High Crimes & Treason: Compiling a List

[polyb]

I thinks it time to compile a list of the High Crimes and Treason committed by the cabal. Just to get things going I have few:

1)Lying to the Congress, the Senate, and to the People to justify military actions. IMHO, this is the highest crime that can be commited and so far they have faced no consequences. By default, those representitives that supported this action also are complicit.

2) Violation of The War Crimes Act of 1996

(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to thevictim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection
(a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition. - As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any conduct -
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict andcontrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devicesas amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2441

3)With the Patriot Act being reinstituted plus more amendments that are unconstitutional, I charge this administration and the legislative bodies that support the act with subversion of the constitution. Violating the constitution and the principles is stands for should never be taken lightly.

The list is long and it does go back five years, back to the 2000 election. That's one place to start!

Though I am just a laymen when it comes to the law, it doesn't take a scholar to see what is happening.

 

[SOS2008]

The list is long and it does go back five years, back to the 2000 election. That's one place to start!

Though I am just a laymen when it comes to the law, it doesn't take a scholar to see what is happening.

I'm with ya, but I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters are not educated on political matters or the issues of the day; they don't want to be; their minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical; they...well read the first quote in my signature.

This is really a problem, underneath the carpet as it were, but if we are really going to clean house this needs to be addressed, whether improving education, encouraging better citizenship, ensuring distribution of accurate information, etc. Maybe instead of making more and more threads about facts (nothing against your OP—I agree with it fully), but maybe we should skip it and begin to discuss the roots of the problems and how to resolve these, then maybe everything else will be corrected in turn.

 

[Diane_]

I'm with ya, but I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters are not educated on political matters or the issues of the day; they don't want to be; their minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical; they...well read the first quote in my signature.
This is really a problem, underneath the carpet as it were, but if we are really going to clean house this needs to be addressed, whether improving education, encouraging better citizenship, ensuring distribution of accurate information, etc. Maybe instead of making more and more threads about facts (nothing against your OP—I agree with it fully), but maybe we should skip it and begin to discuss the roots of the problems and how to resolve these, then maybe everything else will be corrected in turn.

I realize this is probably an odd idea, but do you suppose it's possible for someone to disagree with you politically and not be either stupid, evil, or both?

 

[loseyourname]

Whether or not one is a Bush supporter, you can't charge someone unless they have actually broken the law. Maybe #2 fits that, but all I can say is good luck. As far as I can tell, Bush and his cabinet may be partially responsible for creating an environment in which war crimes were likely to take place, but doing that is not itself a war crime. Short of a memo from Rumsfeld telling field commanders "torture them," I don't see what you'd be able to get here.

1)Lying to the Congress, the Senate, and to the People to justify military actions. IMHO, this is the highest crime that can be commited and so far they have faced no consequences. By default, those representitives that supported this action also are complicit.

Also here, whether or not that is your opinion, it's not the law. If one can prove that Bush actually knew his intelligence was incorrect and pushed it through anyway, you can probably charge him with fraud. That would be enough to get him out of office, but again, good luck proving that. Bush wasn't the only one believing his intelligence to be correct. You'd pretty much be pitting the opinions of one intelligence man against the opinions of another.

3)With the Patriot Act being reinstituted plus more amendments that are unconstitutional, I charge this administration and the legislative bodies that support the act with subversion of the constitution. Violating the constitution and the principles is stands for should never be taken lightly.

You might have some outside chance at proving a crime has been committed with your other two, but not with this. Congress has the right to pass any legislation that it wants, then it is up to the courts to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Note that congressmen were not punished for passing the alien and sedition acts. You might think these laws subvert the constitution, but unfortunately it isn't your place to say. That decision is up to the courts. Whatever parts they find to be in violation, they will strike down. Thus far, the Act has been upheld, which means, simply and plainly, that it is not unconstitutional, regardless of any arguments you might make to the contrary (I can guarantee you that these same arguments have been made to the courts and they have not bought them).

 

[Moonbear]

I'm with ya, but I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters are not educated on political matters or the issues of the day; they don't want to be; their minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical; they...well read the first quote in my signature.

Hmm...funny, one of my good friends and colleagues is a Bush supporter...he's an academic scientist, and keeps himself educated on politics, he just has different opinions on it. People can have different opinions without being stupid or uneducated, and remarks such as this are not conducive to an open discussion.

I don't think Bush is a good leader, I didn't vote for him, but geez, it gets tiresome hearing the rants of people trying to form a lynch mob and attacking the intelligence of his supporters as if they don't have a right to a different opinion. Maybe their priorities are simply different from yours?

 

[Gokul43201]

Short of a memo from Rumsfeld telling field commanders "torture them," I don't see what you'd be able to get here.

Several such memos exist - they were all cleared by the JAG as compliant with US and International Law. There's this one memo I recall which included an "extra" set of torture ("counter-resistance techniques") practices which were not yet cleared by JAG but Rummy had recommended that the Legal counsel at Gitmo check them for compliance with the law before they be used.

I think this is it : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dodmemos.pdf

 

[Tide]

I think liberal paranoia is hitting new lows everyday. Cabal?? Gimme a break!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Hmm...funny, one of my good friends and colleagues is a Bush supporter...he's an academic scientist, and keeps himself educated on politics, he just has different opinions on it. People can have different opinions without being stupid or uneducated, and remarks such as this are not conducive to an open discussion.
I don't think Bush is a good leader, I didn't vote for him, but geez, it gets tiresome hearing the rants of people trying to form a lynch mob and attacking the intelligence of his supporters as if they don't have a right to a different opinion. Maybe their priorities are simply different from yours?

I've known this argument before and find it very easy to drive a rather large bus through the hole.

Before I state it, I am not attempting to say your friend is a Nazi but to draw a parallel:

Ahem ... [Just starting Bus]

Scientists know their field but it is no guarantee they know anything about politics after all, the Nazi war machine was driven by brilliant scientists who created rockets to deliver payloads to London in the form of the V1 and V2.

They, including Dr. Mengele, played quite a large part in the evolution of 'the final solution', the experimentation involved and the dehumanization of particular sub-cultures.

To attempt to elevate the scientist as something above the 'norm' is a logical fallacy.

After all, the Nobel Peace Prize is an attempt at appeasment of a scientist who invented something and then realized the horror he had released upon the world.

 

[Smurf]

I think liberal paranoia is hitting new lows everyday. Cabal?? Gimme a break!

What a coincidence, I think everyone in North America is hitting new lows everyday.

Punks arn't even punk anymore, I can't trust anyone.

 

[Tide]

Scientists know their field but it is no guarantee they know anything about politics...

There is substantial evidence here to support that hypothesis! :)

 

[Tide]

What a coincidence, I think everyone in North America is hitting new lows everyday.
Punks arn't even punk anymore, I can't trust anyone.

It's always sumthin' -- to coin a phrase! :)

 

[edward]

I think liberal paranoia is hitting new lows everyday. Cabal?? Gimme a break!

Cabal is the term that was used by Lawrence Wilkerson in a speech on October 6 2005. He was referring to the highly secretive actions of the Bush administrations inner circle. Lawrence Wilkerson was Colin Powells Chief of staff when Powell was Secretary of State. Cabal has been used extensively in the news recently as others picked up on it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

There were no WMD found in Iraq and WMD was our primary reason for starting the war. Either someone manufactured the evidence or we have the most dismal intellegence gathering capabilities of any modern country.

 

[Tide]

Cabal is the term that was used by Lawrence Wilkerson in a speech on October 6 2005. He was referring to the highly secretive actions of the Bush administrations inner circle. Lawrence Wilkerson was Colin Powells Chief of staff when Powell was Secretary of State. Cabal has been used extensively in the news recently as others picked up on it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

I am aware of that. Someone, for whatever reason, overstates his case by misusing the language and now it becomes mantra. It's consistent with the notion that someone made serious mistakes wrt Iraq and now we call it "lies." Now everything is a conspiracy. <gasp!>

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am aware of that. Someone, for whatever reason, overstates his case by misusing the language and now it becomes mantra. It's consistent with the notion that someone made serious mistakes wrt Iraq and now we call it "lies." Now everything is a conspiracy. <gasp!>

Again ... this is 'point of view' ... many people when viewing documents like 'The Downing Street Memo' have the urge to take the vast difference between what was said by the US administration at the time and the intervening time and reality and call it 'lies'.

I can't see how that would have happened, can you?

 

[edward]

I am aware of that. Someone, for whatever reason, overstates his case by misusing the language and now it becomes mantra. It's consistent with the notion that someone made serious mistakes wrt Iraq and now we call it "lies." Now everything is a conspiracy. <gasp!>

Actually Wilkersons case was very well substantiated. Everything done by the administration ,as far as reasons to Invade Iraq, was so secretive...
If the shoe fits.

 

[Tide]

Again ... this is 'point of view'

That's a polite way of saying "political spin" in which case it impossible to conduct reasoned discussion.

 

[Smurf]

That's a polite way of saying "political spin" in which case it impossible to conduct reasoned discussion.

believe it or not, you're opinion isn't actually fact.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That's a polite way of saying "political spin" in which case it impossible to conduct reasoned discussion.

SOMBODY's been listening to Mr. O'Reiley again.

Now if you can actually read a top secret document originating from the government of the UK, the allies of the USA, and written before the invasion describing how the US administration intended to build the case for war and then not question what has been said, it is you who is spinning, my friend.

The best answer I have heard so far from the other side of the pond has been 'what's done is done so let's let it fall by the wayside and get on to the rebuilding of Iraq'.

Meanwhile you're attempting to roast Rove's chestnuts because he outed Plame.

No, THAT is spin.

Let's let scooter fall on his sword because the alternative is that the administration goes down... THAT IS SPIN.

Do you really think we 'foreigners' are idiots?

You've been caught with the evidence explaining how you set up the case for invasion and the best you can do is prosecute a guy called 'Scooter' for whispering a name to a newspaper reporter?

Thousands of people have died and you're bing amused by a rumourmonger, a tattle-tale, someone who committed the high treason of telling who might have given them the right information for once?

Please man, where is your perspective?

Don't you realize your government has somehow managed to SPIN this so you believe that this is justice?

Shame.

 

[loseyourname]

Several such memos exist - they were all cleared by the JAG as compliant with US and International Law. There's this one memo I recall which included an "extra" set of torture ("counter-resistance techniques") practices which were not yet cleared by JAG but Rummy had recommended that the Legal counsel at Gitmo check them for compliance with the law before they be used.

Gukol, I meant that an illegal memo would have to be found. If these were all either cleared or not to be used until they were cleared, they're useless to anyone trying to prove criminal behavior.

 

[Tide]

believe it or not, you're opinion isn't actually fact.

Well, golleee, that sure makes you sound credible! I am not worthy, I am not worthy! :)

 

[Tide]

TSM,

SOMBODY's been listening to Mr. O'Reiley again.

Get real. I made no assertions beyond the observation that this discussion is spin city personified. Mr. O'Reilly doesn't have a copyright on the word and you have your nerve resorting to such cheap shots and lame tactics in a feeble attempt to save your political dogma.

Now if you can actually read a top secret...

I'm fully aware of what MI5 wrote and this is the same intelligence ministry that got the yellow cake thing wrong. Tell me something new. Again, paranoia? Conspiracy? It looks like X-Files all over again.

Meanwhile you're attempting to roast Rove's chestnuts because he outed Plame.

Meanwhile, you continue attempting to put words in people's mouths. Rather undignified, wouldn't you say?

Do you really think we 'foreigners' are idiots?

From your vantage point I am the foreigner and your implications are just plain silliness. Remind me, I seem to be having a slight mental lapse here. Didn't I assert that it is impossible to have serious discourse on political matters? You're making my case with each line you write.

You've been caught with the evidence explaining how you set up the case for invasion...

Apparently, Smurf didn't recognize there's a whole lot of OPINION being cast about - very thinly disguised as fact! :)

Don't you realize your government has somehow managed to SPIN this so you believe that this is justice?

Do you think all Americans are naive dolts? Give us some credit, man! I'll avoid the tempatation to respond in kind with mention of your government, its tactics and its "adherents."

Please man, where is your perspective?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[SOS2008]

Hmm...funny, one of my good friends and colleagues is a Bush supporter...he's an academic scientist, and keeps himself educated on politics, he just has different opinions on it. People can have different opinions without being stupid or uneducated, and remarks such as this are not conducive to an open discussion.
I don't think Bush is a good leader, I didn't vote for him, but geez, it gets tiresome hearing the rants of people trying to form a lynch mob and attacking the intelligence of his supporters as if they don't have a right to a different opinion. Maybe their priorities are simply different from yours?

One can never make generalities as there will always be exceptions to the rule. This is why I usually refer to the hard-core Bush supporters as around 20% of Americans. Of that percent, there are a few who are well informed and do a better job of making their case, and I accept a differing opinion when people provide evidence for their views. However, my personal experience is that most people who have supported Bush do little to educate themselves about politics and world affairs, and it shows

The frustration with this mind set has been ongoing since the short time before the invasion of Iraq. During this time people (like me) who were against the invasion insisted there were no WMD, that there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Those of us who dared speak against Bush were despised. Now the facts support our claims. But still the facts are not accepted. Talk about tiresome.

So I stand by what I said above—it is a waste of time attempting a logical debate with people who made up their minds long ago and then threw away the key.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm with ya, but I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters are not educated on political matters or the issues of the day; they don't want to be; their minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical; they...well read the first quote in my signature.

Well, you're in luck: there aren't any hard-core Bush supporters on this board! The last one we had got banned a few months back. Since this board is so heavily liberal, the hard-core conservatives tend to get into fights quickly, and get themselves banned. Sometimes they take a hard-core liberal with them...

In any case, this discussion was had a week or so ago, and I'll say what I said then: show crimes. Just because you don't like or don't agree with something Bush did, doesn't make it a crime. And even if there were crimes, Presidents are so well-insulated that it would be near impossible to nail him for anything (Iran-Contra). Loseyourname's hypothetical is typical: there won't be any such memo, even if Bush did order actions known to be torture. And even if some poorly-phrased memos did exist, he could just destroy them or claim executive privilege (a la Memogate).

All Presidents do things that others would like to nail them for, but short of taking a deposition and hitting them for abstruction of justice (Clinton), there really isn't anything to be had.

During this time people (like me) who were against the invasion insisted... that there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

That's actually a pretty good benchmark issue to identify people on the fringe on both sides: a conservative who believes Saddam was connected to 9/11 is probably on the fringe and a liberal who sees the connection made in a discussion when it wasn't is probably on the liberal fringe.

 

[Informal Logic]

Sometimes they take a hard-core liberal with them...

What is hard-core liberal, and who would that be?

In any case, this discussion was had a week or so ago, and I'll say what I said then: show crimes. Just because you don't like or don't agree with something Bush did, doesn't make it a crime. And even if there were crimes, Presidents are so well-insulated that it would be near impossible to nail him for anything (Iran-Contra).

Likewise, just because you do not have proof, it does not equate to innocence. In the case of the CIA leak, there is more indication of guilt than innocence. In other words, there is even less proof that the Bush administration did not attempt to suppress Wilson's report. Wilson's findings were known before Bush's speech. At the minimum the findings were ignored, but IMHO the leak occurred to discredit these findings. The administration was in the wrong and behaved unethically if not illegally, and regardless of indictments, everyone knows it.

That's actually a pretty good benchmark issue to identify people on the fringe on both sides: a conservative who believes Saddam was connected to 9/11 is probably on the fringe and a liberal who sees the connection made in a discussion when it wasn't is probably on the liberal fringe.

There have been members who have claimed there were WMD—not imagined.

 

[Tide]

IL,

Likewise, just because you do not have proof, it does not equate to innocence.

Nor does it equate to guilt. The burden of proof is on those making the charge.

In the case of the CIA leak, there is more indication of guilt than innocence.

Is that called wishful thinking? It's not the case according to the prosecutor who reviewed a lot more evidence than you have access to.

but IMHO the leak occurred to discredit these findings

The operative word is "opinion." The contrary evidence is that Wilson was unqualified to make such an assessment. He was not the spook. His wife was. Moreover, he claimed to have been sent by Cheney. Cheney clumsily pointed out that he did not send Wilson and one should look at his contacts in the CIA for Wilson's invitation. And you think it is something new for politicians to discredit "the other side?"

Incidentally, doesn't it seem somewhat odd to anyone that Wilson filed his "report" in op-ed pieces in the NYT and Washington post? HINT: It's called POLITICS!

if not illegally, regardless of indictments, everyone knows it.

Everyone? LoL! Hey, who needs facts anyhow? They are such a petty nuisance! :)

 

[russ_watters]

Likewise, just because you do not have proof, it does not equate to innocence.

Uh, yeah - in the legal system of the United States, it does. If your purpose is just flame-throwing, then sure, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but if the purpose of this (and the OP implies it) is to impeach and remove him, then positive evidence of guilt is required.

In the case of the CIA leak, there is more indication of guilt than innocence. In other words, there is even less proof that the Bush administration did not attempt to suppress Wilson's report.

Guilt by who of what, specifically?

The administration was in the wrong and behaved unethically if not illegally, and regardless of indictments, everyone knows it.

Fine. There is a big difference between unethical and illegal and a big difference between what people believe and what they can prove. You are, of course, free to choose your criteria for yourself.

There have been members who have claimed there were WMD—not imagined.

My post didn't mention WMD, but that is another benchmark issue. People who today say the world community was not in unanamous agreement before the war, that Hussein had WMD are probably in the left-wing fringe. People who say any significant WMD were found after the war would likely be on the right-wing fringe.

 

[SOS2008]

The contrary evidence is that Wilson was unqualified to make such an assessment. He was not the spook. His wife was. Moreover, he claimed to have been sent by Cheney. Cheney clumsily pointed out that he did not send Wilson and one should look at his contacts in the CIA for Wilson's invitation. And you think it is something new for politicians to discredit "the other side?"
Incidentally, doesn't it seem somewhat odd to anyone that Wilson filed his "report" in op-ed pieces in the NYT and Washington post? HINT: It's called POLITICS!
Everyone? LoL! Hey, who needs facts anyhow? They are such a petty nuisance! :)

Do you have a reliable source stating Wilson was unqualified? As for who sent him, do you have a reliable source verifying that it was his wife that made the decision and made it solely?

Also, check the dates for the chain of events -- when Wilson's report was filed, when Valerie's identity was revealed, and when Wilson wrote the op-ed in the NY Times. Do you suppose he realized he was being attacked and wanted to defend himself by going to the papers?

Also, please explain to me why the findings in his report were ignored—or should we say discredited in a very nasty way.

...but if the purpose of this (and the OP implies it) is to impeach and remove him, then positive evidence of guilt is required. ..There is a big difference between unethical and illegal and a big difference between what people believe and what they can prove. You are, of course, free to choose your criteria for yourself.

What is required for investigation? Questionable activities? You don't have to be innocent until proven guilty to be investigated--just reasonable cause, and clearly we have that. Why no Senate investigation? Because of power held by one group. That should concern you.

My post didn't mention WMD, but that is another benchmark issue. People who today say the world community was not in unanamous agreement before the war, that Hussein had WMD are probably in the left-wing fringe. People who say any significant WMD were found after the war would likely be on the right-wing fringe.

There has always been a significant percentage of people against the invasion of Iraq. I would hardly call that "fringe." I am not aware of anyone saying WMD were found, rather they say the WMD were there and then moved before the invasion. Of course these people are never able to provide any legitimate evidence for this. To the contrary, the U.S. was watching closely for such attempts--of course!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Do you have a reliable source stating Wilson was unqualified?

That's a knee slapper isn't it!?:rofl:

A US ambassador unqualified to make judgements on issues like this.

He just speaks for the US government in the country he gets assigned to.

He gets 'top secret pouches' with a security clearance.

He writes secret assessments and communicates directly with the administration.

Naaaah ... I can't see how he'd be even remotely qualified to make such a judgement ... especially when ... as ambassador, he just might have recognized that some of the signatures on the documents in question just hadn't been in the government for 13 years.

There's no way an ambassador dealing with the government would have been privy to THAT information

Have you read his http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html"?

 

[Tide]

Have you read the Senate Intelligence Report?

(http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf)

Check out their assessment of the talented Mr. Wilson's work product. To wit:

During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

Mr. Wilson was neither an intelligence expert, investigator nor expert on WMDs. While Mrs. Wilson has those qualifications, they do not transfer to the ambassador by virtue of marriage or sharing residence.

 

[SOS2008]

Have you read the Senate Intelligence Report?
(http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf)
Check out their assessment of the talented Mr. Wilson's work product. To wit:
Mr. Wilson was neither an intelligence expert, investigator nor expert on WMDs. While Mrs. Wilson has those qualifications, they do not transfer to the ambassador by virtue of marriage or sharing residence.

Senate Intelligence is an oxymoron (especially a Republican one). It was taking too long to download, so I'll have to fisk that in turn later. But the quote provided does not speak to Wilson's qualifications.

 

[Tide]

Senate Intelligence is an oxymoron (especially a Republican one). It was taking too long to download, so I'll have to fisk that in turn later. But the quote provided does not speak to Wilson's qualifications.

See the last paragraph of my previous post. It's no secret Joe was an ambassador, had no training as an investigator, was certainly no expert on WMD and definitely was not a spook. The Intelligence Committee report shows the result of sending an amateur to do a professional's job.

Oxymoron or not, it's the official fact based record which is a little more substantive than wild paranaoia and partisan spin.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Have you read the Senate Intelligence Report?
(http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf)
Check out their assessment of the talented Mr. Wilson's work product. To wit:
Mr. Wilson was neither an intelligence expert, investigator nor expert on WMDs. While Mrs. Wilson has those qualifications, they do not transfer to the ambassador by virtue of marriage or sharing residence.

Riiiight ... so you are taking actions 'after the fact' when he and his wife were under attack as has been done to several people connected to this administration ... when they went public to blow the whistle on an administration so full of it their eyes are brown and quote an intelligence report where the salient point starts with "I believed very strongly".

Now, how much intelligence does it take to read the document in question and compare the signatures to people actually working in the government at the time?

What YOU need to do is set your Bullsh!t detector a little more sensitively when you attack a scapegoat.

Now that you have trashed the reputation of the man named above even when I gave you a link to his http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html" and see if you can tell me why this individual deserves to be in the White House meddling in the workings of the CIA.

The primary difference you will see between the two is that Rumsfeld was one of the first to shake the hand of Saddam and Wilson was the last.

 

[Tide]

I think your spin actuator is overheating. I have trashed no one. Wilson was unqualified and his "report" was full of holes according the Senate Intelligence report. The issue here is crimes and treason both appear to be wishful thinking. Who's trashing whom?

One can cry high crimes and treason all day but without specific charges, indictments and convictions one is simply blowing political dust in the wind and probably contributing to global warming in the process. Innuendo, suspicion and smear do not constitute guilt or conviction.

I'll regard any players in the game to be guilty when I see convictions. In the meantime, when political hacks go after the big boys then the big boys respond. Is that such a surprise? Is that a crime?

BTW, what do they do with political dissidents in China?

 

[Anttech]

I'm fully aware of what MI5 wrote and this is the same intelligence ministry that got the yellow cake thing wrong. Tell me something new. Again, paranoia? Conspiracy? It looks like X-Files all over again.

LOL So beause the dowing street memo doesn't fit your agenda, you are trying to smear the the whole british inteligence agency? The ones who were actually saying there wasnt any wmd...

 

[Tide]

LOL So beause the dowing street memo doesn't fit your agenda, you are trying to smear the the whole british inteligence agency? The ones who were actually saying there wasnt any wmd...

It's nice to see how capable we are of keeping things in context! :)

The agenda was set in the OP. It looks like a high tech lynching, to coin a phrase, and the feeding frenzy is on. I want to see reasoned argument and proof and not baseless partisan charges. You call THAT an agenda? tsk tsk!

What do we have? Here it is: Perjury and obstruction of justice charges, a teary eyed prosecutor who has very deep feelings about protecting government agents but fails to indict for outing one such agent after two years of investigation. I'd gladly lock up any individual who committed such an atrocity and throw away the key. But "high crimes and treason" without a conviction let alone an indictment is seriously wanting.