Sounds like she's a hero and a whistle-blower.

From the article, "The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC."

If our administration authorized secret prisons against the rule of international law they should be tried for war crimes.

We are a country of laws, not a country of outlaws.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion”

George Orwell

And the anti-terrorism chief of the European Union testified recently that he found *no trace* of "secret CIA prisons" in Europe. Sounds less like a whistleblower and more like a liar to me.

Oh, did I say, "liar"? I meant to say TRAITOR. Making up stories designed to defame the US government and passing these along to the press in time of war falls in the "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States".

Defenders of the Constitution have an obligation to disobey illegal orders. To remain quiet about war crimes is not an option.

By ignoring, and in fact, encouraging the destruction of the Constitution, YOU are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, without and WITHIN.

To paraphrase Thoreau, in unjust times, just men belong in prison.

Lying,Treason and Moral Decadence is standard operating procedure for the Left! How can any of this be against the law? You know the Culture of Moral Decadence!

I wonder why she lied about the "secret prisons?"

Not only did she give $2,000 to Kerry she gave an additional $5,700 to various democrat organizations. She's also part of the far left "Center for Strategic and International Studies."

Didn't the reporter babe win a Pulitzer for the story that resulted from this leak?

Way to go, morongeo--lining up on the side of the enemy, as usual. You'd better hope King George ain't tappin' your phones, son...

Dana Priest is the "reporter" and yes she got the pulizer for lying. Can you imagine hating your country so much that you would believe anything negative and not even try to make sure the claims were true?

Someone wrote something about Republicans writing bad check. Better be careful with that statement. I seem to recall the donks having totally corrupting the House bank to the point many donks either resigned or were indicted, Rostenkowski was one that comes to mind.

OKC is a weak comparison as 9-11 has another country attacking and an international conspiracy, where OKC was a small group losers. One is dead; one will never see the light of day again.

Don't forget about the democrat post office scandal too.

This is a big scandal amd the Republicans should press it. This turned out to be a lie and the Europeans can not find any evidence to support her claim. This has impacted our relations with our European allies. There is a very good write up of this by Bryan York.

I hope she is charged and convicted of crimes.

So how can you get in trouble or call it leaking if its not true? And IF IT IS TRUE???...........

So if she can be fired for blowing the whistle on secret torture prisons, when will Chaney, Libby, and Rove be fired for blowing the cover on a CIA agent covertly working on nukes in Iran?

You don't get Pulizer's for fiction. Secrect prisons have been confirmed. Where do you think all those private jets carrying CIA prisoners were going?

Picture this: It is 1941 in Berlin. You are Christian and you have your Jewish neighbors hiding in your cellar to prevent them from being taken to a camp to be killed.
A Nazi officer - a lawful authority - asks you if you know where your Jewish neighbors are. If you tell the truth to the lawful authorities, your neighbors will be killed. If you lie, you break the law. What do you do?

Picture this: You are a foot soldier in the German Army. You are assigned to a concentration camp where you see people by the tens of thousands being executed in gas chambers. After a year you transfer to another part of army. You are captured by the Americans. Would you tell the Americans about the camps? To do so would make you a traitor and you would be revealing classified information in violation of the law.

Picture this: You are a CIA agent. The public already knows about the torture at Abu Graib and Gitmo, but you learn there are several black sites in Eastern Europe where torture and executions are routine. Would you tell the press about the sites? You would be revealing classified information in violation of the law, but in this case you would not be a traitor because your sworn oath is to the Constitution – not the White House.

Still, would you risk the loss of your job and prison to do the right thing? Do you have the courage?

"Can you imagine hating your country so much that you would believe anything negative and not even try to make sure the claims were true?"

Ha! sounds just like the guy you put into the Oval Office...

tons of nerve gas...nope
nukes....nope
mobile bio weapons labs...nope
etc etc etc

sorry, that was off the subject, but I couldn't resist.

"Can you imagine hating your country so much that you would believe anything negative and not even try to make sure the claims were true?"

Ha! sounds just like the guy you put into the Oval Office...

tons of nerve gas...nope
nukes....nope
mobile bio weapons labs...nope
etc etc etc

sorry, that was off the subject, but I couldn't resist.

Lynch her .... sedition. Do it in the lobby of the CIA headquarters.

Opus, I just couldn't resist. Don't you just hate those lying democrats?

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
"[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)

"We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)

"There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record , October 8, 2002
President Bill Clinton

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998
"[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too."

Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998
Vice President Al Gore

"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people."

Larry King Live, December 16, 1998
"Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen."

ABC News’ "Special Report,” December 16, 1998
"We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his Country."

Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, Calif., September 23, 2002
Secretary Of State Madelyn Albright

"Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges.”

Remarks at the American Legion Convention, New Orleans, La., August 9, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people."

CNN "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," February 18, 1998
Defense Secretary William Cohen

Cohen appeared on ABC’s "This Week” in 1997 to talk about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. To illustrate the danger, he brought a five-pound bag of sugar.

Cohen: It’s important when we talk about weapons of mass destruction that we translate that into something that the American people, and hopefully, the world community can understand. If you take a five pound bag of sugar and accept – call this anthrax (holding up a 5-pound bag of table sugar). This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city – let’s say the size of Washington. It could destroy at least half the population of that city. If you had even more amounts ...

One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax could produce death within five days.

VX is a nerve agent. One drop from this particular thimble as such – one single drop will kill you within a few minutes.

Cokie Roberts: Would you put that bag down please.

Cohen: Now I want to point out – I will spill it on the table – point out that he has had enormous amounts and I’d like to go to some of the lies that have been told about this, because originally, if we could look at this particular chart, the original declaration of Iraq, he said he had small quantities of nerve agent for research. We found almost four tons of VX – that little vial I just showed you – four tons of it.

"This Week” on ABC, November 16, 1997

Infidel,

again, not to stick on this subject but : SO WHAT?
your argument boils down to two wrongs make a right...

Senator Charles Schumer-not my Senator
Senator Ted Kennedy-not my Senator
Senator Chris Dodd-not my Senator
President Bill Clinton-pushed for inspectors, not a military operation
Vice President Al Gore-pushed for inspectors, not a military operation

If King George were so great he should have stood tall and acted like a leader by saying something to the effect of Not sending troops anywhere on a HUNCH, no matter if some vote seeking members of the oposition agree or not...

Your argument should show how Bush is better then those you listed...not standing side by side with them.

Again, Charles Schumer doesn't have the authority to commit troops...King George does

"If our administration authorized secret prisons against the rule of international law they should be tried for war crimes."

And exactly what “international law” prohibits the U.S. from secretly asking European governments to let the U.S. hold enemy combatants in Europe? As I understand it, the only parties that might have violated any laws are the Europeans themselves, who may have violated their own treaties if they allowed the U.S. to secretly hold enemy combatants in Europe. But the U.S. itself would NOT have violated any treaty or international law by seeking to detain enemy combatants in Europe. Even more to the point, who gave you, Mary McCarthy and the Washington Post the qualifications and legal authority to decide that the U.S. violated international law, and that that justified disclosing the program? The answer is “no one,” and that any U.S. citizens who exposed the program sabotaged the national defense in wartime. In a word, they are traitors and should be prosecuted.

“Defenders of the Constitution have an obligation to disobey illegal orders. To remain quiet about war crimes is not an option. By ignoring, and in fact, encouraging the destruction of the Constitution, YOU are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, without and WITHIN.”

Similar questions to you, Einstein. Exactly where does the U.S. Constitution prohibit the U.S. from secretly asking European governments to let the U.S. hold enemy combatants in Europe? And who gave you, Mary McCarthy and the Washington Post the qualifications and legal authority to decide that the program was unconstitutional, and that that justifies disclosing it? Again, the answers are "nowhere," "no one," and that the leakers should be prosecuted.

Opus

You are mind boggling at times. The point was that everyone believed he had WMD and after 9/11 you don't just sit there and "hope". A real leader acted.

The leader you want is in the mold of Nevile Chamberlain and look what that got them. The leader you want is like Bill Clinton...and because of his lack regards to terrorism look what we got.

*****
"Can you imagine hating your (President) so much that you would believe anything negative and not even try to make sure the claims were true?
*****

Now I can

Come on Opus, This wild-eyed hatred for the president is getting a little ridiculous. Two wrongs make a right........? Can't you come up with better than that? How about, half the world(or more), being wrong makes a right! Or even better, 3, that's right three presidential administrations(Bush,Clinton,Bush) being wrong, must make a right, RIGHT????? How about 95% of congress being wrong make a right? Maybe, 80% population approval being wrong, can make a right! You punk a.., responsibility dodging liberal pacifist need to sit down and shut the heck up, while THE MEN clean-up the mess from past administrations and all the rest of the MISTAKE makers, all the while liberating, that's right LIBERATING 50 million people in Afghanistan & Iraq! No, their lives are far from perfect yet, but you ask some of the boyz(like my brother) who were in both places, and they will tell you without a shadow of a doubt(unlike your whistle-blowers) that those people are liberated!

On the subject of Mary itchbay Mcarthy, Fry her. She is no hero or whistle blower! Were are all the freed torture rescipients and the other countries up in arms over our secret fascilities. Just another perfect example of an obstructionist democrat with nothing but political gain on her mind.... all the while aiding and abetting the enemy!

Come on Opus, This wild-eyed hatred for the president is getting a little ridiculous. Two wrongs make a right........? Can't you come up with better than that? How about, half the world(or more), being wrong makes a right! Or even better, 3, that's right three presidential administrations(Bush,Clinton,Bush) being wrong, must make a right, RIGHT????? How about 95% of congress being wrong make a right? Maybe, 80% population approval being wrong, can make a right! You punk a.., responsibility dodging liberal pacifist need to sit down and shut the heck up, while THE MEN clean-up the mess from past administrations and all the rest of the MISTAKE makers, all the while liberating, that's right LIBERATING 50 million people in Afghanistan & Iraq! No, their lives are far from perfect yet, but you ask some of the boyz(like my brother) who were in both places, and they will tell you without a shadow of a doubt(unlike your whistle-blowers) that those people are liberated!

On the subject of Mary itchbay Mcarthy, Fry her. She is no hero or whistle blower! Were are all the freed torture rescipients and the other countries up in arms over our secret fascilities. Just another perfect example of an obstructionist democrat with nothing but political gain on her mind.... all the while aiding and abetting the enemy!

First, murky, just where do you think we should put dangerous prisoners? Here's an idea...why don't you volunteer your own home town as a site for a new, very public, prison for terrorists? Maybe next to the high school. Because there is clearly no problem at all with having American communities host publicly known prisons for people like this. Your sister (if your parents continued to procreate after you were born) could work there. Heck, YOU could work there! Bet it would be good money.

And of course you would never have to worry about having the comrades of these terrorists descend on your lovely little hamlet, guns and grenades in hand, to take hostages to demand the freeing of their buddies. Nah---and if they did, well, you could just TALK to them.

Yeah, publicly known prisons in this country are a very good idea. I guess it took a lib to think of it.

Second, define "secret"? If that means not putting the information in the newspapers, that's fine with me. If it means not letting Ranty know, better yet. But if we have taken prisoners who are dangerous, whose comrades pose even greater danger, then it is simple common sense to limit the information about where they are kept to those who need to know. And when someone has access to that information and leaks it for political gain, iring is not nearly severe enough.

Beyond that, JPL has taken care of the other points.

And Opus, you might try cutting back on the programmed talking points. They are not, and never have been, "thinking points" and regurgitating them after all the abundant and conclusive that they are false is not a good way to convince anyone you are serious about facts.

I guess if people die because of information like this being used for personal or political gain, that's OK. Like warning overseas terrorists that we can, and often do, listen in on their telephone conversations. Who CARES if that leads them to find better ways to plot against us? Who CARES if people end up dying because of it? It was a way to support an invented Gotcha of the President, and THAT is what is important. Ends justifying means, and all.

muirgeo,

True or not, she hadn't the competence to leak the information - if she believes criminal activity is being engaged in, there are plenty of legal avenues available...she swore an oath not to do what she did, and she went ahead and did it...I do wonder why you on the left are always to laudetory of oath breakers...

George,

Actually, you do get Pulitzer's for fiction dressed up as news - Duranty got his for covering up Stalin's crimes, and even after it was proved that Duranty was shill for Stalinism, the New York Times has refused to return the Pulitzer he was awarded for his lies (and this leaves aside the fact that the Pulitzer was awarded to someone who wrote nice things about communism)...Rigoberta Menchu got a Nobel rather than a Pulizter, but her book was also lies dressed up as truth.

Opus, I love your evident concept of how government works. I guess if you didn't vote for someone, or that someone represents another state, his or her opinion is just dismissed. How convenient. Primitive, but convenient. That must apply to leaders of other countries, and UN officials, as well. Evidently being YOUR Senator is just, well,.....SPECIAL.

CI listed only a few of the hundreds of speeches made regarding the absolute belief that Sadaam had, and would use, WMD. And Bill and Al did make speeches about the absolute need for regime change---a far cry from mere inspections.

Fact; WMD were there
Fact: We have found enough of several kinds, including sarin and ricin, to show that much larger amounts had been present
Fact: Prohibited delivery systems, fitted only for carrying payloads consistent with WMD, have been found
Fact: We have witnesses to making WMD, witnesses to storing WMD, and witnesses to moving WMD out of the country
Fact: This information is available to anyone who wants to look for it

Almiranta,

But that doesn't play into the BUSH LIED!!! meme...of course, if you press these kooks as to why BUSH LIED!!!, then you get to the real fun...they'll either absurdly claim they have no idea why BUSH LIED!!! (this is a dodge) or, if they are the braver sort, they'll come out and admit to the kook conspiracy theories they believe about it...

Almiranta
point was I don't care if congress backed Bush, unlike conservative sheep I try to form my on opinions.

so if all of your "facts" are true then why are there any questions? Whey did Bush come out and say the intell was flawed and there were no weapons, then tell Brit Hume he would have gone in anyway?

Mark- how can anyone post an opinion of why Bush went into Iraq if you're going to pre-emptivly shoot them down?
I'll come out and say it:
Two reasons,
1)Oil (uh-oh talking like a moon bat)
2)religion: Scares the hell out of me that George belives he's on a mission from God, Scares the hell out of me that there could even be a hint of truth that he takes apocalyptic visions of the Bible seriously...Which would include plans for Iraq.

Mark stated:
..."if she believes criminal activity is being engaged in, there are plenty of legal avenues available...she swore an oath not to do what she did, and she went ahead and did it...I do wonder why you on the left are always to laudetory of oath breakers..."

I hasten to add the fact that she also signed a legally binding contract stipulating that she understood what would happen to her if she breached her oath of confidentiality. She's entitled to her political views, but she was hired with specific caveats as to how she was allowed to act on security issues.

• She knowingly breached the terms of her employment.
• She knowingly conveyed classified information of vital interest to enemies of this nation to a third party.
• She understood that this third party intended to make this information public.

She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law including the possibility of execution for acts of treason. If there were ever anyone who qualified to be tried as a traitor in the ongoing Global War On Terror, it would seem to be Ms. McCarthy.

Many a respondent to this thread has referenced moral decadence, particularly on the part of the left. As this case progresses, I'm certain that we'll be seeing such decadence on display. Look to see the ACLU, the George Soros-types, and all their sleazy coherts jumping to the defense of Ms. McCarthy and her "right to dissent..." just as their predecessors jumped to the defense of Alger Hiss, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg during their trials for perjury and treason.

Has anyone else noticed the irony of this individual's name? Ms. McCarthy is probably not related to THE Joseph McCarthy, whose name is synonymous with the "Red Scare" tactics of the 1940s and 1950s. Yet, a similar air of near-paranoic fear of homegrown terrorists and terrorist sympathizers would seem to be growing in today's highly charged and partisan political atmosphere. There are some academic and legal experts who assert to this day that Sen. McCarthy's rhetoric was not that far off the mark. They suggest that notwithstanding his political demise, there were actually traitors and saboteurs within many of the halls of our government who went on to live their professional and personal lives with no consequence, only to surface again during the 1960s and 1970s.

I believe that today, like in Sen. Joe McCarthy's day, there are many well-placed fifth columnists who are in positions of authority throughout our government. They often work alone, but when occasion presents itself, they collaborate to forward their agenda. Ms. McCarthy would seem to be an example of such an individual. Like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and like Alger Hiss, she needs to answer to these serious charges. She was apparently willing to commit acts that were damaging to our country in direct violation of her employment contract and oath of office. If convicted, she needs to pay the price.

Opus is more scared of Christians than he is Islamofascists. That's all we need to know about him

dbogdan

All clear thinking people know that McCarthy was right. The release of the Venona papers proves it conclusively.

CJ,

Thats because we're out to get him...last time at the We'll Conquer the World and Force Everyone to Attend Sunday School Society, we discussed ways and means of thwarting Opus...

CJ -- I think it's also revealing that Opus believes Bush invaded Iraq so the Iraqis could charge us $70 a barrel for oil.

It is funny when the donks talking points are completely discredited they can't even come up with new ones. It's sad and pathetic but you have to admit it's quite amusing. The way their minds (or what's left of it) must twist and turn when they repeat that drivel has got to be painful.

Opus is more scared of Christians than he is Islamofascists.

Nope, both the same...not much of a difference between Bush's Born Agains and Islamofascists besides the methods used to attain the same end.

Mark,
Since you aren't 'out to get me' then I guess I won't have to hear about being saved anymore, and I don't have to worry about constantly being asked to A)go see the Passion with our group B)go see the Davinci Code with our group, so they can tell me how wrong I am for not believing, and you all will finally admit the our judicial system isn't based on the 10 Commandments, and you'll all stop arguing legal issues on religious grounds, you'll stop brainwashing the poorest and most desperate people you can find in the world, and every missionary will come home and apologize to those they've terrorized.
I quote you:
"In the by and by the truth of the events at Duke will come out - but the societal disease which set the stage for this sorry event will not even be discussed."
Your societal disease is really, 'stop acting so un-Christian like'

Blind faith has only one end....a lot of mindless sheep who are only happy when they convince other that they are right.

Opus, you are scary! god help us if your kind ever actually has any kind of real power!!!

CJ -- I think it's also revealing that Opus believes Bush invaded Iraq so the Iraqis could charge us $70 a barrel for oil.

Posted by: JPL at April 22, 2006 03:43 PM

Let's see JPL Bush and Cheney are oil men and tell me agian which company has moved to the top of the Forbes 500...tell me again who just made the largest quarterly profits ever..tell me again what company that CEO retired from with a $500,000,000+ dollar package.......opus is being revealing is he???? Or are you maybe just about the dullest tool in the shed? Oh and I think its up to $75 per barral now with some East coast stations running out of gas......I'm off to buy each of my family members a rifle because I'm not so sure societal collapse isn't just around the corner.

What's wrong Bear,
afraid to live in a world w/ no prayer in public school and no on complaints about it, or a world were science is valued over fariy tale's about creationism? Is it scary to think of a world where you have to think for yourself and not have to rely on someone's interpretation of a centuries old fable? would you like a biblical pacifer to calm your fears?

If I were a Dirty Tricks kind of person, and invented some loonies to do fake posting to make the left look bad, I could not have done better than to invent Opus and DAV and stevie. Oh, and Barn.

Now we've got Jim with his pious mouthings of morally-induced civil disobedience. I wonder if he includes abortion clinic bombers in his list of righteous lawbreakers. (I don't, but then I am not stretching to find a way to excuse a wrongdoing. And the bombers do claim they are killing killers to save innocent lives.)

But the thing is, Jim's entire hypothesis depends on the liberal meme that any form or degree of discomfort is "torture". He and his ilk don't see anything wrong with trivializing a matter as gruesome and abhorrent as true torture, just to make what they erroneously think is a point.

Unless they lead such protected and indulgent lives that they really do identify embarassment as torture, or any of the other really trivial things that the (gasp!!!) Abu Ghraib scandalette involved.

The other weak plank in the platform is the automatic knee-jerk assumption that any prison in any other country, if it even exists, MUST be there to make it possible to torture people. As I have pointed out on several occassions, a very obvious reason for secret locations of prisons is to protect people just like Jim--people who would be put in grave danger if it were to be known that their neighborhood slammer held a bunch of Al Queda terrorists.

If Jim and steve and the others don't, or can't, see that anyone associated with a publicized terrorist prison would be a prime target for either retaliation or kidnaping to put pressure on authorities to release the prisoners, they are beyond hope.

If Jim and his neighbors want to petition the government to put a terrorist prison in their neighborhood, and to waive all protection needed as a result, I'll bet the feds would love to save the money and just plunk them down right in Jim's back yard. Hell, go a step farther and list the names and addreses of all the guards, while you're at it---because anything secret MUST be wrong, right?

Show me a single school(other than private) that endorses prayer as a standard Opus! 15 years ago I was in a high school that told us we couldn't pray on the lawn during lunch time, it had to be in a room away from other kids so as not to offend them, the only problem was we couldn't use a school room cause it was government property. Yet, we prayed as a football team in the locker room, and anyone that didn't want to participate didn't have too. Of course they eventually banned that also. So tell me Opus, does it offend you that some of us pray & believe in a God? Sure sounds like it! Do your thing & let us do ours, that's all we ask! Unfortunately that's to much to ask you smart... liberals!

Show me a single school(other than private) that endorses prayer as a standard Opus! 15 years ago I was in a high school that told us we couldn't pray on the lawn during lunch time, it had to be in a room away from other kids so as not to offend them, the only problem was we couldn't use a school room cause it was government property. Yet, we prayed as a football team in the locker room, and anyone that didn't want to participate didn't have too. Of course they eventually banned that also. So tell me Opus, does it offend you that some of us pray & believe in a God? Sure sounds like it! Do your thing & let us do ours, that's all we ask! Unfortunately that's to much to ask you smart... liberals!

"tell me agian which company has moved to the top of the Forbes 500...tell me again who just made the largest quarterly profits ever.."

muirgeo, you're such a simpleton, it's pathetic. Contrary to your childish view of the world, oil prices and oil company profits depend on lots of factors. It's impossible to attribute the rise or fall in oil prices or profits to any one of them. Similarly, it's very difficult to predict the long-term impact any particular action -- including a war -- will have on oil prices and profits. For example, were you aware that crude oil prices DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY after the first Gulf War in 1991, and remained relatively low for the next 10 years? Were you also aware that crude oil prices dropped significantly AGAIN right after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and remained relatively low until prices were driven up by (a) Hurricane Katrina, (b) soaring oil demand in India and China, and (c) fear of a conflict with Iran over its nuclear ambitions?

Your argument that Bush went to war in 2003 because he predicted the war would increase oil prices and profits in 2006 is just plain idiotic. You want to see "the dullest tool in the shed"? Just look in your mirror.

JPL,

Until you can show me the notes from Cheney's energy task force that were drawn up in secret and still to this day have not been viewed by the general public I'll continue to believe this war was about controlling Mideast oil markets.

That secretive energy task force is an outrage. Those J.O.'s work for us and Cheney has no right to conduct our energy policy like it's a top secret issue....except of course because it was because it involved going to war...

That you're complacent with such things just makes you one of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm. Wake up man and take back your country...yeah I'm the simpleton...

bear,

read a post before you respond, and if you did then....ok you proved my point, you're not only ticked that you can't pray in a public school, you can't stop whinning about it...

JP,

careful, Fox New's want's it's talking points back.
That was real nice how you still think there was no thoughts of profit before the invasion...as soon as Iraqi oil can pay for the rebuilding as promissed I'm sure I'll get my refund check in the mail.

bear,

read a post before you respond, and if you did then....ok you proved my point, you're not only ticked that you can't pray in a public school, you can't stop whinning about it...

-Do your thing & let us do ours, that's all we ask!
OK...so no more abortion arguments based on religion, no more prayer in school arguments, no more sending missionaries, no more prostelatizing in general, no more creationism arguments, etc?
You can't keep it to your selves...your whole religion is based on hearding more sheep...
trust me, we'll let you do your thing when you finally keep it TO YOURSELVES

JP,

careful, Fox New's want's it's talking points back.
That was real nice how you still think there was no thoughts of profit before the invasion...as soon as Iraqi oil can pay for the rebuilding as promissed I'm sure I'll get my refund check in the mail.

Boy are you one selfish, hypocritical, piece of flesh Opus! I guess there are souless people out there! Good luck in finding some kind of happiness opus! Maybe you'll find it in another life! Oh yah, read my post again and tell me where we were forcing it on other you twit!

You know, if you guys spent half as much time digging for the truth as you do digging for bogus conspiracies, you might actually get somewhere.

You would think a teacher would be good person to handle education issues. You seem to think that Kerry's war experience qualifies him to pontificate about Iraq. But you think that people in the energy business are the wrong people to understand and work on an energy crisis. Why? Because they are REPUBLICAN energy people,is all.

This is as goofy as the claim that yes, we obviously have to monitor terrorist phone calls---you just don't trust Bush to do the monitoring.

twit?
i've noticed when ever cons realize they have no point they always resort to name calling....

so let me get this staight, I'm wrong? you're fine that there is no prayer in public schools? you admit the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with Constitutional law and any other law and are fine with not aguring ANY case on that premise. You have no problem agruing abortion w/out mentioning the word soul. You'll never again argue for creationism to be tought in a public school? Every chuch that TELLS its members who to vote for will now pay taxes too, right?

Bull, you're a mindless sheep who only thinks your brainwashed way is the right way

finding some kind of happiness? You could never appreciate happiness, all you'll ever know is the mindless naivety of a drone being told what to think then is told that is happiness...

go read your fairy tales....

Almiranta,

You would think a teacher would be good person to handle education issues
-Yes, but don't make record profits from it

think that Kerry's war experience qualifies him to pontificate about Iraq
-Yes, but he only makes a small profit from it

people in the energy business are the wrong people to understand and work on an energy crisis
-YES because they PROFIT FROM IT

we obviously have to monitor terrorist phone calls---you just don't trust Bush to do the monitoring.
-YES. Why should we trust him? He's already lied about the scope of it...why should we trust any of it.

Opus is more scared of Christians than he is Islamofascists.

Opus, you are scary! god help us if your kind ever actually has any kind of real power!!!

Posted by: bearmanUSMC at April 22, 2006 05:09 PM

No more to say to your kind of head in the sand type Opus, g-bye!

Nice try at mischaracterizing my argument, Opus. Why don't you try responding to my ACTUAL points? Contrary to your claim, I never addressed whether the Administration may have hoped that the rebuilding of Iraq would be paid for in part by Iraqi oil profits. The reason I never addressed that issue is because it wasn't the argument muirgeo had made. muirgeo's argument was that Bush invaded Iraq to increase oil profits for U.S. oil companies. And I responded to THAT argument by pointing out that oil prices FELL immediately after BOTH Iraqi wars, and didn't start going back up until other price pressures arose that have little or nothing to do with Iraq. It's therefore extremely unlikely that Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 based on his predicting the oil prices that we're actually seeing in 2006.

But since you raised the issue of paying for Iraqi reconstruction in part with Iraqi oil revenues, exactly what's your point? When Iraq sells a barrel of crude oil to a U.S. oil company, those revenues go to Iraqis. Why shouldn't they use their own revenues to help rebuild their own country?

Finally, contrary to your post, those significant drops in oil prices that happened right after both Iraqi wars are not "Fox talking points." They're HISTORICAL FACTS. Check them out yourself at: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm. Too bad leftists like you and muirgeo can't deal with actual facts, and prefer making up your own alternate universe to help you tell the stories you want to believe.

Nice try mischaracterizing my argument, Opus. Why don't you try responding to my ACTUAL points? Contrary to your claim, I never addressed whether the Administration may have hoped that the rebuilding of Iraq would be paid for in part by Iraqi oil profits. The reason I never addressed that issue is because it wasn't the argument muirgeo had made. muirgeo's argument was that Bush invaded Iraq to increase oil profits for U.S. oil companies. And I responded to THAT argument by pointing out that oil prices FELL immediately after BOTH Iraqi wars, and didn't start going back up until other price pressures arose that have little or nothing to do with Iraq. It's therefore extremely unlikely that Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 based on his accurately predicting 2006 oil prices.

But since you raised the issue of paying for Iraqi reconstruction in part with Iraqi oil revenues, exactly what's your point? When Iraq sells a barrel of crude oil to a U.S. oil company for $75, those revenues go to Iraqis. Why shouldn't they use their own revenues to help rebuild their own country?

Finally, and contrary to your post, those significant drops in oil prices that happened right after both Iraqi wars are not "Fox talking points." They're HISTORICAL FACTS. Check them out yourself at: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm. Too bad leftists like you and muirgeo can't deal with actual facts, and prefer making up your own alternate universe to help you tell the stories you want to believe.

If O'pus worked half as hard at working as he does at being stupid, he'd be richer than any of the oil companies