You know .. you're really getting tiresome with your constant harping that this President is running a big cover-up about this.
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!!
"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?