There's a difference between being responsible for an act and being responsible for the prevention of it, although the distinction seems to be lost on you.
If the Secret Service learns of a credible plot to assassinate the President and doesn't take reasonable countermeasures, that's a dereliction of duty. If the plot is successful,
the Secret Service is responsible for not preventing it, but they aren't responsible for the act itself.
After the assassination, there would most likely be some official investigations as to why the Secret Service failed to implement reasonable countermeasures. If the Secret Service tried to put conditions on their appearances before those investigatory bodies, would you find that acceptable behavior? Would you draw any conclusions from their lack of complete cooperation?
Current Events » in reply to Thanks for admiting that Clinton was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.
And if you COULD follow my logic, you'd have even more fun!
The whole thread (52 posts)
- The 9-11/flag/commercial flap
- A feeble bluff by democrats with a very hand (n/t)
- This is the same prez who won't permit news coverage of returning dead soldiers?
- I think the comercial is excellent and pulls on the heart strings.
- re: The 9-11/flag/commercial flap
- If Kerry hadn't betrayed the war by denying he supported it
- re: The 9-11/flag/commercial flap
- re: The 9-11/flag/commercial flap
- P.S.
- Thats the most dense thing I have ever heard you say.
- re: P.S.
- Isn't watching GWB & Co. dodge the 9-11 commission is enough to make his use of it offensive.
- re: The 9-11/flag/commercial flap
