He is a traitor, a disgrace to America. no American should be againt his/her country's govenrment when it comes to national security.

no,he's a whistleblower. A true American hero. Just because we say we're the good guys doesn't mean it's true.

ALL gov ernments eventually succumb to corruption, but atleast the others are honest about what they are.

He is NOT a traitor.

Guess you didn't realize that his first loyalty via the Oath is the US Constitution, to ... support and defend it from domestic and foreign enemies.

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

(The POTUS takes an Oath to "preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution", just in case you did not realize that) Oh, if anyone renounce, refuse, and abjure the Oath they are not allowed to take that position, or they MUST leave that position if done after they get into it.

The reason being is that the people in office change, but the Constitution says how our government MUST be ran, and defends OUR natural Rights from those who might get into office and try to take them away (acts of a domestic enemy and Oath breaker - both are impeachable, prosecutable offenses. Yes, there are legal precedents).

Defending the US Constitution from domestic enemies is their FIRST priority over anything else, including the orders of a superior or the POTUS, the duties of the position they are in.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was already established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all other Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure

Non-sense. There is a difference between secrecy to protect the state (nationalism) and secrecy to protect the people aka national security (patriotism).

It is your duty as a patriot to disclose any crimes or lies that lead to escalations by propagandizing an otherwise ignorant public. Any attempt or collusion to keep secrets for the sake of continuing crimes or unnecessary lies of the state, to preserve the appearence of a virtuous state that doesn't exist, is nationalist treachery to the people.

Not all secrets are equal, not all leaks are treason, not all preservations of secrets are in the interest of security.

If you hold an oath to the state above your duty to the people you damn us to being no better than the Gulag-ridden Soviets, the Communist-framing Nazis, or the intellectual-murdering Cambodians. Any such blind nationalism (zombie nationalism) will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state.

The hallmark of tyranny isn't evil intent...it's the concentration of power out of the false belief nationalism is the equivalent of patriotism, when in fact they are opposed at nearly every turn.

This case may or may not be an example of patriotism versus nationalism, but certainly your assertion that all secrets are to be kept is non-sense. I sure hope if we genocide (for an example) some people (or our own), that such a secret won't be kept from the public...or it would continue. You have to think about these things in terms of historical extremes that are in fact possible to avoid such absolutism as "never leak anything". Remember, the Soviets thought their nationalism was patriotism too...when they arrested poets. The Nazis thought they were patriots for their nationalism...when they arrested their neighbors for questioning the state (Reich). Exposing these crimes, the torture, the mass executions, the indefinite detentions, et cetera, were the first steps to stopping these atrocities.

Leaks can be patriotic. They aren't always, but they certainly can be. We should judge each case separately on it's merits. Above all, we should question authority and think critically for ourselves.

Jon,

The CIA are going against the Oath they took, the US Constitution when they do those things. When they arrested him they compounded the matter, and they are NOT the "good guys" in this. "The discovery of the photographs stunned top CIA officials. Fitzgerald was then appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder to oversee the probe because of his prior expertise in the intelligence protection act as special counsel in charge of the Bush era investigation into the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame."

Plame was innocent, as was her husband. Guess you did not know about that. They released the ID of an undercover operation (they being Holder/Bush/Cheney) which legally and Constitutionally is a TRAITOROUS ACT.

The secrets he can be required to keep MUST not go against the US Constitution, aid in the downfall of our nation, go against our Constitutionally protected (from those within our OWN government) Rights, etc.

Our US Constitution was created to define the way our government will operate and to Protect our Rights from those who serve in our government who would take them away. . In fact, the Bill of Rights sets limits on the federal government, making clear it has no power to infringe on rights we already naturally possess, or limit traditionally held privileges, such as trial by jury.

The first eight amendments making up the Bill of Rights specify rights and privileges the federal government may not in any way abridge. It puts into writing the protections of life liberty and property (rights each of us naturally possess) and the specific privileges in the judicial system already accepted in Anglo-American law.

The 9th Amendment makes the limiting nature of the Constitution clear. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution only grants the government certain, specified powers, the framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers. The federal government may not exercise any powers not granted by the US Constitution.

The CIA is a part of the federal government.

Hello! Whatever happened to freedom of the press? I mean, aren't journalists sworn to secrecy?

Agreed, him ending up in prison should come as no surprise.

A tratior to the United States (which this guy is one) should be punished, or the Oath he took and laws are no good. If he were in China, Russia,Iran or another 3rd world country, he would be dead the day after.

Go tell the childern and spouses of the 9/11 attack, that this tratior has the right to expose "classified information" to journalists as well as violating the federal law that forbids disclosing the identity of covert intelligence officers, and endangering their life. All of the 3rd world countries will get this information, wake up..

Knine

We are aware of the oath the President takes and as you say once they forsake it they should step down, tell that to Obama, not that he'll leave without trying to the last second to establish his kingdom. This guy worked for Kerry and probably was used to get info the Dems could use to make it more likely a Dem would be elected in 2008.

Anyone in such a position shouldn't do this yet we hear of it time and time again. Make an example out of him hang him by the neck until dead. Its clearly for profit, and I doubt it will continue through others if a death sentence is mandatory.

He looks like one of those that will sell their country for a couple of bent over nuts...scares the bejesus out of me how this country vets it's clandestine officers.....

Knine's major error is that he asserts the oath-taker must place country over oath, and yet in this particular case the laws were followed, the legal standards met, and so the country was not in danger. I accept that Knine and others can disagree, can call what happened illegal or torture which violates our laws as well as those of the international treaties we adhere to. But this CIA officer cannot take his own views about what is, and is not, legal, and supplant the legislative/executive/judicial wisdom with his own.

If he did these things he's accused of he should be tried, and if convicted sentenced to a very long prison sentence. This idea that whatever you think at the time you think it is all that matters is a bad concept to allow to take root. Worse would be Knine's implied concept that one can surreptitiously gain information under the pretense of doing one's job when the true purpose is to violate one's oath in order to capitalize on the information, either through policy or personal profit. If true this CIA officer had decided along the way to violate the law, to violate his oath, to lie to his superiors, to decide for himself which laws and constitutional ideas matter, and then to sell these things in the form of a book.

Had he resigned upon deciding he could no longer uphold his oath he could be respected for having principles. But what are his principles now?

don't have enough fact to make any opinion. However, I am curious about CIA's oath. Do they swear to up hold our govt or our constitution?

Another case of "SHOOT THE MESSENGER". Amazing Fitzgerald wasn't good enough to find anything on Carl Rove, as anyone knows THERE ARE REAMS OF FRAUDULENT THINGS IN HIS CLOSET. Instead he finds a messenger that will be disgraced because he told what Bush, Rove,Chaney, and Rumsfeld did illegally. War mongers just love this crap! It just proves evil is even in "justice".

What a bunch of nonsense you people are spewing. Classified is classified. It is not up to each person to decide for themselves if something should be classified. It is not up to each person to interpret the constitution to decide if they should keep a secret or release it. Maybe I interpret the constitution differently than you, does that mean that I can do things and it is ok, if that is how I interpret it? But if you interpret it differently then you cannot do the same thing?

I believe that is what the prior administration did when they gave the nod to waterboarding and other actions against the Geneva Convention.

I guess its "cool" these days to propagate and protect as well as glorify the enemies of the United States. What does everyone think counter intelligence means? Its a covert way to protect the nation and its interests, however nefarious one group thinks these interests are....

EVERY nation since the Roman Empire has had this MO. This is simply how every nation ensures longevity...let our elected officials probe for wrong doing through oversight committees and funding investigations, its what the Constitution was written for but dont give everyone here the BS that an intelligence agency is just WRONG because its covert. If we didnt have one we, as a nation, wouldnt last long in todays world.

The only problem I have with this is that he profited from his knowledge by writing his book and I sure going on TV as a former CIA analyst no doubt to promote his book. Now that he is caught he wants to portray himself as a whistleblower.

CNN quotes Holder as saying that protecting our agents is a major priority...Funny isn't Holder the one being investigated for funneling thousands of unchecked firearms into Mexico that resulted in the death of a U.S. border patrol officer?

There is no interpretation of the Constitution, it's quite clear the way it is written. It's our elected officials that have twisted and interpreted the Constitution to benefit their needs. The CIA is a government organization that has run wild and out of control. They don't have to answer to Congress, they have arranged and assisted in foreign government regime changes, they have been involved in assasinations and killing of innocent civilians, they use the drug trade to finance themselves (because believe it or not, they are allowed to privately fund themselves, which is why our troops are guarding and helping harvest poppy in Afghanistan).

I'm amazed that ANY American citizen is okay with the "noble lie", which is basically an admission that the American public is too dumb to have any input within the government. I don't think we're too dumb, just too lazy and content.

We have been easily convinced that our "security" and freedom are in jeopardy by this false war on terror. The only assaults on our freedom, liberty, and security are from our federal government. While I don't think our servicemen and women stationed overseas should be put in jeopardy, even though our politicians have them over there to expand the empire, I don't think the CIA falls into that category. If they want to run free of oversight and responsibility, then they don't deserve any special protection.

They have never had to answer to congress tough guy...how is this any different than the OSS during WWII? Please know your source material before posting

Armitage On CIA Leak: 'I Screwed Up'

CBS) In an exclusive interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, Richard Armitage, once the No. 2 diplomat at the State Department, couldn't be any blunter.

"Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson," he says.

When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."

In July 2003, Armitage told columnist Robert Novak that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and Novak mentioned it in a column. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn't yet realize what he had done.

So, what exactly did he tell Novak?

"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says.

He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds.

"I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says.

He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger."

"I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says.

Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak.

"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however.

"First of all, I felt so terrible about what I'd done that I felt I deserved whatever was coming to me. And secondarily, I didn't need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth. I as already doing that," Armitage explains. "I was not intentionally outing anybody. As I say, I have tremendous respect for Ambassador. Wilson's African credentials. I didn't know anything about his wife and made an offhand comment. I didn't try to out anybody."

That was nearly three years ago, but the political firestorm over who leaked Valerie Plame's identity continued to burn as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began hauling White House officials and journalists before a grand jury.

Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."

"I thought every day about how I'd screwed up," he adds.

Armitage never did tell the president, but he's talking now because Fitzgerald told him he could

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml

Please get your facts right, Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with it.

Why was Plames name included in the document in the first place? There was to be an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson, outing Ms.Plame was certainly part of the plan.

I thought this was an article about Kirikaou not Armitage guess I need to read it again.............Nope I was right it's about Kirikaou.

You guys are naive enough to believe the cover story, that it was inadvertant and accidental. If that were true there was never any reason for Scooter Libby to lie. Or for Bush to commute his entire sentence. Cheney and Rove planned the whole thing, Armitage was just one of their tools.

Libby went to jail for this. He was Cheney's number 2. If you think Bush and Cheney didn't know, and approve of the Plame affair, who is the dumb ass ?

Now if we could just get Bush II arrested for the Valerie Plame incident that would be fair.

The intent if it is okay for a high ranking federal official(s) to expose an Operative Agent and get away with it then why all of a sudden is another person of lesser rank being raked over the coals? I believe there might be some relation between the two people. Of course I know you were being sarcastic but sometimes sarcasm is pretty dumb too.

Kirikaou, Armitage, Plame, Wilson, Bush, Cheney . . . . All these names are giving me a headache. In the end, we all know that Obama is to blame for everything (wink).

It wasn't about WHO KNEW it was about WHO TOLD!

And Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald Knew who told THREE YEARS before he ever even dragged Libby in to the Grand Jury

Fitzgerald knew that Armitage CLAIMED to be the one who "mistakenly" told Novak. That doesn't mean that Rove and Libby hadn't already deliberately told others in the media the same "classified" information, but those people had refrained from going public with their knowledge. Novak wasn't the first unauthorized person to know Plame and Wilson were the same person, he was simply the first to report it.

Yeah, ol' Pat Fitzgerald did one helluva job with the Valerie Plame case...really brought the guilty to justice! HAH!He's a boob, a king without clothes. Nothing going to happen here.....

Dado....#62.1..... If Fitzgerald already knew who had spilled the beans i.e. outed Plame so to speak, why was there any need for the ongoing investigation and grilling of all those folks from reporters to govt employees?

Was this a fishing expidition or was it that the person who fess up was not believed?

Should anyone speak out if they see, know about continued wrong doing that is also against the law of the land and international law? Or should the person turn a blind eye and ear or do a cover up of the wrong doing?

Oh well we will never find who took or any of all those billions of dollars 'lost' in Iraq and Afghanistan.... but then we never heard about it .... Shusssh.... LOL

Is this sort of prosecutory activity why everyone is keeping quiet and there appears to be no investigation into which persons are or were behind/caused the actual collapse of the USA and global economy? Hmmmm

Poor Madoff...he made off with the wrong folks money....LOL Wonder if the son who committed suicide was the one who blabbed abt the Ponzi.....

"as well as violating the federal law that forbids disclosing the identity of covert intelligence officers."

Didn't that happen not long ago on the previous POTUS watch?

Ahh, never mind, no comment, they might be watching!!!

Simple really, Joe Wilson comes back from Iraq to let the Govt. know that all of their intel is crap, they don't like the answer as it does not conform to the pre-planned war so they out his wife Valerie Plame and invade Iraq anyhow...Plain and simple...for you who think Armitage outed her by accident, you may remove your head from your large bowel...

Novak was an opportunistic tool. Journalists often come across sensitive intelligence all the time and, more often then not, have the discretion enough to sit on it. Back in the 60's, the Kennedy administration was well aware that the national media had gotten a whif of the Cuban Missle Crisis. In an act of utter patriotism, JFK appealed to them to sit on the story until a diplomatic solution could be sorted out. Gone is that kind of era. Could you imagine what would've happened if events like that unfolded today? Competition to get the story out first would supercede any and all journalistic responsibility.

What Kiriakou has done was reckless & foolish and he didn't do it for anything as noble as the people. He had his own agenda. Whether or not the Justice Dept. can get a conviction is a moot point. The damage has already been done. It is him (and people LIKE him) that is the cause of so many of our branches of Intelligence & law enforcement being so badly compromised.

Jim, the thing was that a diplomatic solution was being attempted.... and it was logical to ask the media to wait until all diplomatic attempts were exhausted to bring a peaceful resolution to the issue, as reporting on the matter could have caused any agreement to stall, fail or escalate into an armed conflict.

Plus this was in the 1960s when people still had a modicum of respect for themselves and each other and the Office of the Presidency imo. Now conflict, ignorance and stupididity gets you noticed and sells books, and everyone want face time on tv with a view to a contract with a news channel as a talking head.

Anyhoo, doubtful that Kennedy could have asked or would have bothered to ask for that consideration in this day and age imo. Or if he did they would probably not agree, on the other hand someone in his admin would probably have leaked it anyway then blame the media for reporting it. LOL

These days some folks think that diplomacy is a waste of time and will accomplish nothing, and it is easier to just put 'boots on the ground' first, talk later and to hewl with the consequences.

There are too many people who are in love with war and conflicts in the 21st century. Peace seem to be looked upon by some as for wussies, peacenicks, liberals, lefties and progressives who they believe love talk and no action. LOL

Peace...cheers to diplomacy, the thinking person's weapon of choice....

Are you two mixing up the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis?

Dadoftim can google like no other.

dadoftim - yeah riiiight - we believe that like we believed in MOMD.

Bush wasn't cunning enough and all Cheney had to do was say he had nothing to do with it.

wink wink

No he didn't.

There are internal channels to address issues. If you sign on the dotted line, you keep the secrets even if you dislike the secrets.

Anything else is treason.

Sounds like a wiwileaks lover to me ...

paidmyfee, actually you are wrong.

Maybe you don't understand but all law enforcement agencies take an Oath to "support and defend the US Constitution". That is their first priority over any order given by a superior or the POTUS, over the duties of their position.

Those above him, and those who are pressing those charges are actually the ones who are domestic enemies of the USA and Oath breakers, for which they can be prosecuted (yes, there are legal precedents). There is a reason they are REQUIRED to take the Oath to get into the position they are occupying, they are supposed to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies, not just foreign ones.

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are required to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity. Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

(See the word "Office"?)

* "Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of those Rights

Understand?

* The wording of the Presidential Oath was already established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all other Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4. They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

The US Constitution was created to define the way our government will operate and to Protect our Rights from those who serve in our government who would take them away. The Constitution only grants the government certain, specified powers (CIA is part of the government). The framers wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Constitution only grants the feds prescribed, specific, enumerated powers, and that the federal government may not exercise any powers not granted by the US Constitution

Law33,

You seem to not understand "the many responsibilities and allegiance they carry to the United States, who is their employer."

"We the People..." are their employer, and we require them to follow the US Constitution, NOT to support anyone who is going against the Constitution, America, its people. You seem to misunderstand what the CIA is supposed to be doing.

The CIA is part of our federal government under the US Constitution. Every single person in the CIA takes an Oath to support and defend the US Constitution.

When someone in the CIA does something against the US Constitution, against the USA, etc they are the ones in the wrong and should have been arrested and going on trial.

The First responsibility anyone in the CIA has: before the orders of superiors; orders from, or even the life of the POTUS; before the duties of their position is to "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION".

Actually that is the military's job, the legislative branch, the judicial branch, (the POTUS is supposed to "preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution), the heads of the states, even all federal employees are supposed to "support and defend the US Constitution before anything else.

That is because it is the US Constitution that defines how our country is. Notice the further we get away from it, the worst everyones lives are? That is because we are moving away from America as a constitutional republic where our elected representatives swear to uphold the Constitution as they serve at the will and by the consent of the people (A Constitutional Republic - the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens), and more towards a dictatorship.

or like Bush's "employee" Armitage.

I'm just sayin - fair is fair

Those who fear spending billions on national security only to have some loser peddle it to China for 10K and a hooker have a reason to protect the security of our nation.

Truth is, this guy is a traitor.

Wm-375815...

Yes, lets check the time line..... he was ALREADY under investigation when Kerry hired him.

I guess that's similar to Kerry's "I was against it before I was for it" oop's

Yea, like you've done any better to defend this country.

David: seek help.

I am ... thanks.

If you felt America was worth defending, you would defend it and sleep well.

If you lie awake at night, blaming the "rich" for your poverty and lack of ambition, blaming America for terrorism, blaming "big oil" for your poor fuel economy, cursing America for defending herself and laughing when servicemen die, most of all you are always blaming anyone but yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you should puke when you look in the mirror.

If Barry and company are not ashamed about "Operation Fast and Furious", taking bribes from GE and installing the company president in the White House, Solandra, ACORN voter fraud, illegal immigration, lack of border security, failing to even propose a budget, costing tens of thousands of jobs every week to push his failed environmental policies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then there is no shame at the CIA.

paidmyfee: There is a bit of truth in your assessment... I do have trouble facing myself in the mirror, but I will never support the CIA in any way. As for poverty... you're dead wrong. I am rich, but I admit it has nothing to do with money. Strange rant...

as soon as we hang the entire BUSH/CHENEY administration for doing the same thing...and worse.

Drano: super response... Ouch remind me not to ruffle your feathers.... ouch! What a burn... Ha! :D)

David I suppose you would like our journalists to just report what the govt wants it too, dont you think that road leads to a bad place? Blame instead the people who took a oath to keep those secrets, the self serving who betray their oath should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I dont like journalists either who report sensitive news just to promote their career, but there is much greater danger if we go too far in suppressing the news.

It's funny how many people confuse nationalism for patriotism. Nationalists are usually the traitors when the final history is written and the dust has settled. How many evils have been carried out on orders followed by zombie nationalists? THINK.

It's not Republican value either. I'm a libertarian Republican...

...it's a neoconservative value, and that includes neoconservative Democrats like Obama.

Larry, you do know Bush is not the president anymore, right?

Tell us about the "American values" you get when educated in a muslim school in Indonesia? or being married to a woman who despises America and famously said, "for the first time in my life I am proud of my country" when her man got the nod. A lifetime of hatred washed away?

Or the "American values" you get from a Kenyan father who is a devoted Marxist?

Maybe the "American Values" you learn while attending a black separatist church where they preach hatred of America for TWENTY years?

I want to hear about the "American Values" from voting "present" hundreds of times in the state senate and US senate?

Tell us about all about the Constitutional values you support, if you have any idea what is in the document.

paidmyfee, everything you said is either exaggerated or a repeat of the hate Obama crowd robots. You do know Obama went to a school in Indonesia but only for a few years as a young child, and they were teaching the ABC's not the Muslim religion. He is after all a Christian not Muslim despite what the crazys say. As for Mrs Obama statement that was taken out of context, but the Hate Obama Robot crowd love to say stuff like that hopping if they say it enough it will be true. The truth is poison for folks like you, but you need to take some anyway!

paidmyfee, what is this nonsense you typed above ?!?!?!? Instead of taking sides with politicians (Democrats and Republicans) who don't care about you, me, or any American citizen, why don't you question the numerous decisions made on a daily basis in the interest of special interest groups, corporations, and the advancement of the military monster of The Empire of the United States of America ? Because make no mistake, like the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire, America is heading down the same path to self destruction. It's not going to be the bogeymen we're brainwashed to hate, Muslims, communists, etc. , it's going to be our elected officials selling our rights and freedoms down the river to the highest bidder that causes the US to implode. You think the economy is tough now ? That's laughable since I see malls, movie theaters, amusement parks, and restaurant parking lots packed regularly. When it comes crashing down it's going to make the Depression look like a day in Disney World.

Did you go to school with him in Indonesia? Oh wait? you probably got the secret communique on his education and forgot to share? Maybe you should read his many autobiographies, he is rather anti-American.

Or you could buy one of Rev. Wright's DVD's, I'm sure he was joshing when he preached that stuff.

Hatred of America is never, "out of context". When you say you hate America, have lived your life ashamed of your country or you have never been proud of your country there is NO context where that is a good thing.

Except of course to marxists/democrats.

You are so tolerant of the views of others, you wished me put to death,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,typical for a marxist.

Don't forget to pick up your brown shirts from the dry cleaners,,,I hear Obama is having a rally.