Originally Posted by Bucco

Actually, KayakerNC...you dont even have to post anymore.

Any problem was caused by Bush......any good is because he is gone and Obama is here ! Pretty predictable

If you promise to quit posting about Acorn every other day, I'll try to avoid confusing you with facts.

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

If you promise to quit posting about Acorn every other day, I'll try to avoid confusing you with facts.

I wont post about ACORN unless they are in the news !!!

As for facts, no worry...trust me your "facts" are not confusing. As I said, if it is bad....BUSH....if it is good...OBAMA. Got it

Originally Posted by Bucco

I wont post about ACORN unless they are in the news !!!

As for facts, no worry...trust me your "facts" are not confusing. As I said, if it is bad....BUSH....if it is good...OBAMA. Got it

Hey Bucco...that's what got the Annointed One elected. That is their answer for everything while they turn this great nation into a banana republic.
Check out BHO's speech....He say's "I" like 31 times...congress "once" and "law" zero times:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=49056

Keedy

Originally Posted by cabo35

Bimmer, it would appear you would like to split hairs in your limp attempt to defend the indefensible. Unaccustomed as I am to playing the "hair splitting" scenario you chose to initiate, I will respond in kind while trying to keep the integrity of the thread.

Having a modest command of the King'a English, the exact wording in issue, doesn't express your watered down attempt to distract from the point. The text is clearly more precise than your description as just "confidential". In fact it states, “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive”

According to the NY Times, "each page is marked across the top “Highly Confidential Safeguards Sensitive” in capital letters, with the exception of pages that detailed additional information like site maps".

Regarding your lame retreat to a Bush bashing parallel vis-a-vis your link, did you bother to read anything but the headline? Apples and bananas as far as a correlation to the Obama team blunder.

I doubt anyone else would have to reach back to a 2006 NY Times headline about "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war." to attack the Bush administration.

None of the "revelations" regarding the stale information you cite was classified, confidential, highly confidential or "no peek" , nor did it correlate with the premise of your argument. It was Iraqi information that did not expose American secrets. In fact, your link says that "most of the documents were in Arabic." The Iraqis already had all the information contained therein, it was theirs to begin with. I agree with you on one point. Some of the "cookbook" nuts and bolts, if they existed, should have been redacted. However, I reiterate that none of the information was classified in any category.

Speaking of document classification:

I believe the basic Levels of classification used by the U.S. Government are: (sub-categories omitted)

Top secret
Secret
Confidential
Unclassified
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)
Restricted

If this premise is correct, it would appear that anything including and above "Confidential" is considered "Classified" and perhaps the President misspoke when he quoted to the contrary. It is my educated guess that information is "Classified" if it is designated as either Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. It appears the classification in issue falls in the "Confidential" category or one of that category's sub-categories, ergo, it would be "Classified."

I stand by my comment that the Obama administration buffoons who revealed this sensitive information have made me, my family and Americans less safe.

Are we having fun yet? Thanks for the cerebral exercise. I need an antagonist to keep me focused on the fine points even if they are modestly irrelevant and boring to everyone else who reads the thread..

Bimmer....is that a foreign car?

AND SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THEIR JOBS!!