Friday Open Thread
Quaoar has another diary up on dkos about more surging to come - Another surge: Petraeus wants 3,000 more troops . I have a question for all the liberals - what if the surge works and the situation in Iraq keeps stabilizing and improving enough for serious progress? What then? This is a personal as well as political question. What do you personally think should happen, and what do you think Democrats will do in the event of improvement in Iraq?
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2007-03-16 07:56
Tags:
Comments :
btw this is what is going to happen
in all of the foreign trials of our CIA agents
(which obviously should not be happening):
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I also do not think
that CIA agents should be put on trial in allied nations for incidents involving their official duties.
If the CIA broke Italian law in carrying out a mission, that is a matter that should be handled between the two governments, not by the courts. It's a political issue.
OTOH, if an agent is in another country and gets caught with cocaine or gets drunk and shoots someone in a bar, that's a different matter entirely.
qui tacet consentire
How long will it take?
According to Sen Durbin--shd America come to the resue everytime Iraq calls 911.
The Iraq War is hurting our economy and 3200 soldiers have died.
How much sacrifice economically and soldiers lives does America have to give--and for what end?
So that Halliburton gets its headquarters in Dubai?
This debacle cost $500B to $ 1 Trillion---1/9th of our national debt. And for what end?
Afghanistan is a greater threat because Taliban is surging.
What if......
It's a big if, and the goalposts have moved. Mission accomplished now means a wild victory, democracy, liberation......... no, just the a for stability.
I hope for the sake of the people in Iraq that Iraq does stabilize so the Iraqi's can have their country back.
The Democrats will celebrate as will all Americans. Then we will have to pursue the real perpetraters of 9/11 as we should have all along. 500 Billion dollars later.
The key is the oil revenues and who gets them.
IF you are alluding to the Dems obsession with Bush's incompetance...... which is clearly evident in the way he prosecuted the Iraq war, well, there is plenty the dems still have to work with, the theme is the overall incompetence and the abuse of executive authority. So the Dems will have plenty to keep them busy.
It is the economy, stupid.
TPM has a timeline up of the US Attorneys firing
along with e-mails back and forth from Republican officials and Administration folks
. It pretty much confirms that the bush43 administration started planning the closet takeover of the local US Attorneys as early as 2004. Rove, Alberto, Sampson, Harriet Meirs were all involved up to their eyeballs.
The Sampson e-mails released yesterday and previously last week confirm the administration's whole desire was to subvert inquiries into their illegal operations (the NSA spying stuff that Gonzales had the President not give the Justice Deptartment investigators security clearance so as to quash the probe of their illegal actions), as well as stop investigations of corrupt elected republican officials and only put forth investigations of Democrats. That tallies nicely with the 298 investigations of Democrats at the national, state & local level vs. the 67 investigations of Republicans
. They also seemed to go out of their way to stop any more Republican Congressmen from getting the Duke Cunningham treatment, stopping an inquiry into Congressman from catching any additional corrupt officials 
. See this NY Times article for more piling on 
.
So....turn the State Apparatus into a Republican election politiboro, use those same tainted officials to smear Democrats just before elections to continue the Republican Costra Nosa at the expense of a democratic nation. These guys that the righties here make excuses for day in and day out did their most to make this nation a carbon copy of Stalin's Soviet Russia, complete with rigged show prosecutions, covered up corruption, and government to the highest bidder.
Why is it that this Administration has any backers left? I just don't get it. I saw Jon Stewarts 3/14/07 show last night (yea, the 8:00 rerun) and his final line to President Bush said it all. He was using the repeated phrase used by this administrations lackys and bootlicks of "I serve at the pleasure of the President", he ended his segment with a statement to President Bush, which he doesn't usually address directly, but did this time. He said:
"Our previous President also had certain people serve him as his pleasure....Now that, I get. You on the other hand, seem pleaseured by having incompetant and corrupt people surround you and make policy for our nation as your pleasure....that, I don't get." or something very close to that effect.
It's Nixon on steroids. Barry Bonds is a nickle and dime thug compared to the pumped up children that top our great nation. Let's hope we can weather the next 1 3/4 years without them sinking us all down the rat hole.
The Plame hearing
is going on right now, with live internet streaming
. Plame herself just took the oath.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am all ears and eyes!
Whoa!
Under oath she is testifying she was a covert agent until the day she was exposed by Robert Novack's column!
Thank God I don't have to work today :=)
My question is how will the wingnuts spin this?
She was in charge of gathering intelligence for WMD and had a whole crew working for her that was exposed.
Truth sacrificed for politics and ideology. Do we see a theme here!
(Partisan Rant: How many careers as Karl Rove destroyed. I wonder how Daddy Bush is going to take this.)
It is the economy, stupid.
No ambiguity on the Covert Status
Making it clear over and over and over....... under oath!
How fun to watch the R's have to ask the beautiful blonde questions that go against the Republican talking points repeated endlessly on Fox News and the wingnut blogs!
How flummoxed they are asking questions of an intelligent beautiful blonde, woman with a charming smile. Ha!
It is the economy, stupid.
I think we have additional testimony
on this point coming later from Victoria Toensing...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Victoria Toensing
is a professional liar
. That you would use her to back up your claims only shows how far out of reality you are.
from the wikipedia page that you link to
What that really means is - a bunch of liberals wrote a hit piece. Sorry, I don't believe you.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Interesting.
I read the wikipedia piece you referenced. Where in there does it claim that she is a "professional liar".
I did find a number of references to her legal bona fides, and this little gem:
So she not only has vast legal expertise, but is particularly well qualified to speak on what the legislation at the very heart of this matter says.
How is this helping your position in this debate?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wow.
Valerie didn't suggest her husband for the trip to Niger, and in fact wasn't happy about the idea, because she was afraid to be home alone with a couple of two year olds.
Hmmm.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
To his credit,
Westmoreland comes across as a dull-witted rube, but his questions are sharp under the surface.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Two-year-olds
are the worst kind of terrorists.
qui tacet consentire
True dat! :-) n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Having gotten all of the Democrat points on the table ...
Waxman summarily shuts down any additional questioning by the minority party ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Selective there, eh?
Waxman's been shutting down the Democrats mid-question, too. He's keeping the clock.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You miss the point.
R's obviously have additional questions for this witness, whereas the D's apparantly do not. So since the D's have made their points why allow any additional time for the R's to ask questions.
Hence he has decided to not allow any more rounds of questions.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why don't they just ask them, then?
Westmoreland got two rounds of questions, thanks to yielded time. Do you feel he used those well? He used time in both to claim he wasn't being given enough time!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because there is not enough time
alotted to ask all of the questions that he has. It's kind of hard to ask much in 10 minutes.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yep. It really sucks doesn't it?
When you want to investigate something further but the other party won't let you.
Damn, that sucks!
I'm sure glad this was the first time it's ever happened.
qui tacet consentire
This is a question of ethics.
Are you suggesting that because other investigations may have been conducted unethically that it is OK to allow this one to be conducted unethically as well?
Why are you arguing that all information should not be out in the open if you are truly out to find the truth (as opposed to merely putting on a dog and pony show to advance a political agenda)?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
National Security
A Dog And Pony Show
Attack Dog Cheney rides the Fox News pony.
If it was "no big deal", then why did they retract the infamous sixteen words?
And why were so many in the White House involved in a concerted effort to discredit Valerie Wilson?
It is the economy, stupid.
So many? Concerted effort?
Wrong on both assertions. No one from the White House was even charged for the supposed crime of outing Valerie Plame, and it has already been established that Richard Armitage was the leaker. Even further, this apparently was known by Fitzgerald almost from the very beginning of this dog and pony show.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There was a concerted effort
led by Dick Cheney, who instructed his staff to dig up dirt on Joe Wilson. The effort to discredit Joe Wilson by attacking his wife, was shopped to the press.
The reason no one was every charged with the original crime is because Scooter Libby threw sand in the prosecuters eyes, by lying and obstructing justice.
Nevermind that what you are most concerned with his partisanship when in fact you should be more worried about how our National Security Interests were threated by the outing of a Covert CIA agent who was working on a highly classified mission of gathering intel on WMD in Iraq.
Nevermind the National Security Threat that was posed when Valerie Plame's network of connections, including Iraqi scientists and scholars that were willing to talk to her agents was exposed because the Vice President was covering up the phony intel on Iraq that was coming out of his office.
Just because no one was charged does not mean that no one was guilty. Our national security was put at risk by the Vice President. But this doesn't bother you? Why?
It is the economy, stupid.
enough time
for you to get it through your head, that Valerie Plame was a covert operations officer, gathering intel on WMD in Iraq?
Her outing ruined all her connections......... As a strong proponent of protecting our National Security, you would think that would set off alarm bells for you.
It is the economy, stupid.
I prefer to hear all of the testimony
before drawing any such conclusions.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't think it would make
any difference how much testimony you heard..... your conclusions will stay the same. You think Valeria Plame lied under oath.........and that she was never covert.
Cue the calls for the obstruction of justice charges from the right.
It is the economy, stupid.
Actually, I wouldn't say that.
Valerie who admits that she is not a lawyer and hence not qualified to judge her status under the law, may well have actually believed that she was covert.
As the testimony later points out, there are multiple definitions of "covert". There is the ill-defined informal definition used by the CIA operatives amongst themselves, and then there is the legal definition as laid out in the relevant Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
So while Valerie may have been sincere in her testimony it was based on a flawed definition of the term covert as it applies to the law which had supposedly been broken.
Further, I would not say that she was never covert, even under the definition in the law. Clearly she was. She just wasn't covert under that definition at the time that Novak's article was published.
Given the furver with which Fitzgerald pursued this prosecution, I can only assume that if he felt that she was, indeed, covert and that she was, indeed, outed under the law that someone would have been charged. They weren't. Not even Richard Armitage who is now the acknowledged source of the alleged leak.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You can use word play
if you choose.
Which again is a complete denial of the fact that she was a covert operations officer on the Joint Task Force for Iraq in charge of a network of other covert operations officers gather intel on WMD.
She doesn't need to be a lawyer to know that her staff, her front company for operations, and her cover was blown.
Blown as in compromised. As in the Iraq scientist that would speak to her will no longer give her valueable info and may now well be dead.
No word play there. Cover blown. Operation compromised. Get it.
You can't conclude what Fitz would have found out if Scooter Libby had not obstruced justice, as in lied to protect his boss the Vice President.
Can you acknowledge that she was covert and that her mission was top secret and that her whole network was compromised, no matter what legal games you want to play with the words.
The ferver Fitzgerald showed is because outing a covert agent is treason..... just in case you didn't know.
If you want to play with words, let's see if you understand what obstruction of justice means. It means you lied so that the investigation was stymied. It is a very serious charge.
The bottom line is how can we protect our National Security when outing of a CIA agent is so trivialized by the right.
It is the economy, stupid.
Clarifications.
I do deny this:
at least as it applies to her at the time that Novak's article was published, which I believe is what I conveyed above.
I have never denied this:
which is a clearly established matter of fact.
You can keep saying it as often as you like. But if under the law she was not considered covert, she had no cover to blow.
Well, actually I can. In order to know that he lied, we must also know the truth that contradicts what he said ... and presumably with enough confidence and evidence that we can convict him of that crime.
In this case it is all moot because Richard Armitage, and not Scooter Libby, and not Karl Rove, and not Dick Cheney was the source of the leak. Again, Fitzgerald already knew this BEFORE Libby supposedly lied.
I can't acknowledge this:
because she wasn't under the law. I can acknowledge this:
because it is obvious.
I don't believe that this is true. No one was ever even considered being charged with Treason, only violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 which I don't believe is considered Treason under the law.
This is not necessarily true, ...
but this is.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
By the way,
given that this happened in 2003, and we're having a hearing almost four years later, I really don't mind cutting the "this isn't important enough for us to investigate" Republicans out of the decision-making process. They tried to push this away for years.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Hmm, even more interesting.
So your position is basically, if you chose to avoid an investigation that you felt was unnecessary and should that investigation none the less go forward that you now have no right to conduct that investigation in a thorough manner?
Isn't the point of the investigation to get at the truth? Isn't the point of the investigation to put it to rest once and for all? How can it possibly do either if it leaves lots of unanswered questions hanging out there in the air?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So your position
is that it's so unneccessary that they need more time to investigate the witnesses thoroughly?
?!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
No.
My position is that the investigation is unnecessary, but if we are going to undertake it anyway we should do it correctly (i.e. we should seek to allow all sides to have their questions answered).
If your goal is simply to get to the truth why would you object to trying to get all of the information out in the open? By effectively limiting the ability of one side of the issue to ask all of their questions you are, in fact, controlling the information that makes it into the open and thereby skew the results in your favor.
Waxman is very aware of this technique.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Did I hear that right?
Was Valerie just asked whether it would be a violation of an executive order to give knowledge of her covert status to someone without a need to know?
(Sorry I was distracted during that section ...)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Missed it -
I'm grading papers in the background, unfortunately. :(
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Waxman violates the rules
of official notification of the witness lists. R's should have been given 3 days, they were only given 1.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wow.
The D's just issued marching orders to "The Daily Show" to dig up embarrasing footage of President Bush.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Wow
Hannity wants pictures of Gore
getting on private planes to embarrass him. Politics. What's new?
It shouldn't be too hard to find the footage of Bush, BTW.
You miss the point.
Hannity is a private citizen, not an elected official issuing marching orders to the media.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Now
the "Daily Show" is part of the official news media?
I'm sure they just asked for the footage (as in hand it over), not to go out and get it (as in intentionally go out and film it).
It was a minor point.
I just found it funny to hear them talking about letting The Daily Show do their dirty work.
I have no doubt that the footage being discussed at the time "The President Promising an Investigation" exists. Actually, strictly speaking, was Fitzgerald operating under Bush's authority during his investigation? I mean his authority was delegated to him through the AG, wasn't it?
So in a sense, to avoid conflict of interest issues with the investigation, Bush through Gonzales (or was it Ashcroft?) appoints Fitzgerald to do the investigating. Gee, isn't that the ethical way to handle this whole mess anyway?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Check this out.
It was Cheney's push to crack down on leaks that put in place a stronger priority for investigating leaks. So Fitz was responding that that priority.
(Fitz is a conservative btw, and kept the investigation very narrow to avoid any whiff of partisanship on his part)
Cheney's Call
Here is a link to the article in National Journal. It is quite long, but explains how Cheney's desire to go after leakers, was part of the impetus for the investigation which the CIA asked for and was okayed by the DOJ.
It is the economy, stupid.
Toensing's opening remarks
make some very good points about how Plame's identities were being handled within the CIA.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The CIA was aware the column was coming
and did nothing significant to stop it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmm
and whose responsibility was that? Oh yeah, republicans had oversight for that, didn't they. Kos already nips this point in the bud with this diary
.
Not even going to look.
Kos has no credibility on anything anymore.
Nothing he has to say can change the facts.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ok
You have the right to close your ears all you want. The fact is that it was still under the republican's watch. If you want to blame the CIA, that is fine, but realize that the republican congress was in charge of enforcing the CIA to follow its rules. It does not excuse the CIA's behavior then. Oversight. Simple as that.
Assuming that the CIA truly
considered her covert status to be something still worth protecting ... I agree.
So we are left wondering whether the CIA (not the Whitehouse) was negligent in this matter, or whether they knew that she was not really planning on being "covert" anymore anyway. I seem to remember something about her having put in the paperwork to change her status but it simply hadn't gone through yet ... but I may have the timing off slightly.
I'll try to dig up a reference for that last bit if you really want me to. (Please don't)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The CIA allowed Plame's name to be included
in reports where it would have threatened her identity.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
See my point above
about oversight. The republicans should have not allowed this to happen.
I was just trying to capture the main
points being made. I figured we could analyze them after the fact.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Waxman is being
pardon my language, a dick. He's not letting her answer questions, trying to pin her into yes or no answers that are not honest.
I'm not enjoying this.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I love the
heap of garbage being poured on her at dkos. She is an f'n bitch and on and on. The hate is amazing.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Have you checked
out what the "other side" is saying about the beautiful Plame?
I mean there is hate on both sides.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't think
calling Plame a liar is anything comparable to the slew of personal insults I saw on dkos.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
no question
I don't care for it either. Part of the reason I don't play at the kos much any more.
You seem to be attracted to finding insults like a magnet to steel.
It is the economy, stupid.
Hysterical
Rush is taking too much viagra.
On the radio he say that Plame is one hot babe..... and that he wouldn't mind hooking up with her......!
Rush Limbaugh.... the love stud of right wing radio.
It is the economy, stupid.
More like the Pillsbury Dough Boy
of rightwing radio.
But Valerie
is not a 12 year-old Dominican girl
. I didn't think blond and over 15 was his taste.
OK, I read the whole article you referenced.
Where does it say anything about 12 year old Dominican girls?
Perhaps you are projecting your own pedophile tendencies onto Rush? Better be care about that, the internets have ears.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you remember when Rush was caught coming back
from the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra in someone elses name? That's when. The Dominican Republic is a huge prostitution mecca and it is very well reported that many of the prostitutes are underage. I don't mean 16 or 17. I mean 10, 11 & 12. Rush himself said he was in the Dominican having a little vacation. Blowing off some steam.
What do you think a single man blowing off steam with a large bottle of Viagra (in someone elses name) was doing? Saying his "Our Fathers" and doing good deeds in the local church?
Don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb & your not.
Wow...
I'm touched. I really am. Right back at you.
Now, as for the Rush story. The reference that Specter provided was the story about exactly the incident you are discussing. That reference says nothing about prostitutes or anything of the sort.
I honestly don't know anything about the Dominican Republic's prostitution rings. I was there for a week a year or so ago and stayed at a nice all inclusive resort. Had a great time. Traveled into the city for some souvenir shopping and didn't run across anything like this either. Everyone I met was nice and personable. Obviously I didn't travel over every part of the country, though.
I believe at the time Rush said that he went there to visit one of the big cigar growers. As I am sure you are aware Rush is a huge fan of cigars, so this is hardly a stretch to believe. Also, the places that Rush tends to frequent (based on the types of resorts he visits here in the US on golf outings) are hardly the types of places that have 12 year old hookers lining the front step.
I understand that you might find him repulsive, but there are many women in the world who would be attracted to the power he has. He has been married after all, so there you have an existence proof if nothing else. So to conclude that he had to resort to under age hookers to make use of the Viagra is somewhat unfounded without at at least some proof of some kind.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oh jeez
It's just a joke making fun of the situation. I wasn't trying to prove anything.
Second, to try to make the case for Rush's sexual attractiveness is repulsively beyond comprehension.
I don't have an opinion on this one way or the other...
but the fact remains that he is powerful and some women are attracted to powerful men.
:-)
I just thought this particular joke, considering the pedophile implications was just a little over the top.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I definitely do not
find her attractive. It's all a matter of opinion in her case.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
To each his own...
It's a matter of opinion in any case.
Sic semper tyrannis
I disagree
He is trying to keep her on point. Hardball yes. Dishonest no.
She does not have any hard evidence to support her claims as facts. That is what he is getting at.
This highlights the war inside the Marble Halls that was going on between the CIA and the VP's office. The VP wanted all intelligence to be cleared thru him, what the CIA said be damned.
Novak is already on Fox News calling Valerie Plame a liar.
It is the economy, stupid.
Toensing makes the very relevant point
that Plame was not covert under the act.
Waxman badgers the witness and tries to get her discuss definitions of the word "covert" which are not applicable under the act.
Waxman continually asserts that he is not interested in discussing the meaning of things as defined in the act.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
ooh, smack.
Rep. Watson just caught her. Smooth, smooth. It doesn't matter if she's not covert under the act - "improper disclosure of classified information violates the executive order even if it does not violate the criminal statute." Toensing admitted that this is correct.
And to Watson's credit: no badgering, no lost temper, no shouting. Smooth as silk.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Jinx
you owe me a coke. Posted at the same second, same point
. I admit yours was more elaborately stated, though.
Would you settle for a beer?
I don't drink soft drinks, sorry. :/
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
ha!
The executive order, to go after leaks from organizations unfriendly to the administrations agenda......! In this case it backfired.
Agree Watson was smooth.
It is the economy, stupid.
Hopefully
this is the segment that will be picked up by Fox News fair and balanced coverage.
It is the economy, stupid.
I have to think about this one.
I want to go back when the transcripts become available and double check this point. There clearly was an exchange there along these lines but both sides were being particularly careful with the wording involved.
I don't remember it exactly so want to reserve comment until I can review it.
I sort of remember the main point Watson making was that it was possible to violate the executive order without violating the law. Toensing answered in the affirmative.
What is not clear in my memory is whether the question was worded so as to say that such a violation had actually occured in this instance.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Toensing makes the very significant
point that the act covers employees stationed abroad, but not stationed in the US as long as they have NOT been stationed abroad within 5 years.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree