| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2004 02:52:19 PM · #876 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The Left-wing Mantra:
"Never pass up an opportunity to bash Bush. And, if an opportunity doesn't present itself, create one." |
I'm just glad we've got you to provide a more balanced view.
Message edited by author 2004-03-26 14:52:34.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 04:11:54 PM · #877 |
I'm confused - who do you think started it then ? His dad ?
Let's just say that there are two sides to every war - just like there are to every story. If you can't figure it out, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 04:42:15 PM · #878 |
Originally posted by kaycee:
I'm confused - who do you think started it then ? His dad ?
Let's just say that there are two sides to every war - just like there are to every story. If you can't figure it out, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. |
and one of them has to actually start it, usually by either invading, declaring war, or some of the normal means.
You seemed to have the problem with the statement that Bush started the war - I thought that was his whole point - he was starting it premptively.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 05:50:51 PM · #879 |
interview with richard clark the "lier", 3 minute read here
transcripts from teh 9/11 commission a good hour of reading here
donald rumsfeld, a high ranking goverment official who is suppost to uphold integrity, respect and honor caught in the middle of a lie on camera... priceless
Message edited by author 2004-03-26 17:52:18. |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 09:28:46 PM · #880 |
| so where is Condaleeza? I know...I know...she's on TV...but she doesn't have time to come before the 911 investigation. |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 09:31:42 PM · #881 |
Aaawww...poor Goergie Poorgie.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So what if GW takes a little verbal flack from his opposition? He signed on and he's got a job to do. It's not like he's the one who is fighting in Iraq. |
The Left-wing Mantra:
"Never pass up an opportunity to bash Bush. And, if an opportunity doesn't present itself, create one." |
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 09:48:55 PM · #882 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
so where is Condaleeza? I know...I know...she's on TV...but she doesn't have time to come before the 911 investigation. |
Actually she DOES have the time - in fact the White house has REQUESTED that she be given the opportunity to provide additional testimony to the panel. As reported in The Toronto Star
"In the wake of Clarke's testimony, the White House asked late yesterday that National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice have a second private session with the panel. She met with it for four hours on Feb. 7.
A White House letter said a further appearance by Rice would let her clear up "a number of mischaracterizations" about her statements and positions about the Sept. 11 attacks."
The "problem" is that the liberals aren't "REALLY" after the TRUTH, so they won't accept that she will provide testimony, only that she won't do so in PUBLIC. As per their usual modus operandi, they are more interested in FORM than in CONTENT.
Is it just me, or does anyone else tire of the endless litany of liberal "misrepresentations"?
Ron
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 09:51:00 PM · #883 |
| so are my links being disregaurded? |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 10:09:04 PM · #884 |
She won't be doing it in public and she won't be doing it under oath.
And why couldn't she have testified when everyone else did? Guess the WH was feeling the "heat."
Don't know what misrepresentations you are talking about, Ron.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
so where is Condaleeza? I know...I know...she's on TV...but she doesn't have time to come before the 911 investigation. |
Actually she DOES have the time - in fact the White house has REQUESTED that she be given the opportunity to provide additional testimony to the panel. As reported in The Toronto Star
"In the wake of Clarke's testimony, the White House asked late yesterday that National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice have a second private session with the panel. She met with it for four hours on Feb. 7.
A White House letter said a further appearance by Rice would let her clear up "a number of mischaracterizations" about her statements and positions about the Sept. 11 attacks."
The "problem" is that the liberals aren't "REALLY" after the TRUTH, so they won't accept that she will provide testimony, only that she won't do so in PUBLIC. As per their usual modus operandi, they are more interested in FORM than in CONTENT.
Is it just me, or does anyone else tire of the endless litany of liberal "misrepresentations"?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 10:18:41 PM · #885 |
Hmmm...MISREPRESENTATIONS...that's a word the presidente knows very well.
Originally posted by RonB:
Is it just me, or does anyone else tire of the endless litany of liberal "misrepresentations"?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/26/2004 10:21:58 PM · #886 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
so are my links being disregaurded? |
Nope. But in counterpoint.
"Brian Sullivan, a retired special agent from the Boston area, advised Kerry in a May 7, 2001, letter (page 1, page 2) that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."..."He just did the Washington shuffle," said Sullivan, who thinks Kerry had a chance to prevent the Boston hijackings." Full Story Here
That was 4 months before the terrorists took box-cutters aboard the aircraft that eventually were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center Towers.
So, I guess the question is, we only have the word of Dick Clark, a liar ( he's either lying now or he lied in his press briefing in 2003 ), that Bush didn't consider Al-Qaeda a top priority, but we have hard evidence that Kerry didn't.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 10:25:05 PM · #887 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
She won't be doing it in public and she won't be doing it under oath.
And why couldn't she have testified when everyone else did? Guess the WH was feeling the "heat."
Don't know what misrepresentations you are talking about, Ron. |
1) She won't testify in public or under oath because of executive privilege and national security respectively.
2) She could have, but declined for the same reasons.
3) Yeah, so what? The WH feels "the heat" all the time.
4) You said Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...she doesn't have time to come before the 9/11 investigation. |
That is a misrepresentation.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 10:39:27 PM · #888 |
| well this was really what i was hoping someone would try to comment on. so if he is getting caught lying on TV, where is he lying that he is not being caught ? |
|
|
|
03/26/2004 11:03:03 PM · #889 |
Ron Ron Ron...where is your sense of humor??? We all know just how transparent the Bush administration is. I would have thought that after the the presidente's jokes the other night you would have been in a much better mood. He's really uplifted the spirits of the whole country now. The way you're acting I would have thought that maybe you were headed over to Iraq.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
She won't be doing it in public and she won't be doing it under oath.
And why couldn't she have testified when everyone else did? Guess the WH was feeling the "heat."
Don't know what misrepresentations you are talking about, Ron. |
1) She won't testify in public or under oath because of executive privilege and national security respectively.
2) She could have, but declined for the same reasons.
3) Yeah, so what? The WH feels "the heat" all the time.
4) You said Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...she doesn't have time to come before the 9/11 investigation. |
That is a misrepresentation.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 08:55:09 AM · #890 |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) She won't testify in public or under oath because of executive privilege and national security respectively.
Ron |
Maybe I'm just misreading what you wrote, but it seems that you think her telling the truth, or even promising to tell the truth, would be a breach of national security ?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 08:55:45 AM · #891 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
so are my links being disregaurded? |
Nope. But in counterpoint.
"Brian Sullivan, a retired special agent from the Boston area, advised Kerry in a May 7, 2001, letter (page 1, page 2) that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."..."He just did the Washington shuffle," said Sullivan, who thinks Kerry had a chance to prevent the Boston hijackings." Full Story Here
That was 4 months before the terrorists took box-cutters aboard the aircraft that eventually were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center Towers.
So, I guess the question is, we only have the word of Dick Clark, a liar ( he's either lying now or he lied in his press briefing in 2003 ), that Bush didn't consider Al-Qaeda a top priority, but we have hard evidence that Kerry didn't.
Ron |
Another classic 'ignore the point and bring up something else' reply. Glad you are being consistent in this at least. |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 09:14:49 AM · #892 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) She won't testify in public or under oath because of executive privilege and national security respectively.
Ron |
Maybe I'm just misreading what you wrote, but it seems that you think her telling the truth, or even promising to tell the truth, would be a breach of national security ? |
Not at all. The problem with public testimony, under oath, is that a panelist could ask a question to which a truthful answer could or would compromise national security, yet to decline to answer such a question would raise the spector that the respondant is declining to answer because they are trying to "cover up" something. That very reason is why executive privilege exists.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 09:45:15 AM · #893 |
Based on your response I take it that you DO believe Condoleezza Rice would breech/compromise national security by appearing under oath before the 911 commission.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) She won't testify in public or under oath because of executive privilege and national security respectively.
Ron |
Maybe I'm just misreading what you wrote, but it seems that you think her telling the truth, or even promising to tell the truth, would be a breach of national security ? |
Not at all. The problem with public testimony, under oath, is that a panelist could ask a question to which a truthful answer could or would compromise national security, yet to decline to answer such a question would raise the spector that the respondant is declining to answer because they are trying to "cover up" something. That very reason is why executive privilege exists.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 10:02:16 AM · #894 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Based on your response I take it that you DO believe Condoleezza Rice would breech/compromise national security by appearing under oath before the 911 commission. |
No, I don't believe that at all. In most situations, when someone testifies under oath, they cannot refuse to answer a question unless the answer is self-incriminating. And, in some situations, that right is waived ( such as before a federal grand jury ). If those are the rules for this panel ( and I'm not sure just what the rules are ), then I can fully understand why Dr. Rice refuses to testify under oath - it is to avoid being forced to compromise national security.
What I do believe is that, if she were to testify under oath, someone on the panel would purposefully ask her a question to which a truthful answer WOULD compromise national security, hoping to put her between a rock and a hard place - either compromise national security or lie.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 10:17:35 AM · #895 |
I think we may need Gordon to clarify his original post...but I think he was referring to the content of what Rice would have said to be compromising of nat'l security, and not, as I think you believe, as to her actions (wheather or not she would have stated something compromising security).
Edit: In other words, I think Gordon is really questioning if in fact there really is something to be compromised of nat'l security by testifying under oath.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Based on your response I take it that you DO believe Condoleezza Rice would breech/compromise national security by appearing under oath before the 911 commission. |
No, I don't believe that at all. In most situations, when someone testifies under oath, they cannot refuse to answer a question unless the answer is self-incriminating. And, in some situations, that right is waived ( such as before a federal grand jury ). If those are the rules for this panel ( and I'm not sure just what the rules are ), then I can fully understand why Dr. Rice refuses to testify under oath - it is to avoid being forced to compromise national security.
What I do believe is that, if she were to testify under oath, someone on the panel would purposefully ask her a question to which a truthful answer WOULD compromise national security, hoping to put her between a rock and a hard place - either compromise national security or lie.
Ron |
Message edited by author 2004-03-27 10:21:19. |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 10:34:43 AM · #896 |
| More than likely, though, it wasn't nat'l security issues that the WH was worried about or how it looked like when Condoleezza would have declined certain questions, but they didn't want her to have to face the questions about Richard Clark's allegations and testimony. For example: why RC was declined a principle's meeting about the threat that al Qaeda posed in the early summer of 2001. Also, why most, if not all, of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 who were out of the country when Bush took over the presidency, were allowed back in under his "watch." And why if the Bush administration had knowledge of the urgency of the pending attacks, the airlines and public were not alerted better. |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 10:37:32 AM · #897 |
"Executive Priviledge" -- it rolls so trippingly off the tongue ...
I can't wait to hear "Your President is not a crook." |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 10:53:17 AM · #898 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
well this was really what i was hoping someone would try to comment on. so if he is getting caught lying on TV, where is he lying that he is not being caught ? |
Just for clarification, what exactly is the lie you are referring to? |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 11:52:13 AM · #899 |
I'll help you here, Ron...
We know of the lies he has not lied about, but we don't yet know of the lies he has lied about.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
well this was really what i was hoping someone would try to comment on. so if he is getting caught lying on TV, where is he lying that he is not being caught ? |
Just for clarification, what exactly is the lie you are referring to? |
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 12:13:25 PM · #900 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
More than likely, though, it wasn't nat'l security issues that the WH was worried about or how it looked like when Condoleezza would have declined certain questions, but they didn't want her to have to face the questions about Richard Clark's allegations and testimony. For example: why RC was declined a principle's meeting about the threat that al Qaeda posed in the early summer of 2001. Also, why most, if not all, of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 who were out of the country when Bush took over the presidency, were allowed back in under his "watch." And why if the Bush administration had knowledge of the urgency of the pending attacks, the airlines and public were not alerted better. |
Do you EVER post anything factual or substantiated? Or are you only capable of unsubstantiated accusations, "ponderings", and innuendo? Do you think that the "More than likely though..." introduction excuses all of the innuendo that follows? For example: other than the testimony of a liar, what evidence can you provide that RC was declined a principle's meeting about the threat that al Qaeda posed in the early summer of 2001? What evidence can you provide that the 9/11 hijackers should NOT have been let back into the country? The airlines ( at least Logan airport ) WAS alerted to the danger - I already provided a link that outlines how the media in Boston alerted not only Logan airport, but also Senator Kerry.
|
|
