CIA head: Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

And that title attributes the accuser--get over yourself, Mr. Righteous Indignation. This is as bad as your "they're doing to cut off all our heads" hysteria. Lighten up.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You posted a quotation which accuses a person of great evil, based on the wildest guesswork.

And? That's against what law, by-law, convention?

Quote:

When someone says that there is a danger which we ought to pay attention to, how does that imply that he wants the danger to be fulfilled so that he can look correct? Find me any recent quotation from Cheney which indicates that he wants America to be attacked.

No. I am not beholden to you to hunt up quotes from Dick Cheney. If you don't want to see the obvious logical path of his recent statements, that's your call. Doesn't matter to me.

Cycloptichorn

And that title attributes the accuser--get over yourself, Mr. Righteous Indignation. This is as bad as your "they're doing to cut off all our heads" hysteria. Lighten up.

You posted a quotation which accuses a person of great evil, based on the wildest guesswork.

Quote:

I'll bet you won't tell us how you'd like it if I posted an article quoting someone who accused you of something truly evil and horrible, knowing that it was wild speculation based on nothing.

I'll be happy to tell you. I don't believe in shooting the messenger. If you posted a news item which contained invidious accusations which were wild speculation based on nothing, i'd have a grudge against whomever had published the article, not you.

Once again, get over yourself, Mr. Righteous Indignation.

Oh, it's perfectly legal, just immoral.

It's by no means clear that Mr Cheney was not involved in the last attack on US soil. But I suppose he didn't realise it was going to be so big.

I'm free not to promulgate unfounded character assasination, so if I do promulgate it, I bear some responsibility.

Walter posted a news item about someone who accused Cheney of evil (and even if he is not guilty of this, he certainly deserves to be described as evil). You continue to whine about this, and ignore the undeniable fact that Walter posted a news item about the accusation, and offered no opinion on the legitimacy of the accusation.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Oh, it's perfectly legal, just immoral.

So you say that it is immoral that some dozens of US-papers (including quite conservative ones - see above), numerous foreign papers, reported about this? With nearly exactly the same headline as on this thread?

My feeling is that you weren't just reporting the news, you were endorsing it.

Quote:

I'm free not to promulgate unfounded character assasination, so if I do promulgate it, I bear some responsibility.

Jesus, the irony here is incredible. This is exactly what you're doing to Walter. Walter did not promulgate unfounded character assassination. He posted an article about someone who made an accusation against Cheney. You have not established that the charge is unfounded, so that's bullshit right there. I rather doubt that the Director of Central Intelligence can substantiate such an accusation, but as soon as you describe it as unfounded, you take on the responsibility for that statement. Walter promulgated nothing--he reported on what newspapers were reporting.

Once again, hysteria from Mr. Righteous indignation.

Perhaps it's easier to attack me than the media, especially the conservative ones.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My feeling is that you weren't just reporting the news, you were endorsing it.

Your more stupid than I thought, sorry.

Name calling is surely the lowest level of debate.

Oh, it's perfectly legal, just immoral.

The accuser is responsible to prove an allegation.

Once again, promulgating wild accusations of wickedness against someone is irresponsible, except in a few special cases, e.g. unless one is a newspaper with a responsibility to report all significant occurrences.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Name calling is surely the lowest level of debate.

I have the strong feeling that you are stupid. This is not name calling.