DRUDGE ABCNEWS: UNPRECEDENTED SECURITY BREACH; SPY AT WHITE HOUSE!

Drudge ^ | 10/05/05 | DRUDGE

[el_chupacabra]

developing . . .

[Vision]

Not you again

[Vision]

What makes you such an authority on major leagues?

Experience and dealing with quality posters.

[Rutles4Ever]

If these allegations prove true, then this guy needs to be executed. And anyone who knows me here knows that I'm generally against capital punishment. This, however, cuts at the heart of our national security, the welfare of our entire society...

[brothers4thID]

Firing squad.

[Lazamataz]

Not you again

Hey, relax, guy!

[brothers4thID]

Because he was a Marine and the assignment of Marine details to the White House isn't the same as vetting and hiring personal staff.

[rhombus]

Firing squad.

You'll never see it. In fact, he might get his own talk show.

[Mr. K]

They should cleaned house of all former 'toon employees

[brothers4thID]

Curious here. You are asserting that a person has to be born in the United States to be trusted, correct? What if the person was born overseas to a military father and spent half of his/her life overseas due to extended deployments? Can that person be trusted?

What about the person born in Britain to British and American parents who immigrated to the United States within two weeks of the child's birth?

Exactly what are the limitations on your crass xenophobic generalizations?

[kabar]

These are not baseless allegations. Not in the least, I've posted here at FR several times in the past regarding this very subject

When you state that, "Our country's own State Department is packed full of spies - I would not be surprised if the number was at least 5% or more. That is how bad it is." without any proof or basis in fact, then those allegations are indeed baseless. Spies? Do you understand what that that word means?

Im sorry that you take offense at it, but I equally take offense at the fact that "freedom of speech" and/or tolerance has let so many of these people remain in the State department.

You make these blanket charges without any facts. "So many?" How many are you talking about? More than the 5% who are spies? You are talking about hundreds of personnel who are alleged traitors.

I take offense when I see a State Department official personally tell a member of a foreign government that "we need to do everything in our power to see that Bush is stopped"

If that is indeed the case, I would personally report that to the Secretary of State and the Ambassador providing the name of the official, date, time, and place. This offical represents the United States and its official views. He/she should be held accoutable.

The lead up to the War in Iraq saw many who decided to come out of the closet and profess their hatred for George Bush - How do you think this was received overseas?

A few resigned, with one in Greece being the one I remember. A number of others combined with some former military officers to rail against the war. The British formed a similar group of former diplomats and military officers protesting the war. Kerry trotted out a number of former flag officers at the Dem convention. Although I don't agree with such politicization of the foreign service and the military, they are citizens who are free to express their personal opinions.

How long have you been out of the State Department? Did you not know that it is apparently considered some sort of 'badge of honor' if you personally have a higher cause than our nation's President?

I retired five years ago. I don't accept your characterization. Internally, the State Department has a dissent channel, which permits personnel to express their differing views on policy issues. Annually, you can count the number of dissent cables on one hand. The State Department is a bureaucracy. Anyone running around publicly expressing their views against the President would have the mark of Cain vice a badge of honor, unless your name was General Colin Powell.

I can assure you Kabar that I know very well what I am talking about. This very subject has been a pain in my side for a long time.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You have the temerity to tell someone (me) who has worked in the State Department nearly 30 years how the organization works, who works in it, and that at least 5% are spies. What are your bona fides to make such comments? Did you meet a few foreign service officers at a cocktail party? Or get Embassy assistance for business purposes? I reiterate, you don't know sh** from shinola.

[Jim_Curtis]

Curious here. You are asserting that a person has to be born in the United States to be trusted, correct? What if the person was born overseas to a military father and spent half of his/her life overseas due to extended deployments? Can that person be trusted? What about the person born in Britain to British and American parents who immigrated to the United States within two weeks of the child's birth? Exactly what are the limitations on your crass xenophobic generalizations?

A naturalized citizen could be very trustworthy and a 44 year old flaming liberal could become a qualified conservative nominee for SCOTUS at 45 years of age but why promote that person over someone who has been a solid conservative for with a conservative record when "loyal conservatism" is the main concern? Why promote a naturalized citizen over someone who was born in the US if the top concern is loyalty to the US?

Do you believe the constitution is xenophobic? There must be naturalized citizens who would make a fine President, no?

[marty60]

Apparently this is the case. I guess the oath he took for Naturalization and the Marine oath meant NOTHING to him.

[mosquitobite]

But I'm sure Chaney knew this guy heart, and that he was a trust employee of the administration. BWHAHAHAHA!

[brothers4thID]

Being born in the US is not a guarantee of loyalty.
And yes,for the founding fathers to require the President to be born in the United States but not have the same requirement for members of Congress of the judiciary seems very odd, archaic, and xenophobic. One of the stated goals of the Constitutional convention was to prevent the establishment of an imperial leadership with a rubber stamp legislature. So why were they so concerned about the birth place of the President but not about the birth place of the people who declare war, raise taxes, and confirm federal appointments? An argument can be made that there's a dilution effect in the Congress that you wouldn't have in the Presidency, but there's not even a requirement that the Speaker of the House or the President pro-tem of the Senate being born in the United States.

That fact, the lack of requirements for the Speaker of the House leads to an interesting potential Constitutional crisis. The original articles state the President must be born in the United States, but the 20th Amendment delegates the succession. What happens when the Speaker has to succeed the President and VP but the Speaker was born overseas?

[George Smiley]

demonstrated in his casual abrogation of its First Amendment by his signing of McCain/Feingold;

I think that Bush played poker here and it was one of the rare times when he misread his hand.

If he hadn't signed it, even if he explained that he thought it wasn't constitutional (which *isn't* a role of the Executive Branch, last time I looked) the Democrats and the non-Republican wing of the Republican Party would have had a field day about corrupt Republican fat cats and their big corporate contributions (although, if you look at the numbers, the Dems get the majority of the large donations). I believe that he signed it, thinking

"there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Supreme Court will rule that this is constitutional when it hits their desks, and it will definitely hit their desks."

And the Supreme Court failed to rule as he had anticipated.

[George Smiley]

What happens when the Speaker has to succeed the President and VP but the Speaker was born overseas?

It bypasses the Speaker and goes to the next person in the line of succession.

Smart fellas, those Founders.

[Albion Wilde]

Experience and dealing with quality posters.

Not buying it. If you were so grand, you would admit that your claim that an older person would not be an asset to the Court is not guaranteed to turn out badly. You're not the only one with experience, and you have no idea the extent of mine, in FR or in the world. So pull in your claws and play nice.

[brothers4thID]

Really? What is your Constitutional argument for that? Is there a facet of accepted Constitutional reasoning that says one part of the Constitution holds more weight than another part?

Did you know that there was a historical debate 5 years ago that Jackson's Presidency might not have been legitimate? The reason being, his parents might have moved from South Carolina to the frontiers of Tennessee before his birth. Therefore he would not have been born in Tennessee. Most evidence indicates he was in fact born in SC, but it it's an interesting sidebar.

[brothers4thID]

Edit to my previous post: The debate about Jackson was that he might not have been born in the US if his parents had already moved to Tennessee which was not a state at the time.

Sorry about that. Typing too fast!

[Vision]

Not buying it. If you were so grand, you would admit that your claim that an older person would not be an asset to the Court is not guaranteed to turn out badly. You're not the only one with experience, and you have no idea the extent of mine, in FR or in the world. So pull in your claws and play nice

How old are you? You really have a complex about age. I'm saying...and it has nothing to do with making old people feel bad...you lunatic...:)...is that it is better to get a 50 year old originalist on the bench than a 60 year old one.