Just because you offer nothing doesn't mean I can't look at it from a different perspective. I answered ferret honestly...and agreed his perspective was another way to look at it.
If anonymous sources from the NYT is all it takes to come up with an assessment, given their treasonous activities in the past to openly sell out the US by publishing details of secret/classified legal programs used to fight the enemies of our country, then let's get some people in the NYT that actually care about our country. Gotta love how anonymous sources can convince people of anything these days, if it fits their agenda.
The treason argument is an ultimate waste of time. Anyone who disagrees with Bushisms can be considered treasonous; I recall you've labeled Kerry, Murtha, and the NY Times as treasonous, thereby discounting anything they said. No argument out there is less representative of a democracy and more like the claims of a tyranny. The Bush administration will discuss topics with the Times and other sources when they want wide dissemination of their perspective and views. Administrations don't do that with traitors. Millions of war vets value Murtha. Kerry's perspecative is valued by many. Accepted traitors don't get elected to public office. Typically they are sentenced to death. Its the dumbest argument in this forum! Last week I got to read stories by Phillip Caputo, a long term newsman that was in Vietnam as a Marine in '65. He entered the military for some mundane and grand reasons and left as a disillusioned soldier who relized while fighting that all he is fighting for "was to keep he and his comrades alive"...and none of the grand political reasons that politicians of all stripes cry out to the public. In that regard...the Iraq situation is similar for the soldiers in the field. Its not surprising that many are coming out disillusioned and there will be some who are strongly against this action. There are people within the government who disagree with the administrations policies and they are leak sources to news sources like the NYTimes, the Wash. Post, etc. This leak will play itself out over time. Currently, it is an indictment against the statements coming from the administration with regard to making us safer from terrorism. Its a scary "reality statement".
To a degree, as it is apparent that our country has become to wussified to prosecute such actions. However, it makes those actions by men like kerry, murtha and the NYT no less treasonous. I disagree. Disagreement is not at hand. Selling one's country out for pure blind hatred is. How I long for the days of disagreement, when individuals/entities didn't have to resort to treason to get their hateful messages out. Indeed, I have and I took you to task over them as well, noting exactly why, in detail, why I believe each one has committed treason against our country. Unfortunatley, for some, their hatred is so deeply rooted, that treason is an admirable quality in those they support. However, I have not discounted what anyone has said because I've labeled them treasonous. In fact, it is what they "have" said that makes their comments worthy of treason. In most cases, you might be correct. But then I don't toss around "treason" as a casual label. For example, I don't particularly care for Clinton. But he wasn't treasonous. I can think of a number of democrats I don't care for, but would not label them treasonous. But kerry was and I believe the NYT and murtha was as well. Instead of discounting their treasonous actions, because of blind hatred for the president, you should hold them accountable. There is no excuse for selling one's country out. Not even pure blind hatred of a president. To suggest these were "views" is grossly inaccurate. For example, kerry deliberately lied and fabricated untruthful information for the sole purpose of bringing discredit to his country. He knew it wasn't true, but it did not matter. He also illegally met with enemies of our country, during war time, for the purpose of discussing methods of surrender and how he and his organization could work against the US government. He was an inactive officer at the time. This is treason. The NYT disclosed secret information that was legal and had oversight, that is used to fight the enemies of our country. This is treason. Blind hatred of a president does not excuse treason. Murtha sold out our country and his fellow brothers in arms by convicting them without a trial, because his blind hatred for a president. This is treason. I have previously discussed all of these in great detail. Apparently you admire treason and believe it is an endearing quality in leaders. Perhaps that is what you will let speak the most about your own point of views. I don't know of any war vet that values murtha. Admittedly, there are surely *some* out there, but I'd not be inclined to take your word for "millions." When our country stops prosecuting traitors for their actions, there will be no traitors. That doesn't mean their actions were not treasonous. kerry made benedict arnold look like a patriot. murtha is currently under law suit for his treasonous remarks. For someone who admires traitors, I can see your point. Treason isn't a quality for leadership. Blind hatred doesn't legitimize lying either. And your point? I have no doubt you can/could find any number of people to say something that you would agree with. Disagreeing is one thing. However, selling out one's country has no excuse. That's not a disagreement, that's treason. That's why they have different names to identify the two very distinctly different actions. Personal opinion and speculation. We could both find those to say/suggest our own ideas. Disagreeing is one thing. Selling out your country is another. As I recall, you were ready to convict Karl Rove and other administration officials for the Plame leak, with virtually no evidence at all. In fact, it was nothing more than pure speculation. You were all ready for action on that "leak" because your blind hatred thought it was people you "disagreed" with. In the end, it was discovered there were two sources. Wilson himself, whose bloated ego steered him into (paying for, no less) to list his wife's name in "Who's Who" and a non official who leaked the info. Don't you find it odd that your criteria for prosecuting "leaked" information depends on whether it involves prosecuting those you "disagree" with? That was nothing more than "anonymous" sources from the NYT. But, it fits an agenda, the "anonymous" source is given carte blanche credibility. I worry about you Dave. I really do
I feel that sending 40 men to do a job that 400 special men were requested for, but were not granted, is quite treasonous. It's not about hatered either. Bin Laden should have be pursued with all the might of the US military as we were told he was being sought. But that was not true. This administration lied when they said they were pursuing terrorists with all the resources of the military, but really were not and bin laden got away. That is treason two fold from where I sit. It's happening now, not 40 years ago, and those you support are doing it. Yet you turn a blind eye and have avoided addressing this three times now. I think I got your and their number here.
Addressing the reality that bush has never fully tried to bring the terrorists to justice is admitting that he invaded the wrong country, sent the troops to the wrong place, and pursued the wrong enemy rather than bin laden (but hey big oil families have a lot of pull with bush ) quite treasonous indeed.
Not treasonous in the least bit. If it were true, a tactical error, no doubt, but just saying it doesn't make it true. Are you arm chair quarterbacking in hindsight? Source? Doesn't matter where you sit or what you wish were the definition or what you wish were true. If you feel you can make a case based upon the definition of treason, by all means try. There is no doubt kerry, murtha and the nyt fit well within that definition. You haven't established anything to turn a blind eye to. Merely opinion that is derived from blind hatred. I welcome you to use facts coupled with the definition above to do so.
Hilarious seeing you trying to pull the definition routine. I'm still waiting on that definition of fetuses = babies for months now, and you've offered nothing but your own blind hatred instead
GTech, you said nothing to debunk my assertions and only followed the path of a good sheep. I am beginning to think you work for this administration as you seem to work in certain parameters, yet allow no one else the liberty. Oh wait, that's the way that there FOX news network works. Only they can use a tactic and will look one in the eye and cry bullshit when faced with it. Anger? Everyone should be angry. That's what we need is more people to be angry with this adminstration and stop letting the adminstration try and focus the angry on the terrorists with perfectly times announcements. Some of us get it.
Life begins with a heartbeat. When you intentionally take that heartbeat away, it's called murder. Hopefully you aren't planning on doing it again anytime soon.
You may have missed the part where I simply asked for a source? If you are going to make "assertions" based upon fact, a source would help. Or was this simply an "emotional feeling" you have? The offer stands. I welcome you to source your "feelings" with facts. If you can. I appreciate your interest in sheep, there are many lonely males who obcess over sheep, but I'm not interested in your personal life Just the facts, please!
GTech: The treason/traitor comments are not worthy of response. None of those individuals or institutions are traitors in the eyes of the law or government or the law. They are your opinions. They end up being statements that make discussion useless. Overstated opinions don't go anywhere. They are a waste of time. As far as the Plamegate story goes, I admitted my suspicions were wrong based on what Armitage said. I don't recall that I was about to Prosecute Rove on the argument....I'd have to go back and reread all that I wrote. Frankly, I found the discussion and subsequent comments in which Novak and Armitage disagree on the way in which Armitage revealed Plame's identity confusing. All in all it seems to be a minor point in the midst of endless discussions about Bush policies. I'll agree though, that based on Armitage's revelation it was not iniitially an administration plot to discredit Wilson....though, subsequent conversations by the Bush administration suggest that they picked up on the issue. the one TOTAL misinformation about that issue though is that the Who's who description of Wilson (with his wife's name) had NOTHING to do w/ the leak, despite what Drudge wrote once and you continue to bring up. That is a distortion of the issue. That is taking one sentence and distorting every ounce of its meaning. You ought to drop the argument. It only suggests that you can't argue points without distorting facts. Not one person within that issue ever made the assertion that Wilson himself was the source for outing his wife. Getting back to the thread discussion we will see how the "leak" about the impact of the Iraq war on overall terrorism will play itself out.
The source was the special ops guy that led the team looking for and that found and cornered OBL. It was on either Discovery, A&E, or the History Channel therefore I can't provide a link. However, I will look into another way to find the information. BTW, I got a spare stump and knee high boots you can have. You'd like sheep.
Just another NY Times hit job that takes a day or so to be corrected: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.as...01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-269298-1&sec=Worldupdates Wonder why anyone ever even quotes the NY Times anymore. It has become a pretty unreliable source.
I found it. It was during the here's how 9/11 happened week of the anniversary. It was on Anderson Cooper 360, not discovery or A&E or History channel as I thought. But the most important point is that this is the words, spoken on video, of a CIA operative, not a news man or womens spin of it. All words from the sources mouth. The words of a CIA operative, not a news man. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/12/acd.02.html How is that using all the resoruces of the US military to get OBL? They (Bush and company) blew it! Every opportunity should have been approached, as they said it would, with the full force of every resource we had. With the billions of dollars that they are spending there and requesting even more to spend, there can be no excuse for limiting this operation except poor management or an intentional failure to perform the duties Bush and company claim they are executing. This was a possible opportunity that was not taken. The point is not that it was only a possiblity, but that it was not explored with all the might of the US military as we were promised OBL would be pursued with. This was not some anonymous source, this was a CIA operative on the ground at the scene, the leader of Operation Jawbreaker. I submit the best possible source and most reliable source that should not have been discounted in any way shape or form. But OBL got away because Bush and company are not doing as they say and the public needs to see that.
There is no response worthy of defending treason. Meeting with enemies of our country during a time of war as an (inactive) officer to discuss terms of surrender and take home action items to be completed on behalf of our enemies is giving them aid and comfort. While you my admire treasonous qualities in your presidendial candidate, I do not. I believe had Bush committed these treasonous acts, you would hold him accountable. No, being aware of the facts is a responsibility. We differ here. I find the treason kerry committed against our country shameful, you find it honorable. Of course it's a minor point now! Your assumptions were proven false, therefore there is nothing to gain out of blaming Bush first. Still, it was leaked information that you were ready to prosecute the administration over without all the facts. But when other leaked info comes along that presumably gives the administration a black eye, you seem to have no problem with it. If that's not blind hatred, I don't know what is. Who didn't pick up on the issue? It was national news. It was Novak who disclosed he learned her identity from Who's Who. Drudge, like many other news sources, simply carried Novak's message. It was a two-fold discovery. Armitage noted the wife connection to Wilson and Novak simply looked up in Who's Who to discover her name. Wilson made a grave mistake and Novak learned her identity through that mistake. This isn't misinformation, it's factual according to Novak. It's not an argument that should be dropped. It's a correct argument. There is no distorting. To suggest otherwise means one of two things; 1) you have evidence to the contrary of Novak, or 2) you are wilfully ignoring the truth. I'll let you decide which of those two options seems obvious. To make things even worse, the prosecutor knew this early on, but still wasted time, money and resources on a witch hunt. Shall we revisit Novak's own words? These are Novak's own words. Surely you don't deny Novak said this? It's already played out. The NYT used "anonymous" sources to leak classified information (again) and it was proven wrong (again).
So, as I suspected, it was an "emotional" argument. On one hand, you have a single source saying he requested a Ranger batallion and instead, was delivered a unit of the most highly trained soldiers in the world, the Delta Force. And you suggest that was treason? Come on noppid, a tactical error at best, if even that. This is what you present to suggest Bush as committed treason? He gave the enemy "aid and comfort" by sending in Delta Force? I'm not sure what "argument" I expected from you, if any, but I didn't expect it to be this lame!