Talk about a wolf guarding the sheep ...

Biscuit said:
And you really don't want to talk about this threads topic. How every single republican senator voted in lock step with democrats to approve a man you think isn't qualified.

Why did they do that BaC?
Click to expand...

Ausmerican said:
BaC, you must have somehow managed to conveniently overlook this the last three times or so that Biscuit posted it (and the times other posters raised the same point).
Could we get an answer?
A Hail Mary?
A Whole Lotta Love?
Anything?
Just something to drown out those damn crickets please!
Click to expand...

Or you could just keep on a'runnin'.
You see that folks? That is avoiding a question! LOL :D
 
IMG-2-21.jpg


http://trevorloudon.com/2011/06/panetta-report-3-leon-panetta-and-the-santa-cruz-socialists/

Some of the names on the list above indicate the circles that both DeLacy and Panetta were moving in at the time.

- Presenter Mardi Wormhoudt was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee … snip … . Wormhoudt, a supporter of Nicaragua’s Marxist-Leninist Sandinista regime, was a delegate on the Let Nicaragua Live Tour for the Coalition for Nicaragua in 1986. She was also a member of a 1987 Sister City Delegation to Alushta in the Soviet Union.

- Jack Berman was a life long leftist activist, a veteran of the Communist Party led Independent Progressive Party and an affiliate of the New American Movement. … snip …

- John McTernan was a Los Angeles lawyer and a several decades veteran of the Communist Party USA. McTernan later joined the New American Movement and eventually the Democratic Socialists of America. … snip …

- Mike Rotkin had been a member of Students for a Democratic Society. He later went on to become a leader of the New American Movement. … snip …
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

:popcorn1
 
http://trevorloudon.com/2011/06/panetta-report-4-leon-panettas-communist-friend-and-the-chinese-spy/

For more than 10 years, Mr. Panetta maintained a close friendship and regular correspondence with Hugh DeLacy, a long time Communist Party member and unrepentant*Marxist-Leninist to his dying day. Panetta regularly supplied DeLacy with government reports and opinions on defense and foreign policy matters. A year before Panetta was elected to Congress and the correspondence began, his friend was in China as a guest of the communists meeting with several former and at least one reported active spy.

Mr. Panetta has apparently volunteered none of this information during any of his Senate confirmation hearings. Not one Senator has asked any questions about any of Panetta’s extensive history with communists and far left activists.

Does the American public deserve to know these disturbing facts about Leon Panetta’s background? What are the implications for US and Western security if Leon Panetta has been in any way compromised by his past associates?
Click to expand...

{crickets}
 
http://www.912projecttennessee.com/Minimally,_Leon_Panetta_is_a_communist_sympathizer/

In his book Advocate and Activist: Memoirs of an American Communist Lawyer, John Abt writes the following:

"The CPUSA [Communist Party] could not, in the American sense of politics, be a party that contended for power through the ballot. Rather we were to be the loyal opposition whose role was to push the Democrats to the left." (Note: This column leaves it to the reader to figure how that Communist goal has worked out over the years.)

And then Abt adds:

"The two Communists who were elected to Congress — John Bernard from Minnesota and Hugh DeLacy from Washington State — were elected as Democrats."

… snip …

John Jacob Abt spent most of his legal career as chief counsel for the Communist Party.

… snip …

On November 22, 1963, after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald asked that he be represented by John Abt.
Click to expand...
 
C_Felix said:
Simple question:

BaC, did you complain when Rummy was nominated as Sec of Defense? After all he did meet with Saddam back in the 80'.s
Click to expand...

...

...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Click to expand...
 
C_Felix said:
Simple question:

BaC, did you complain when Rummy was nominated as Sec of Defense? After all he did meet with Saddam back in the 80'.s
Click to expand...
On official business at the request of Reagan, he did so. That's a little bit different than ...

For more than 10 years, Mr. Panetta maintained a close friendship and regular correspondence with Hugh DeLacy, a long time Communist Party member and unrepentant*Marxist-Leninist to his dying day. Panetta regularly supplied DeLacy with government reports and opinions on defense and foreign policy matters. A year before Panetta was elected to Congress and the correspondence began, his friend was in China as a guest of the communists meeting with several former and at least one reported active spy.

​
But if the goal is to actively permit and support a drift toward communists and hard core ideological socialists in the US Government, the Rumsfield analog would make sense. The use of ridicule as an argument would make sense.

Hell, any and everything would make sense that would cover up the basic simple facts.
 
C_Felix said:
BaC, did you complain when Rummy was nominated as Sec of Defense? After all he did meet with Saddam back in the 80'.s
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Now surely you understand there is a marked difference between Rumsfeld meeting, in his official capacity as a representative of the US government, with the head of state of another country which, at the time, was viewed as an ally again Iran ... and Leon Panetta's personal, long-standing, and quite friendly association with known communists who applauded countries who were clear adversaries of the US, it's allies and it's institutions? Surely you can understand that difference? Or can't you see the forest through/for the proverbial trees?

And surely you can understand the difference between Rumsfeld meeting Saddam (under orders from Reagan) and the unofficial and unsanctioned association of Panetta's communist friends with the heads of state of communist nations (like China) who at the time were even more adversarial to the US and our system of government? Can you not see the forest through/for the trees?

And, finally, surely you can understand that the US had good reasons to want a friendly association with Iraq since Iraq was waging war against Iran, which was considered even more of a threat to the region at the time. Rumsfeld went to Iraq with no illusions about what Iraq was, in contrast to Panetta's and his communist friends' DELUSIONS about communist countries. But because of the threat posed by Iran, Reagan was trying to establish formal relations with Iraq, in the hopes that it might be pushed in the right direction. Rumsfeld went to Iraq in hopes of getting Iraq to exchange ambassadors with the US and just before he was photographed shaking Saddam's hand, he was sent a (then) secret cable from Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger stating the official concern about the Iran war and telling Rumsfeld that "a defeat for Iraq would be a strategic defeat for the U.S."? And yet you expect Rumsfeld to have acted any differently under those circumstances than he did ... to not have shaken Saddam's hand when it was offered? If so, you are either truly naive or, once again, you can't see the forest through/for the proverbial trees, C_F. :D

ED: And that goes for you too, Cleon. :)
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Both are absolutely identical in that they have no relevance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The details of Panetta's associates and friends would be a standard item to be investigation on for example, a security clearance. In fact, it's required and potentially disqualifying:

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Involvement in any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, sedition, or other act whose aim is to overthrow the Government of the United States or alter the form of government by unconstitutional means;

b. Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

c. Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate the overthrow of the United States Government, or any state or subdivision, by force or violence or by other unconstitutional means;​

"Potentially disqualifying" does not of course mean "Disqualifying". It just means the matter is to be investigated. Alleging it is irrelevant is grossly irresponsible and factually incorrect.

Rumsfield's actions on behalf of the US Government are irrelevant for the purposes of making an analogy.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Leon Panetta's personal, long-standing, and quite friendly association with known communists who applauded countries who were clear adversaries of the US, it's allies and it's institutions? Surely you can understand that difference?
Click to expand...

Why did every single Republic member of the Senate vote for his confirmation?
 
mhaze said:
Incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, I'm quite correct.

The details of Panetta's associates and friends would be a standard item to be investigation on for example, a security clearance. In fact, it's required and potentially disqualifying:
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Involvement in any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, sedition, or other act whose aim is to overthrow the Government of the United States or alter the form of government by unconstitutional means;

b. Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

c. Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate the overthrow of the United States Government, or any state or subdivision, by force or violence or by other unconstitutional means;​
"Potentially disqualifying" does not of course mean "Disqualifying". It just means the matter is to be investigated. Alleging it is irrelevant is grossly irresponsible and factually incorrect.

Rumsfield's actions on behalf of the US Government are irrelevant for the purposes of making an analogy.
Click to expand...

Whatever justification you want to use for your guilt-by-association fallacy is fine by me. It's still hogwash. Have fun with it, though!
 
kookbreaker said:
So...he knew a guy who met a spy? This is high treason in mhaze/BAC world?
Click to expand...

Only if there is a greater than 0.00000000002% chance the guy or spy was even a little bit socialist.*








*For the purposes of this definition a "little bit socialist" includes anyone who says the word "socialist" without spitting in anger afterward.
 
And for those who don't think China is a threat (since China is a big part of this story ) …

http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-chinese-microchips-weapons-could-have-been-shut-off-2011-6

Jun. 27, 2011

Last year, the U.S. Navy bought 59,000 microchips for use in everything from missiles to transponders that turned out to be counterfeits from China.

Wired reports the chips weren't only low-quality fakes, they had been made with a "back-door" and could have been remotely shut down at any time.

If left undiscovered the result could have rendered useless U.S. missiles and killed the signal from aircraft that tells everyone whether it's friend or foe.
Click to expand...

Just remember how we defeated the air defense system of Saddam.
 
I have two questions.

1) Of what relevance is someone's friend's political ideology? There are many communists, socialists, and even anarchists that are truly good people that simply subscribe to a different political philosophy than what is commonly accepted in America. Even if this guy was an avowed Communist, what difference does it make? Until you can come up with something better than "Panetta was friends with some Communists," you're undermining your narrative of being pro-American sensibilities. I hate to break it to you, but this is a country where you're permitted to believe whatever you want. Last I checked, it was perfectly within anyone's rights to be friends with or even BAC (BeACommunist). If you start positing otherwise, then you're arguing against the Bill of Rights. And you wouldn't want to do that, would you?

2) Why are you citing/quoting long articles that do nothing but make some spooky implications based on association, then end with a leading question? Honestly, the only other time I've ever seen that argument technique was in Loose Change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom