"You're entitled to what you believe - BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY - when you have E V I D E N C E - then you can mouth off!!"
The evidence is that George Bush is the chief executive of the government of the United States. 1) I can't believe he does not want to know what happened in regards to Able Danger. 2)I can't believe he would have difficulty finding out what happened, since everyone involved is an employee of his. 3)Since he is made no statement whatsoever regarding the situation, I assume he is covering up.
Of course, this implies that Rumsfeld is covering up. As I think of it, it is possible that the cover-up would stop there and go no higher than that. However, it seems to me that that would be a dishonorable course for Rumsfeld to follow. I believe, that if Rumsfeld is covering up, he's keeping Bush in the loop about it.
I have great respect for both men, but I believe that a mistake was made and that they feel the need to covered it up.
If people on the outside can never speak without evidence, public pressure can never be generated to bring forth evidence. So I disagree with your view, that I should be silent on this.
In addition, you will note that most of the people who post on this board are speculating about what is actually going on with the cover-up. In general, they lack evidence to back up their various speculations due to the nature of this case. Do you equally object to their speculations, which are without evidence, or is it just mine that you feel is so objectionable?
"I assume he is covering up."
Therein is the problem .. you are ASSUMING and not basing your belief on facts.
Bush does not micro-manage. He gives people an assignment and he expects them to manage it. It's one of the basics of Harvard Business School - delegate, delegate, delegate.
I remember when the Pentagon first muzzled the witnesses of Able Danger. Sen. Sessions said that he was going to take it up with Rumsfeld. The next day, the witnesses weren't muzzled. Now .. I understand that has changed again - but to say Rumsfeld was covering up - you have no facts to substantiate your case.
You have only ASSUMPTIONS - which are NOT FACTS!
And .. you can't possibly say you "have respect" for people and then believe they are covering up - I don't respect people who cover up.
I'm not saying you should be silent - but if you're going to accuse people of doing things - then have EVIDENCE to back it up. Your assumptions don't cut it.
Speculating is not assuming - it's discussing the possibilities of something happening - assuming means you're believing it so without evidence. I might speculate that some people in the Pentagon are covering up - but I'm not assuming it's any certain person - like Rumsfeld. And .. if you had ever listened to any of the things Rumsfeld has said or any of his Pentagon briefings, you could never assume that about Rumsfeld. You have NOTHING to base your assumptions on.
However, I assume Bill Clinton is still sneaking around and sleeping with anybody who's stupid enough to get involved with him - my assumption is based on a history of that action.
You have NOTHING to base your assumptions on.