| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2004 06:37:25 PM · #1051 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Per that article:
"Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel, and their sessions were recorded."
seperate and taped. so why cant we tape Bush and Cheney? |
Because the conditions they established for testifying stipulated that they not be taped. Simple. If they refused to testify at all, it would literally take an act of Congress to compel them to testify. Rather than force that, the commission agreed to terms that were acceptable to the President and Vice-president.
Originally posted by MadMordegan:
they are testifying arent they? |
Yes, they did.
Originally posted by MadMordegan:
why not tape it? for records sake.. and why not be seperate? |
Because Bush & Cheney wouldn't agree to it; wouldn't agree to it; wouldn't agree to it.
Originally posted by MadMordegan:
if for no other reason, to shut up everyone saying they need to testify together so they can get there stories straight.. right? |
Apparently, they did not feel compelled to "shut up everyone".
Originally posted by MadMordegan:
hmm..
"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."
so if there is nothing to hide, head all the comments and testify seperatly. and if there is nothing to hide, why be scared to have your testimony recorded? |
Hmm. Neither George nor Dick seems to be responding to your queries. Perhaps they aren't logged on right now. Maybe later.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-04-29 18:38:17. |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 06:38:32 PM · #1052 |
Yes I do disagree. First of all, Baker Botts is defending TWO Saudi princes, and while they are entitled to a defense doesn̢۪t it strike you as odd that an American lawyer with such extensive ties to the Bushes̢۪ and many government officials should be defending this very wealthy foreign family? It has already circulated around that the Saudis have been major contributors to al Qaeda. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen and needs more investigation, but in the meantime, Baker and his firm should not be defending this family against the 9/11 families.
This is where Sibel Edmonds comes inâ€Â¦her testimony that is being ignored, and that the Bushes want stifled, does not relate only to national security, but she said also to diplomatic relations, although she did not say with whom. She said it could be very embarrassing for the parties involved, and my own interpretation is that she is referring to documents that relate to Saudi support for al Qaeda and possibly the knowledge that the Bush administration had about this and decided to turn their backs. Just my interpretation.
Of course James Baker is involved with defending these two Saudi princesâ€Â¦it’s his law firm and he’s going to be involved with every caseâ€Â¦especially a high profile case as this with defendants as big as these. I’ll bet that if this happened in the Clinton WH the right wingers and republicans would have been all over the president about itâ€Â¦and rightfully so. There would be cries of being unpatriotic.
I think that what this may show is that the bottom line IS, the bottom line. That the Bakers and Bushes of this country are not loyal to the American people, but rather to their business interests. Common interests with companies like Enron, Halliburton, Arthur Anderson, Carlyle and of course, the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 06:47:39 PM · #1053 |
| lol Ron.. that was the worst reply you have ever made to a post of mine. thats about as generic as it gets.. again, you should be in politics :) |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 07:11:13 PM · #1054 |
can i ask what is the point of having ted koppel read the names of all the dead soldiers in iraq on tv? people are still going to die...what about them? will this be regularly scheduled propaganda?
|
|
|
|
04/29/2004 07:19:14 PM · #1055 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
lol Ron.. that was the worst reply you have ever made to a post of mine. thats about as generic as it gets.. again, you should be in politics :) |
Were you expecting "real" answers? Or were you just posing "rhetorical" questions for the sake of influencing the thinking of other readers of this thread?
If those were "real" questions, then I gave you "real" answers. George or Dick or members of the 9/11 commission might be able to more fully answer them, but they don't participate here as far as I know.
If they were "rhetorical" questions, then just ignore my answers.
Ron |
|
|
|
04/29/2004 08:24:48 PM · #1056 |
Originally posted by achiral:
can i ask what is the point of having ted koppel read the names of all the dead soldiers in iraq on tv? people are still going to die...what about them? will this be regularly scheduled propaganda? |
No offense, achiral, but (and I'm going out on a limb here) I would believe that if your father/husband/son/brother/mother/sister/daughter/wife were one of the names being read, you might have a different viewpoint than "propaganda." Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 05:03:04 PM · #1057 |
So the WH is putting a gag order on Sibel Edomonds citing national security, but now it's come out in Bob Woodward's new book that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was shown top-secret maps of Iraq before the US invaded Iraq, which, I would think is illegal.
Woodward has also claimed that the US has made a deal with Saudi Arabia to increase oil production before the war so as to lower oil prices and make the US economy stronger.
The wheeling and dealing! |
|
|
|
05/02/2004 01:03:53 PM · #1058 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So the WH is putting a gag order on Sibel Edomonds citing national security, but now it's come out in Bob Woodward's new book that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was shown top-secret maps of Iraq before the US invaded Iraq, which, I would think is illegal.
Woodward has also claimed that the US has made a deal with Saudi Arabia to increase oil production before the war so as to lower oil prices and make the US economy stronger.
The wheeling and dealing! |
Hmm. Olyuzi, did you actually READ the book, or are you just repeating what you've heard in the anti-Bush media? I ask because in an interview with Larry King, Bob Woodward and prince Bandar the following converstation took place:
Last night on the Larry King show, King interviewed Bob Woodword and Prince BANDAR BIN SULTAN, SAUDI AMBASSADOR TO U.S.
In a video clip included in the interview, Colin Powell is shown saying:
"COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: The question that has arisen seems to be that Prince Bandar received a briefing on the plan, and there's some suggestion that I hadn't. Of course, I had. I was intimately familiar with the plan, and I was aware that Prince Bandar was being briefed on the plan."
After that clip, Bob Woodward says:
"WOODWARD: But see, the book repeatedly says -- and Powell, in one of his interviews said Woodward's book says he was briefed on the plan. The issue is not the plan. The issue is the decision."
And later in that same interview Prince Bandar says:
"BIN SULTAN: Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan, and then the rest is accurate."
As to your second point.
In same that interview, King asked Prince Bandar about lowering the price of oil before the election. Following is the dialog that took place.
"KING: Let me get in one more thing, Prince Bandar.
BIN SULTAN: Yes, sir.
KING: The story that Mr. Woodward has about the promise to lower the oil prices by the election. Your government has denied has.
WOODWARD: That's not my story. What I say in the book is that the Saudis, and maybe you looked at this section of the book, Ambassador, that the Saudis hoped to keep oil prices low during the period for -- before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.
BIN SULTAN: I think the way that Bob said it now is accurate. We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy, and this is not -- nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise. So yes, it's in our interests and in America's interests to keep the prices down.
KING: Do you want President Bush...
BIN SULTAN: But that was not a deal."
Ref: url=//www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html]Larry King Interview[/url]
So, you see, both of your points are refuted all around by those whom you mis-attribute those points to.
Ron
|
|
|
|
05/02/2004 01:44:08 PM · #1059 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by achiral:
can i ask what is the point of having ted koppel read the names of all the dead soldiers in iraq on tv? people are still going to die...what about them? will this be regularly scheduled propaganda? |
No offense, achiral, but (and I'm going out on a limb here) I would believe that if your father/husband/son/brother/mother/sister/daughter/wife were one of the names being read, you might have a different viewpoint than "propaganda." Just my opinion. |
usually you wait until the war is over to start listing the names of the dead unless you have another agenda at stake. i have no problem honoring the soldiers but who's going to honor the 5 that die this week? reading names one time is a great play on people's emotions but is a disrespect to those that die after
|
|
|
|
05/02/2004 02:04:56 PM · #1060 |
I would imagine that there will be many other tribute-type shows with reading of names and such before the war is over, officially or otherwise. That kind of thing does bring in viewers, which boosts ratings, which makes money for the TV stations and has producers everywhere clamoring for Emmys. It'll happen again; it's just a matter of time.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2004 02:08:32 PM · #1061 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i have no problem honoring the soldiers but who's going to honor the 5 that die this week? reading names one time is a great play on people's emotions but is a disrespect to those that die after |
Every night on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer they present, in silent tribute, the names and photos of U.S. casualties as their deaths are confirmed and names/photos released. If you listen on the radio, the twenty-to-fifty seconds of "dead air" provides a rare opportunity to reflect on the "meaning of it all ..."
Message edited by author 2004-05-02 14:09:03. |
|
|
|
05/02/2004 02:46:34 PM · #1062 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by achiral:
i have no problem honoring the soldiers but who's going to honor the 5 that die this week? reading names one time is a great play on people's emotions but is a disrespect to those that die after |
Every night on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer they present, in silent tribute, the names and photos of U.S. casualties as their deaths are confirmed and names/photos released. If you listen on the radio, the twenty-to-fifty seconds of "dead air" provides a rare opportunity to reflect on the "meaning of it all ..." |
that's cool i didn't know that
|
|
|
|
05/02/2004 04:49:02 PM · #1063 |
US casualty count is 13 in Iraq for May, 0 in Afghanistan
2004 totals 272 Iraq, 16 Afghanistan
Message edited by author 2004-05-02 16:52:53. |
|
|
|
06/11/2004 03:57:36 PM · #1064 |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 07:32:36 PM · #1065 |
| well we are still counting... |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 10:32:34 PM · #1066 |
|
|
|
06/14/2004 11:54:18 PM · #1067 |
LOL, I thought I was the only person on the face of the Earth to suspect that maybe, just maybe, this was a possibility. Of COURSE he destroyed his weapons before, during, and after the war. Did anyone really think that Saddam had gotten rid of all of this years before? I don't think so. Dictatorships like his always have plans of how they will move, destroy, or hide these things in place well in advance.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2004 01:12:56 PM · #1068 |
so, its been about 2 months since any serious conversation on this topic. in the last 2 months alot has changed. bush is getting critisized more, and by more reputible people.
any of those who were previously defending his policies starting to change their mind?
here are some links i just pulled from todays headlines to remind any of you who havnt been following:
Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
State Department awaits criticism on Bush policy
Vatican: Bush wants bishops to back his agenda
White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract
Torture Scandal Grows and Threatens to Reach George Bush
How to Feel Calmly Patriotic and Yet Not the Slightest Bit Reassured by Bush & Co.
im about to go to work but ill post later how the current administration has recently personaly affected my life negetivly. |
|
|
|
06/16/2004 07:57:27 PM · #1069 |
so ya, anyways.
i work at a telephone company. one that was created after the ma Bell monopoly was broken up in 1996. my company does what all non LEC phone companies do since the new laws in 96', lease lines from the Bell companies (since they allready have the copper infostructure). now until a week ago this was fine and dandy. my company got to exist even in the same market as the Bell's by paying a fee per line and the Bell companies got to make money for doing nothing (since there lines have been up for years and are paid for).
now, one woudl think thats a pretty sweet deal for the Bell's but no. last week the ruling in 1996 to break a monopoly so there was a competative market, was overturned. why? well because the Bell companies have been bitching for so long, and giving large campain contributions to many law makers and other government officials, they finally decided to overturn the law.
so now, the Bell companies can charge as much as they would like for those lines affectivly putting all UNE-P businesses pretty much out of biz (ya just cant make money if your charging your customer 40$ a month and the Bell's are charging you 30$).
so now, my company looks like its going twards the good ol' chapter 11. of course the boss's say "we arent going out with out a fight", but at this point, the fight is all but lossed.
so ya, the system sucks ass, its completly controlled by money and corporations and //www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ |
|
|
|
06/16/2004 08:42:41 PM · #1070 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
so ya, anyways.
i work at a telephone company. one that was created after the ma Bell monopoly was broken up in 1996. my company does what all non LEC phone companies do since the new laws in 96', lease lines from the Bell companies (since they allready have the copper infostructure). now until a week ago this was fine and dandy. my company got to exist even in the same market as the Bell's by paying a fee per line and the Bell companies got to make money for doing nothing (since there lines have been up for years and are paid for).
now, one woudl think thats a pretty sweet deal for the Bell's but no. last week the ruling in 1996 to break a monopoly so there was a competative market, was overturned. why? well because the Bell companies have been bitching for so long, and giving large campain contributions to many law makers and other government officials, they finally decided to overturn the law.
so now, the Bell companies can charge as much as they would like for those lines affectivly putting all UNE-P businesses pretty much out of biz (ya just cant make money if your charging your customer 40$ a month and the Bell's are charging you 30$).
so now, my company looks like its going twards the good ol' chapter 11. of course the boss's say "we arent going out with out a fight", but at this point, the fight is all but lossed.
so ya, the system sucks ass, its completly controlled by money and corporations and //www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ 000 |
That's really ashame because the very soul and spirit of capitalism, COMPETITION, is being done away with in favor of oligopolies and monopolies. I hope that people here in the US can really see what's really going on here and "bill of goods" we're being sold. |
|
|
|
06/17/2004 07:56:10 PM · #1071 |
this article talks about what i spoke of 2 posts up for those interested.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2004 10:26:05 PM · #1072 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Why do people continue to disbelieve that the Bush administration are inveterate liars, despite overwhelming evidence of their widespread dishonesty? |
Well, I, for one, continue to disbelieve it because, to date, NO ONE has produced evidence showing that anyone in the Bush administration LIED. A LIE, remember, is a statement that was known to be false when it was made.
Ron |
"I'm anxious to see it. I've always said this was an important commission." (emphasis added)
George W. Bush, commenting on the release of the 911 Commission report, 7/21/2004.
===============
Perhaps thinking it was "important" to quash the Commission's formation qualifies as making this "not a lie," but the actions and the words seem to be quite clearly contradictory to me. |
|
|
|
07/21/2004 11:58:00 PM · #1073 |
Thanks General for giving the longest topic ever on DPC new life :)
As he did this I randemly clicked on different pages and read around (its been a slow night at work today).
Anyways, on page 11 I found this post by Magnetic999. This post was posted on 03/13/2003 10:38:57 AM. It is now 1 year and 4 months later and his questions and views are still valid. A very good post.
I would be very curious Mag as to what your oppinion of the situation is now.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
every time i think i'm going to add to this thread, i open a reply box and then am overwhelmed by a huge feeling of futility, given how adamant yet polarized everyone seems to be on this topic (going to war).
no matter what the viewpoint, everyone seems to be able to come up with a series of rationalizations to support it. so what's the point, other than wasting breath? If the disapproval of the other powerful nations of the world arent going to affect or change what Bush does, our arguing on a web photography site forum isn't either. I haven't seen one person change their viewpoint as a result of this 'discussion.'
but fwiw, here's my take on the situation:
i am an american citizen. i didnt vote for bush, though. he never seemed to have the intellectual or experiential credentials to be a good president of this country. note that i dont generally care about party lines. i just consider each candidate on their merits. i try not to have an emotional response to issues.
after the voting debacle, and bush took power, i think people assumed he would be pretty low-key and try to make up for the fact that he really wasn't the man the people had elected. of course, he got assertive really quick.
fast forward to this war. To me, none of the elements add up.
WMD? If they exist why hasnt anyone found them? Why havent the iraqis used them against us or any of their other enemies, previously? why dont any of the other powerful nations of the world have any intelligence about their existence? Their existence seems totally implausible based on those facts. they seem to be a manufactured bugaboo created to drive the agenda of war.
Meanwhile, there are other countries, both neutral and actively hostile that have WMD that everyone has seen and KNOWS about! Yet we are not aggressing against these countries? It doesnt add up.
Connection with Al-Qaeda? Disavowed by both sides, and no real connection has ever been found. Also implausible because of their religious and sectarian differences.
Prevention of terror. Again, most of the terrorists came from Saudi! Not Iraq. An unjustified attack against a moslem country though will obviously galvanise people from all over the region to retaliate and increase terror attacks. Not to mention that the one terror attack that occurred while huge, mostly succeeded because of the element of surprise. The US wasnt in vigilance mode and now that it is, it's not very likely that things like that are going to happen again.
Our economy. Why o why, would we bankrupt our country, that is currently having economic trouble, and basically throw away our resources and prosperity by building up a huge deficit, to attack a country that is poor and shattered? Why can't we expend those resources to help our country itself? We are currently having huge problems with unemployment, education cuts (teachers laid off by the truckload), natural resources. These things are our true future, not some flash in the pan war that's going to bankrupt us for no good reason.
I get the impression that Bush is totally irrational when it comes to this issue and topic. He's not acting out of any kind of logical framework. And that makes me realize that, just because he happens to be the leader of this nation, does not automatically make him perfect or infallible. He's a man, a human being, like any other human being. He's had a history of emotional and drug problems - alcohol, cocaine. His own daughters were publically out of control.
He's just a fallible human being, and I can't believe that people can so blindly put their faith in him, and not question or examine his premises. Which is supposed to be what our democratic system is all about.
The war against Iraq, when considered in logical terms and what is best for our country, just does not add up.
If you read this far, thanks for bearing with me. |
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:14:10 AM · #1074 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Thanks General for giving the longest topic ever on DPC new life :) |
Just doing my duty ... keeping us going around in circles ... : )
 |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 12:55:03 AM · #1075 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Thanks General for giving the longest topic ever on DPC new life :) |
Just doing my duty ... keeping us going around in circles ... : )
|
I like that alot, and Berkeley, sweet :) |
|
