[Oleh Hadash]

Not to mention it's listed on the super secret Wikipedia, sourced to The London Times (2009)

In fact Wiki has a list of Mi-6 chiefs going back to 1909.

Again, this is why this forum is terrible. I mean really, John Sawers' identity is a state secret revealed by a moronic Romney? That's the best spin the American left can come up with to try and characterise Romney's successful foreign tour as gaffe-ridden?

[AZModerate]

Mi6 obviously has a policy they follow about not commenting on meetings. Is Romney to follow that policy? He had a meeting with Sawers, whose identity is public knowledge, and made a brief comment about it. I could care less what the leftist British press reports and how they try to spin it, let alone the disgraced CBS.

You're now changing your story. You initially stated that the John Sawers' identity is confidential, and you stated that you'd "bet your last dollar" that there is no open information about him and his position as the head of Mi6 available. This is blatantly untrue. This was the crux of your false narrative, where you asserted that Romney unwittingly revealed one of the UK's most closely guarded national secrets. That's demonstrably false. You're welcome to try to manufacture another gaffe, but I will not engage you in some sort of circular and moronic exchange where you obstinately cling to an untenable position.

There ya go. It's not that it wasn't a gaffe. It's just that you don't give a shit that it was a gaffe. And you don't give a shit how such ham-handed handling of our allies would affect our relationships with them, were Romney President.

Nuff said. Next.

[AZModerate]

Again, this is why this forum is terrible. I mean really, John Sawers' identity is a state secret revealed by a moronic Romney? That's the best spin the American left can come up with to try and characterise Romney's successful foreign tour as gaffe-ridden?

I never said it was "a state secret". What I said was that talking about the meeting was in "bad form", and offensive to the British. But, you already made it clear you don't give a shit about that. Apparently, neither does Romney - obviously. Just more proof that he shouldn't be President.

[Oleh Hadash]

I never said it was "a state secret". What I said was that talking about the meeting was in "bad form", and offensive to the British. But, you already made it clear you don't give a shit about that. Apparently, neither does Romney - obviously. Just more proof that he shouldn't be President.

You clearly stated that the identity of John Sawers was a secret. You told me that you'd give me your last dollar if I could find information identifying him and his role as the head of Mi6. A Google search instantly reveals who he is and what he does. Are you that filled with internet pride that you can't admit that you said something stupid? You act as if you have some sort of reputation to protect on PoFo. It's obvious you're embarrassed. Don't worry, I'm embarrassed for having engaged you in debate, so we're even.

Here are your own words:

I dare you to find some reference to the name of the director of MI-6 that Romney so casually mentioned meeting with. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that you won't find it.

You then stated that Romney's statement was akin to the compromise of an identity of an in-field intelligence agent:

I mean, talking so openly, and non-nonchalantly, about MI-6 would be rather like cavalierly revealing the identity of the American field operative of our CIA desk in, say, Islamibad.

Unfortunately for you, discussions in forums like this leave a record, so you can't go back and undo your posts. You said something stupid, it was exposed, and we move on.