're talking about.


Are you trying to apply logic to this? Ha! It doesn't matter to those that
WANT to bash. I just stated that no laws were broken (except by the
liberals) and see the indignation and misdirection? I like the one about
blowing the "Deep Cover" of an agent. This didn't cause people to hate
Bush, they already do and would have the same attitude about the suit he
wears today. When this all plays out and it turns out like I say, they will
already be on their next rant...God bless them for their passion and God
bless the USA for the rights for all us kooks to voice an oppinion.

In article , nospam says...

WANT to bash. I just stated that no laws were broken (except by the
liberals)
yah it was hillary's fault, see?


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , nospam says...

WANT to bash. I just stated that no laws were broken (except by the
liberals)
yah it was hillary's fault, see?

No, it was the half-vast right-wing conspiracy.
donning tinfoil beanie

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:24:07 GMT, John Emmons wrote:
Can you please provide a reference that supports your comments?

What specific law allows a president to reveal the name of a CIA or any
other intelligence operative to the press or to the public?

How was she an operative, exactly?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:24:07 GMT, John Emmons wrote:
Can you please provide a reference that supports your comments?

What specific law allows a president to reveal the name of a CIA or any
other intelligence operative to the press or to the public?

How was she an operative, exactly?

Operated a word processor at Langley, 9 to 5 weekdays

In article ,
Ignoramus30285 wrote:

I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

OTOH, a guy who'd surround himself all of those people, and lie in
public as much as Bush, a claim like Libby's wouldn't be too
far-fetched. It's not as if he's accusing Steven Hawking of cheating on
a math test.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been


Actually, I can find fault. You were astonded?! Pardon my cynicism,
but much as I would have wanted to I hardly expected less. "May you
live in Interesting Times", eh?

Mickey

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , nospam
says...

WANT to bash. I just stated that no laws were broken (except by the
liberals)
yah it was hillary's fault, see?


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Who really cares...except it give me enjoyment to banter about it rather
than changing clothes and going back in the shop and working. I should be
on the BP watching grass grow and breathing mist coolant. But, but,
but...didn't Hillary just get caught for not disclosing funds received? The
liberal press put it on page 162, below the fold, in 4 point type.

"John Emmons" wrote in news:rXkZf.67891
:

Can you please provide a reference that supports your comments?

What specific law allows a president to reveal the name of a CIA or any
other intelligence operative to the press or to the public?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html

Among others.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 6 Apr 2006 12:42:24 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

(and now Jim thinks he's qualified to be Gunner's spokesman. Sheesh.)


No, not a Gunner spokesman, a Gunner impersonator, and a damn good one at
that. If I didn't know better I would have thought that was Gunner himself.
Nice job.

Hawke

"Ignoramus30285" wrote in message
.. .
I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

Well, nobody in the White House is denying the allegations and their
spokesman Scott McClellan was telling everyone at the press conference today
that the leaking of classified information by Bush was legal. The reason for
that is because anytime the president decides to give out classified
information that automatically makes it declassified because as president
he's authorized to declassify information simply due to his position as
president. However, by making this excuse and admitting he was the source of
the leak to the NY Times he's also admitting the allegations by Libby are
true. Unfortunately for him, it also means he's guilty of lying when he said
he wouldn't tolerate leaks in his administration and anyone that did it
would be dealt with appropriately. I guess he meant that to apply to
everyone but himself.

Hawke

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

Pretty hard to find fault with anything you've said here. I've long been
concerned about how the balance of the world perceives the US----and have
little doubt as to the reason why we are hated. The arrogance of our
"leaders", and I use that term loosely, is hard for me to stomach. The
*******s couldn't even graciously accept the offer for help from other
countries after Katrina. Something is definitely wrong with these
people.

Hi Harold.

I'm going to save him the trouble so I'll just put my "gunner" hat on
now

hat goes on

And explain that there was a really good reason for this to happen.
It was about national security and the libs could get that through
their thick heads they'd understand we're fighting a war against tangos.

Next I have to say that the democrats did much worse things in the
past, and he would not have had to do what he did except the libs
made him do it. Hillary specifically.

Finally I will say that he's the finest conservative president we
could imagine and all the libs love to take pot-shots at him but
they never give any suggestions about improving matters.

removes hat

Best to you and yours, Jim


You forgot to add the standard request for cites.


Hawke

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:17:36 GMT, Ignoramus30285
wrote:

I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i
So I take it you are not going to vote for Bush a third time?


Snicker....

Gunner, posting from a wifi hotspot, in his truck


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

On 7 Apr 2006 16:00:52 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:24:07 GMT, John Emmons wrote:
Can you please provide a reference that supports your comments?

What specific law allows a president to reveal the name of a CIA or any
other intelligence operative to the press or to the public?

How was she an operative, exactly?


Plame was long out of the field, was riding a desk in the Puzzle
factory, and had been outed by her very own husband in his book,
months before any "leak" occured...and I use "leak" because it was
well known in Gammorha on the Potomic that she had been a spook.


Now on another front..are you lads aware that the "leak" being most
recently discussed, had NOTHING to do with Plame?
More on that in a moment

Experts: Alleged Bush leak legal, unusual

By The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON — Legal experts said President Bush had the unquestionable
authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to
reporters but added the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using
sensitive intelligence data for political gain.

"It is a question of whether the classified National Intelligence
Estimate was used for domestic political purposes," said Jeffrey
Smith, a Washington lawyer who formerly served as general counsel for
the CIA.

In court papers filed late Wednesday, Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald said Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has testified Cheney told him Bush had
authorized the leak of secret information from the National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in summer 2003.

Experts said the power to classify and declassify documents in the
federal government flows from the president and is often delegated
down the chain of command. In March 2003, Bush signed an executive
order delegating declassification authority to Cheney.

There are about 4,000 people in the federal government with authority
to classify information, according to the National Archives.

The president's authority to keep and reveal secrets also is inherent
in his constitutional powers, says J. William Leonard, director of the
National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, and the
president does not have to follow any particular procedure in
declassifying information.

"It's his authority in the first place," Leonard said.

While Bush's use of classified information may create a political
problem for him, it's not a legal issue, said Mark Zaid, a Washington
lawyer who frequently represents CIA employees and others involved in
national-security issues.

As the author of the executive order governing how information is
classified, Bush can declassify something simply by declaring so, Zaid
said.

"Since the president is the one who issues the order, ergo he
obviously has the authority to classify and declassify information,"
Zaid said Thursday.

Bush had exercised his authority in cooperating with journalist and
author Bob Woodward in writing "Bush at War," an account of the
response to the attacks of Sept. 11. "That book is replete with
classified information" that Bush declassified by discussing it with
Woodward, Zaid says.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Now..about the "leak" you leftist retards are ****ing and moaning
about....

W. House does not dispute Bush leak allegation
Fri Apr 7, 2006 4:11 PM ET13

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday left unchallenged a
prosecutor's disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized a
former top official, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to share intelligence data
on Iraq in 2003 with a reporter to counter Iraq war criticism.

Spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Bush had the authority to
declassify intelligence and rejected charges from Democrats that he
did so selectively for political purposes.

"Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is
in the public interest is one thing," McClellan told reporters during
a combative briefing. "But leaking classified information that could
compromise our national security is something that is very serious,
and there's a distinction."

Democrats seized on the issue, which has put Bush on the defensive at
a time when his popularity is slumping and the Iraq war is
increasingly unpopular. They accused the president, who has often
spoken of the damage done by leaks, of hypocrisy.

"President Bush's selective declassification of highly sensitive
intelligence for political purposes is wrong," said the House of
Representatives Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada demanded an explanation
from Bush, who has twice ignored shouted questions about the issue.

"Only the president can put this matter to rest. He must tell the
American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the
buck stops, or the leaks start," Reid said.

The case is rooted in am investigation in which Libby, a former top
aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is accused of obstruction of
justice and perjury in an investigation designed to discover who
leaked then-CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, emerged as a key critic of
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, saying that the
president knowingly gave the American people information about Iraq's
alleged nuclear program that U.S. intelligence services knew was
untrue.

'PERSONAL PAY BACK'

Wilson said the administration deliberately leaked his wife's identity
to pay him back for his criticism.

The White House mounted an effort to respond to Wilson. On July 18,
2003, officials released portions of an October 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate that said, among other things, that Iraq could
make a nuclear weapon in a year or less once it acquired sufficient
weapons-grade fissile material.

Inspectors who scoured Iraq after the U.S. invasion failed to find any
signs of a nuclear program, leading to accusations that Bush
manipulated intelligence in order to justify the war, a charge that
follows him to this day.

According to court papers made public this week, Libby testified to a
federal grand jury that Cheney had told him Bush authorized him to
disclose information from the secret National Intelligence Estimate to
a New York Times reporter.

The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby
to disclose Plame's identity.

Libby resigned from the administration last October when he was
indicted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. His trial is
expected to begin next January.

McClellan argued the release of the declassified information was very
different from what he called the potentially damaging leak of
information about Bush's domestic eavesdropping program which aims to
track phone calls and e-mails in the United States to suspected
terrorists abroad.

"Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that distinction are simply
engaging in crass politics," he said.

Democrats who are ****ing and moaning over this..are retards.


Gunner

"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 23:44:30 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
wrote:

So he is allowed to risk national security by revealing secret information
to smear someone who is calling attention to one of his lies? Get real!


Cites?

Are you still having sex with your dog?

Gunner


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 03:54:52 GMT, "Dick" wrote:

guilty of a crime.
It's true that a President may declassify any material that they want
to BUT it is truly despicable for a President to out an agent, where
millions of dollars had been spent setting up their image for under cover
work, and putting their life and any other agents around the world who had
communicated with her in peril for no other reason than politics and then
lying to the country about it and then costing the government many more
millions of dollars for special prosecutors to track the culprit down.
It's one thing to be totally inept at his job but as far as I'm
concerned the man is now traitor to his country and should be dealt with
accordingly.

Hint Dicky boy....neither Bush nor Cheney outed or allowed Plame to be
outed. Not that she was much of a spook after her hubby outed her in
his book, and she wound up running a work processer in the Puzzle
Factory long before Libby coughed up her name.

Now dont you feel stupid?

Gunner


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

guilty of a crime.
It's true that a President may declassify any material that they
want
to BUT it is truly despicable for a President to out an agent, where
millions of dollars had been spent setting up their image for under cover
work, and putting their life and any other agents around the world who
had
communicated with her in peril for no other reason than politics and then
lying to the country about it and then costing the government many more
millions of dollars for special prosecutors to track the culprit down.
It's one thing to be totally inept at his job but as far as I'm
concerned the man is now traitor to his country and should be dealt with
accordingly.

Hint Dicky boy....neither Bush nor Cheney outed or allowed Plame to be
outed. Not that she was much of a spook after her hubby outed her in
his book, and she wound up running a work processer in the Puzzle
Factory long before Libby coughed up her name.

Isn't it funny how right wingers minimize crimes and and overlook bad,
unethical acts when the administration in power is republican but are total
sticklers and uncompromising on upholding all laws when Democrats are in the
majority? Some might even see this as two-faced, hypocritical behavior. Nah,
right wingers wouldn't be that way. Would they?

Hawke




Now dont you feel stupid?

Gunner

In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

"Ignoramus30285" wrote in message
.. .
I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

Well, nobody in the White House is denying the allegations and their
spokesman Scott McClellan was telling everyone at the press conference today
that the leaking of classified information by Bush was legal. The reason for
that is because anytime the president decides to give out classified
information that automatically makes it declassified because as president
he's authorized to declassify information simply due to his position as
president. However, by making this excuse and admitting he was the source of
the leak to the NY Times he's also admitting the allegations by Libby are
true. Unfortunately for him, it also means he's guilty of lying when he said
he wouldn't tolerate leaks in his administration and anyone that did it
would be dealt with appropriately. I guess he meant that to apply to
everyone but himself.


OK, so what? That's pretty much SOP in any organization: The HMFIC makes
the rules for the HMFIC's administration -- and can observe them himself
or not as he chooses, subject only to law, which itself is subject to
the HMFIC's lawyers' interpretation -- and the results of lawsuits by
opposition lawyers.

So he's not "tolerating leaks in his administration:" He's doing what
HMFICs always do, what he pleases as the head of his administration.

If they're claiming Bush broke some law, that's a different kettle of
shad. Head for the appropriate authority and file charges.

Bush may or may not come off as some kind of twit at times, but he's the
Head MF-ing Twit in Charge of his administration.

Democrat or Republican administration, this sort of thing is
depressingly normal in D.C. and elsewhere. Does the CEO of a corporation
have to obey all the rules its line staff has to follow?

Hang 'em all! Throw the bums out! Fire the *******s and hire a new batch
of *******s -- you still get *******s. The Federal Government now seems
to be "ruled" by a professional political class, whether citizens like
it or not.

Isn't it funny how right wingers minimize crimes and and overlook bad,
unethical acts when the administration in power is republican but are
total
sticklers and uncompromising on upholding all laws when Democrats are in
the
majority? Some might even see this as two-faced, hypocritical behavior.
Nah,
right wingers wouldn't be that way. Would they?

Hawke

Use your word processor and find/replace Democrat and Republican back and
forth and see if your statment changes...I DON'T THINK SO!!!. The only
difference is the Republicans have a twinge of conscience when they do
it...but not enough to sytop them.

In article ,
Ignoramus25712 wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:57:54 -0500, B.B.
. ru wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus30285 wrote:

I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

OTOH, a guy who'd surround himself all of those people, and lie in
public as much as Bush, a claim like Libby's wouldn't be too
far-fetched.

It is not far fetched, but not yet substantiated in any way.

i

True. there's really no proof either way, and nobody involved can be
expected to act in a predictable or trustworthy manner. This will
likely turn into yet another one of those things that a third of the
population believes is gospel truth, a third thinks it's a wicked
machination of the enemy, and the other third simply doesn't give a
****. Over time the "don't give a ****" crowd will grow.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net

Hawke wrote:

Well, nobody in the White House is denying the allegations and their
spokesman Scott McClellan was telling everyone at the press conference today
that the leaking of classified information by Bush was legal. The reason for
that is because anytime the president decides to give out classified
information that automatically makes it declassified because as president
he's authorized to declassify information simply due to his position as
president. However, by making this excuse and admitting he was the source of
the leak to the NY Times he's also admitting the allegations by Libby are
true. Unfortunately for him, it also means he's guilty of lying when he said
he wouldn't tolerate leaks in his administration and anyone that did it
would be dealt with appropriately. I guess he meant that to apply to
everyone but himself.

Hawke

Information gets declassified all the time and released to the public
but it isn't called a "leak". Could it be that the leak label is used
to make a normal occurrence sound sinister?
GW

"Gus" wrote

Information gets declassified all the time
and released to the public but it isn't called a "leak".
Could it be that the leak label is used to make
a normal occurrence sound sinister?


If you call a press conference and announce a previously secret bit of
information, then you have "declassified and released to the public". If
you tell the same thing to a hand-picked reporter "on background", that's a
"leak".

Could it be that the Bushies chose to leak, rather than announce, because
they were trying to get away with something?

-- TP

tonyp wrote:
If you call a press conference and announce a previously secret bit of
information, then you have "declassified and released to the public". If
you tell the same thing to a hand-picked reporter "on background", that's a
"leak".

Could it be that the Bushies chose to leak, rather than announce, because
they were trying to get away with something?


Ho Lee Cow ! Is that what happened ?

"John Husvar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

"Ignoramus30285" wrote in message
.. .
I am not completely convinced that what Libby is saying, is actually
true. Bush administration is composed of low life scum, convenience
store shoplifters, liars, etc, and it would be unlikely if Libby
somehow was morally superior. If so, then anything that he says that
tends to exonerate him, should be viewed with suspicion, unless
proven.

i

Well, nobody in the White House is denying the allegations and their
spokesman Scott McClellan was telling everyone at the press conference
today
that the leaking of classified information by Bush was legal. The reason
for
that is because anytime the president decides to give out classified
information that automatically makes it declassified because as
president
he's authorized to declassify information simply due to his position as
president. However, by making this excuse and admitting he was the
source of
the leak to the NY Times he's also admitting the allegations by Libby
are
true. Unfortunately for him, it also means he's guilty of lying when he
said
he wouldn't tolerate leaks in his administration and anyone that did it
would be dealt with appropriately. I guess he meant that to apply to
everyone but himself.


OK, so what? That's pretty much SOP in any organization: The HMFIC makes
the rules for the HMFIC's administration -- and can observe them himself
or not as he chooses, subject only to law, which itself is subject to
the HMFIC's lawyers' interpretation -- and the results of lawsuits by
opposition lawyers.

So he's not "tolerating leaks in his administration:" He's doing what
HMFICs always do, what he pleases as the head of his administration.

If they're claiming Bush broke some law, that's a different kettle of
shad. Head for the appropriate authority and file charges.

Bush may or may not come off as some kind of twit at times, but he's the
Head MF-ing Twit in Charge of his administration.

Democrat or Republican administration, this sort of thing is
depressingly normal in D.C. and elsewhere. Does the CEO of a corporation
have to obey all the rules its line staff has to follow?

Hang 'em all! Throw the bums out! Fire the *******s and hire a new batch
of *******s -- you still get *******s. The Federal Government now seems
to be "ruled" by a professional political class, whether citizens like
it or not.

That sounds like a good idea but there is a problem. Even though the
Congress has an approval rating of 29% ,when polled, 57% of people say they
are happy with their own representative. So between the horrible way
districts have been gerrymandered, and the fact that the majority of people
are satisfied with their own representatives, it's not likely there's ever
going to be a big blow out of incumbents.

What needs to happen is for about 50% or more of the people in congress to
be sent home. That would send a message to the rest that their normal
corrupt business practices wouldn't be tolerated any more and the new 50%
wouldn't know how to cheat the public for a few years. But our problem is
us. The American people simply won't vote the people in Congress out of
power. As long as they keep sending the same people back to do the same
thing year after year nothing is going to change. Funny isn't it, Americans
complain to high heavens about the government and about the corrupt people
in Washington but when they get the chance to put someone else in office
they refuse to do it. So maybe the problem isn't the folks in office but
it's the people voting for them. What's that line of Einstein's about doing
the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Americans must
just be insane.

Hawke

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hawke wrote:

Well, nobody in the White House is denying the allegations and their
spokesman Scott McClellan was telling everyone at the press conference
today
that the leaking of classified information by Bush was legal. The reason
for
that is because anytime the president decides to give out classified
information that automatically makes it declassified because as
president
he's authorized to declassify information simply due to his position as
president. However, by making this excuse and admitting he was the
source of
the leak to the NY Times he's also admitting the allegations by Libby
are
true. Unfortunately for him, it also means he's guilty of lying when he
said
he wouldn't tolerate leaks in his administration and anyone that did it
would be dealt with appropriately. I guess he meant that to apply to
everyone but himself.

Hawke

Information gets declassified all the time and released to the public
but it isn't called a "leak". Could it be that the leak label is used
to make a normal occurrence sound sinister?
GW

Maybe it sounds sinister because the "declassification" was not made known
to anyone but Judith Miller of the NY Times. Therefore, the information was
"planted" in the Times by the Bush administration in order to counteract Joe
Wilson's rebuttal of Bush's claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger. If
the declassified information was simply made public no one would have
thought anything of it. But the fact that it was surreptitiously let out and
was done so in order to foster Bush's political agenda is more than enough
for a reasonable person to believe that it was indeed "leaked" information
and was not simply a dissemination of declassified information to the
public. When you do something sneaky there is usually a reason for it an not
usually a good one. Clearly Bush was trying to pull one off here but Libby's
testimony in court exposed his duplicity.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
That sounds like a good idea but there is a problem. Even though the
Congress has an approval rating of 29% ,when polled, 57% of people say they
are happy with their own representative. So between the horrible way
districts have been gerrymandered, and the fact that the majority of people
are satisfied with their own representatives, it's not likely there's ever
going to be a big blow out of incumbents.

What needs to happen is for about 50% or more of the people in congress to
be sent home. That would send a message to the rest that their normal
corrupt business practices wouldn't be tolerated any more and the new 50%
wouldn't know how to cheat the public for a few years. But our problem is
us. The American people simply won't vote the people in Congress out of
power. As long as they keep sending the same people back to do the same
thing year after year nothing is going to change. Funny isn't it, Americans
complain to high heavens about the government and about the corrupt people
in Washington but when they get the chance to put someone else in office
they refuse to do it. So maybe the problem isn't the folks in office but
it's the people voting for them. What's that line of Einstein's about doing
the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Americans must
just be insane.


I think you're on to something. How about term limits?

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Hawke wrote:
That sounds like a good idea but there is a problem. Even though the
Congress has an approval rating of 29% ,when polled, 57% of people say
they
are happy with their own representative. So between the horrible way
districts have been gerrymandered, and the fact that the majority of
people
are satisfied with their own representatives, it's not likely there's
ever
going to be a big blow out of incumbents.

What needs to happen is for about 50% or more of the people in congress
to
be sent home. That would send a message to the rest that their normal
corrupt business practices wouldn't be tolerated any more and the new
50%
wouldn't know how to cheat the public for a few years. But our problem
is
us. The American people simply won't vote the people in Congress out of
power. As long as they keep sending the same people back to do the same
thing year after year nothing is going to change. Funny isn't it,
Americans
complain to high heavens about the government and about the corrupt
people
in Washington but when they get the chance to put someone else in office
they refuse to do it. So maybe the problem isn't the folks in office but
it's the people voting for them. What's that line of Einstein's about
doing
the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Americans
must
just be insane.


I think you're on to something. How about term limits?

At least we know that's one way to force a turnover, probably the only way
too.

Hawke