Re: "He's covering up the CIA scandal now and is in big-big trouble"
Are you Psychic, an insider, or what? If you don't know it other than by your intuition, you've just written a false statement(you could preface with "I think," and I couldn't say this, and you'd appear to be an honest man).
So far, I've heard that her husbands biography offers her name. I've heard that her neighbors and many others have long known well where she works. I've heard that she was definitely an undercover agent and that her blown cover will have far reaching very serious negative effects. I've also heard that she certainly was not an undercover agent(if not, its no crime revealing her name, and in fact I'm wonderng, was she ever claimed to be undercover in the article in which her name was revealed? This could be significant, for if she IS undercover for real and he DIDN'T note it in the article, then it has to be someone else who revealed this all significant fact, likely haplessly, by way of seeking to nail the Bush Administration to the wall).
The man who printed her name says no one in the White House gave him her name(maybe someone in the White House gave it to someone else who passed it along). The man who wrote the article says he contacted the CIA before revealing the name, and was told merely that they'd rather he did not print it, as doing so might make it more difficult for her to travel, nothing more. He choose to print it, and says he was essentially left to believe he had a perfect right to do so per his call to the CIA. There is no evidence that he did not make this call, and it may be reasonable to believe that if well-warned, he would not have printed her name. Thus, it might seem that certainly he followed no orders from on high to get the name out, he just thought it relevant and made his own effort to be sure it was ok to print.
The bottom line is you are writing statements as if they are fact, which simply cannot be said to be true to date, and so you appear to be quite the lowly false headline writing National Enquirer sort of poster we know you to be here.
You speculate upon the future of Bush approval ratings, and as is the case with speculations, everybody has one. Here's one: The Markets have improved dramatically this year, economists are pointing to positive signs, and so when the campaign heats up the Bush line will be strong that he didn't create what he obviously inherited, but by god things will be getting so much better that he'll win big over whomever the Democrats put up. I won't likely be voting for him anyway.
Dan B |
