Please explain to me whose purpose these hyper partisan efforts to impugn the members of the previous administration and CIA operatives, and how re-investigating what has already been investigated, and that which is being currently investigated by an oversight committee in private serve if not the terrorists?
Please explain to me how the continual efforts to erode the perceptions of members of our CIA who are trying to protect US citizens from thugs and despots do not serve the terrorists?
To be quite honest, this entire Liberal Democrat generated partisan debate which serves to only weaken our resolve to deal with these terrorists only serves to encourage the terrorists. So, although it is my OPINION, my opinion is born out by the FACTS are they not?
I will be happy to entertain changing my OPINION if you can express a coherent argument for what all this hand wrenching false one sided hyperbolic rhetoric about "perceived" moralities and false claims of crimes perpetrated will serve to protect us from terrorists in the future.
While you are at it, also explain how this is NOT an ideological political issue between Conservatives and Liberals and how the Liberal hyperbolic rhetoric is not hyper partisan in nature and merely intended to impugn their political enemies in the court of public opinion and will result in nothing more than recriminations and no indictments.
If after NO indictments are served, are you willing to admit you were merely acting in a partisan manner and wrong? I am betting you and the others making these farcical claims of morality will not.
This video clip sums things up pretty well:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plNIJ3BRC70"]YouTube - Krauthammer: KSM "Became A Professor" After Torture; Cheney Is Winning[/ame]
Front Row Washington Blog Archive Ex-Attorney General Gonzales backs CIA prison abuse probe | Blogs |
“We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists,” Gonzales said in an interview with The Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” radio show.
“And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.”
The fact of the matter is he had everything to do with it and his own chief of staff lied to the feds to block the investigation.
Plame and Wilson are not proven liars this is your unfounded opinion.
The nigerian uranium claim was used even though they were advised that it was bogus. Wilson was correct in his article.
Also the problem you seem not to understand is even though Armitage may have leaked it to Novak but you still have Libby and Rove leaking to Cooper and Miller. Armitage didn't know she was covert while Libby and Rove did. There were multiple leakers just because Armitage leaked her name first did not mean that somehow the subsequent leaks were legal. If multiple people rob a bank would you claim that somehow only the first guy should be arrested?