No it isn't. Try to back up your statement with some logic instead of rhetoric. FACT: A law was broken FACT: Someone broke the law FACT: Bush pledged that the criminal would be found and punished Therefore: If the criminal is known and has not been punished, then Bush broke his pledge . . . this is otherwise known as lying.
the reason i didnt give you give any logic was i thought it was apparent to everyone what a lie is. when i speak, i assume i do not have to explain the definitions of very simple words that children understand. i do not expect to be bothered by people who dispute the most basic elements of language. i will not define the word lie for you. i refuse to believe to believe you do not know what a lie is. the question here is why you are pretending to not understand. you might be on to something here.
The law states that someone must intentionally reveal a covert cia agent. Last time I checked, there is no evidence that anyone intentionally revealed her name, only speculation. I'm sure in Red's courtroom someone in the Bush Admin is guilty of a crime, but maybe we should let the real courts decide if a crime was committed, and who actually committed it. As of today, your facts are wrong...
So if it is a fact that a law was broken and the "criminal" is known, Bush is not the one you should be mad at. The independent prosecutor who "investigated" this for 3 years is the one who didn't prosecute. You want to know why? No law was in fact broken at all. It seems that you are the only one who doesn't get this. Figures.
So if the leaker was known all along as is now the claim, why wasn't all this cleared up 3 years ago? Still sounds fishy to me.
Bush guilty of treason? :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :dis: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head. I know there are Bush haters out there, but this one really takes the cake. All you can do is feel sorry for him.
He wasn't an independent prosecutor. He was a Justice Department prosecutor and his boss is George Bush.
So all Armitage must do to evade the law is to say his exposure of a covert agent to a well known reporter was unintentional. And Novak has already stated that Karl Rove was his second source, was that leak also unintentional? So . . . they either illegally leaked the classified information or they stupidly and incompetently leaked it. They may get a free pass legally, but politically this whole affair is very damaging to the Republicans. And the Libby trial will lead right into the 2008 elections.
Blah, blah, blah........and the moon landing was done in a studio.........bahahahahahahahahaha. Shot down again.:hihi: And to boot, get your Streisand albums ready Red, your heart will be broken again in November.
A non-response because you can't defend your assertion. :lol: Failure to fulfill a pledge makes the pledge untrue, thus a lie. Let me make it childishly simple. Red makes the pledge "I will punish martin if he ever uses a capital letter". martin then uses a capital letter, yet Red does not punish him. Therefore Red's pledge was a lie.
