Mmmm. No. It's not almost like that. It's not even sort of like that. We just want to know what happened in the days leading up to, and after 9/11. It's important to us, even though you apparently have it all figured out.
Humor us, OK?
just ignore him. he's really not worth it anymore, he's just baiting everyone.
....this won't be slumming over at Slippery Minutes--this will be verbally sparring with da boyz. No hostile edit, no shorting her to one segment to her accuser's two....
How about how 60 minutes only included 1/4 of her most important answers? That interview was sham.
Care to produce references to some of the stunningly inciteful bits we missed, so we can all be wowed by how Rice, say, did a better job of explaining going into Iraq than "the scope of going after terrorism is broader than just Afghanistan" (paraphrased from memory, not exact), as if that answers it all?
I suppose 60 Minutes, damned tool of the liberal media that they are, edited out all of the interesting Rice responses in favor of dull predictable stuff any of us could have easily guessed that she'd say.
What he says about Rice is interesting, but check this out from Gonzales' letter:
Quote:
I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
It looks like they've figured out a better way to not have Bush need to open his mouth too much.
I think that we have been heading down a dangerous road for about 10 years now. First, it was Clinton vs Republicans, then gay marriage, now Condi's testimony. At issue for me is the constitutionality of making a NSA testify before Congress. It may work to one party's advantage now or in the near future, but we are establishing a precedent... based mostly on the potential for political gain. Should Condi have to talk? Hell yes. Should Bush, Cheney, et al? Hell yes. But we need to be careful about setting precedents for the sake of "getting someone" be that Bush/911 or Clinton/Starr report. Our republic and rule of law are at stake, IMHO.
I think that we have been heading down a dangerous road for about 10 years now. First, it was Clinton vs Republicans, then gay marriage, now Condi's testimony. At issue for me is the constitutionality of making a NSA testify before Congress. It may work to one party's advantage now or in the near future, but we are establishing a precedent... based mostly on the potential for political gain. Should Condi have to talk? Hell yes. Should Bush, Cheney, et al? Hell yes. But we need to be careful about setting precedents for the sake of "getting someone" be that Bush/911 or Clinton/Starr report. Our republic and rule of law are at stake, IMHO.
I share the same concerns. My biggest worry is that when a democrat gets in office there will be a general idea of payback. Which brings us to:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Bush/911 or Clinton/Starr report.
And let's look at the differences there. Bush/911 affects us all and is a matter of national and personal security for all americans and arguably the whole world. The Iraq war was something that affected millions of people, hundreds of thousands very much directly. While there are fringe elements that 'attack Bush' for everything under the sun, I think it's pretty clear that most people are concerned with the administrations policy and job performance on matters that literally do affect us all.
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
That's all in the past and we can't do anything about it now. But the future is what I am concerned about. I think it's very unfortunate that we have such an extreme administration during such a rough time for the country. If we could have just had a moderate republican admin (McCain, for example), the country wouldn't have to be so divided. Unfortunately, the ideologues can't understand that the Bush admin is not the best possible republican administration (at all) or that a Kerry admin will not be very if at all different than a moderate republican administration. I would love to see McCain run with Kerry. Not because I think either of them are good or honest or even anything close to my ideal. I just want to see it so that we don't have this partisan divide that destroys any possibility of people recognizing legitimate criticism as just that.
Why would they have to edit their advice in the first place?
If their advice has a basis in fact, offering it and testifying to it in the future should not be a problem at all. If their advice is faulty, and could have had some role in national security being compromised, then they should be held publicly accountable for that.
I think accountability is a much better principle to be held to.
It's to prevent the legislative branch from encroaching on the executive branch. It's that simple.
Mmmm. No. It's not almost like that. It's not even sort of like that. We just want to know what happened in the days leading up to, and after 9/11. It's important to us, even though you apparently have it all figured out.
Humor us, OK?
You want to know what happened, but only if it comes down to this being Bush's fault.
Care to produce references to some of the stunningly inciteful bits we missed, so we can all be wowed by how Rice, say, did a better job of explaining going into Iraq than "the scope of going after terrorism is broader than just Afghanistan" (paraphrased from memory, not exact), as if that answers it all?
I suppose 60 Minutes, damned tool of the liberal media that they are, edited out all of the interesting Rice responses in favor of dull predictable stuff any of us could have easily guessed that she'd say.
60 minutes not liberal?
Read the transcript and compare it to the video. You'll see.
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
Well, a lot of it was about policy to me. But, it was also about character. This is why I laugh when you accuse Bush of lying.
As for Bush, you write:
Quote:
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
And I'm thankful we have the highly qualified team in office that we do.
Like I said in the Clarke thread, the admin knew that this would be politicised from the beginning. They also knew that the dems/libs would overreact as they always do. Now they are taking away yet another talking point.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
Like I said in the Clarke thread, the admin knew that this would be politicised from the beginning. They also knew that the dems/libs would overreact as they always do. Now they are taking away yet another talking point.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
The scheme is working perfectly. 53% of Americans think that the Bush administration is misleading the public for political gain.
Like I said in the Clarke thread, the admin knew that this would be politicised from the beginning. They also knew that the dems/libs would overreact as they always do. Now they are taking away yet another talking point.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
Except I didn't paraphrase
Those were the exact words that CNN used when they flashed their most recent polling information on the screen.
Isn't the whole purpose of the operation to get to the bottom of 9-11 and find out what happened and why? Rice should have testified in public, no ifs and buts. So should Bush, and most importantly, so should CHENEY
Don't forget, it was this administration who, in their supreme arrogance refused to even consider an inquiry in the first place, and if it wasnt for the families of those killed on 9-11 who growled around the administration's pant legs like angry pitbulls, there would never have been any inquiry. The bad publicity resulting from this attitude resulted in a commission headed by Henry Kissinger, probably the rudest slap in the face for the families of those 3000 killed that day. Even Kissinger decided to step down.
These people in the Bush administration are public employees, aka our servants. We pay them to run this country and they are accountable to us. All we ask for is public testimony, no questions barred. It is the least we should expect: anything less gives the impression that something is being hidden.
Rice's decision to testify publicly is entirely appropriate, but the original intention, ie, not to testify i public, stinks. Bush and Cheney's decision to do so in private stinks even worse.
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
In your world, it seems that all possibilities add up to "Bush misled" or "Bush lied", it really boils down to that in every thread.
In your world it seems that no-one uses politics to achieve gain except for republicans.
I and I would venture to say that America is getting sick of the type of vitriol that you and like minded partisans are spreading. I think that the more it is spread the more people will see it for what it is.
So please, make sure that you elude to that in every post, put it in your signature, spread that message. Cast aspersions if you really think that it furthers the debate. I don't and I frankly am getting tired of it.
Hey that's just me though, you should probably continue it seems to work for you.
By far the most important aspect of Rice's testimony: What questions will she be asked, and what questions will be out of bounds? and who will be screening the questions?
I can guarantee 100% that one question not permitted by the inquiry will be that concerning the warnings given to San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and Attorney General John Ashcroft who were both pre-warned not to fly on September 11, 2001. Brown's warning came from Condoleeza Rice.
I and I would venture to say that America is getting sick of the type of vitriol that you and like minded partisans are spreading. I think that the more it is spread the more people will see it for what it is.
Oh, let's see. So far, people who have dared to characterize the Bush administration as anything but a pargon of efficiency have been called:
embittered, crazy, out of the loop, arrogant, clueless, money grubbing, chair warmer, vindictive, partisan, racist, cowardly, traitorous, self aggrandizing, confused, mendacious, mistaken, irrelevant and working for Kerry. Oh, and gay. And not as an aside, but as a constant , coordinated media drum beat. CIA agents have been outed, classified documents declassified, information leaked, jobs threatened, and rumors spread.
Of course there are attacks back in forth in politics, but for anyone to speak of "vitriol" being spread by "partisans" in the face of the take no prisoners savagery of this white house is really just much too much.
By far the most important aspect of Rice's testimony: What questions will she be asked, and what questions will be out of bounds? and who will be screening the questions?
I can guarantee 100% that one question not permitted by the inquiry will be that concerning the warnings given to San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and Attorney General John Ashcroft who were both pre-warned not to fly on September 11, 2001. Brown's warning came from Condoleeza Rice.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
Mmmm. No. It's not almost like that. It's not even sort of like that. We just want to know what happened in the days leading up to, and after 9/11. It's important to us, even though you apparently have it all figured out.
Humor us, OK?
just ignore him. he's really not worth it anymore, he's just baiting everyone.
IT WILL BE BEAAAUUUUUUTIFUUULLLLLLLL!!!
[more evil laughter]
Free Civics lesson. Keep an eye on CSPAN.
Originally posted by SDW2001
How about how 60 minutes only included 1/4 of her most important answers? That interview was sham.
Care to produce references to some of the stunningly inciteful bits we missed, so we can all be wowed by how Rice, say, did a better job of explaining going into Iraq than "the scope of going after terrorism is broader than just Afghanistan" (paraphrased from memory, not exact), as if that answers it all?
I suppose 60 Minutes, damned tool of the liberal media that they are, edited out all of the interesting Rice responses in favor of dull predictable stuff any of us could have easily guessed that she'd say.
What he says about Rice is interesting, but check this out from Gonzales' letter:
I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
It looks like they've figured out a better way to not have Bush need to open his mouth too much.
Originally posted by Jubelum
I think that we have been heading down a dangerous road for about 10 years now. First, it was Clinton vs Republicans, then gay marriage, now Condi's testimony. At issue for me is the constitutionality of making a NSA testify before Congress. It may work to one party's advantage now or in the near future, but we are establishing a precedent... based mostly on the potential for political gain. Should Condi have to talk? Hell yes. Should Bush, Cheney, et al? Hell yes. But we need to be careful about setting precedents for the sake of "getting someone" be that Bush/911 or Clinton/Starr report. Our republic and rule of law are at stake, IMHO.
Except that she's not testifying before congress.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Bush/911 or Clinton/Starr report.
And let's look at the differences there. Bush/911 affects us all and is a matter of national and personal security for all americans and arguably the whole world. The Iraq war was something that affected millions of people, hundreds of thousands very much directly. While there are fringe elements that 'attack Bush' for everything under the sun, I think it's pretty clear that most people are concerned with the administrations policy and job performance on matters that literally do affect us all.
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
That's all in the past and we can't do anything about it now. But the future is what I am concerned about. I think it's very unfortunate that we have such an extreme administration during such a rough time for the country. If we could have just had a moderate republican admin (McCain, for example), the country wouldn't have to be so divided. Unfortunately, the ideologues can't understand that the Bush admin is not the best possible republican administration (at all) or that a Kerry admin will not be very if at all different than a moderate republican administration. I would love to see McCain run with Kerry. Not because I think either of them are good or honest or even anything close to my ideal. I just want to see it so that we don't have this partisan divide that destroys any possibility of people recognizing legitimate criticism as just that.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Why would they have to edit their advice in the first place?
If their advice has a basis in fact, offering it and testifying to it in the future should not be a problem at all. If their advice is faulty, and could have had some role in national security being compromised, then they should be held publicly accountable for that.
I think accountability is a much better principle to be held to.
It's to prevent the legislative branch from encroaching on the executive branch. It's that simple.
Originally posted by Moogs
Mmmm. No. It's not almost like that. It's not even sort of like that. We just want to know what happened in the days leading up to, and after 9/11. It's important to us, even though you apparently have it all figured out.
Humor us, OK?
You want to know what happened, but only if it comes down to this being Bush's fault.
Originally posted by shetline
Care to produce references to some of the stunningly inciteful bits we missed, so we can all be wowed by how Rice, say, did a better job of explaining going into Iraq than "the scope of going after terrorism is broader than just Afghanistan" (paraphrased from memory, not exact), as if that answers it all?
I suppose 60 Minutes, damned tool of the liberal media that they are, edited out all of the interesting Rice responses in favor of dull predictable stuff any of us could have easily guessed that she'd say.
60 minutes not liberal?
Read the transcript and compare it to the video. You'll see.
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
Well, a lot of it was about policy to me. But, it was also about character. This is why I laugh when you accuse Bush of lying.
As for Bush, you write:
Contrast that to the attacks on Clinton. The biggest ones had nothing to do with policy. They had nothing to do with events and actions that directly affected thousands or even hundreds. They were purely political attacks that diverted attention away from some of the real issues that the country as a whole should have been paying attention to, things like terrorism.
And I'm thankful we have the highly qualified team in office that we do.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like I said in the Clarke thread, the admin knew that this would be politicised from the beginning. They also knew that the dems/libs would overreact as they always do. Now they are taking away yet another talking point.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
The scheme is working perfectly. 53% of Americans think that the Bush administration is misleading the public for political gain.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like I said in the Clarke thread, the admin knew that this would be politicised from the beginning. They also knew that the dems/libs would overreact as they always do. Now they are taking away yet another talking point.
Think about it and be honest with yourself.
It is a brilliant political move, a political rope-a-dope.
You would think that some people would learn, but they keep overreacting aand jumping to premature conclusions. Watch, it will happen all the way up to the re-election.
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
Except I didn't paraphrase
Those were the exact words that CNN used when they flashed their most recent polling information on the screen.
Don't forget, it was this administration who, in their supreme arrogance refused to even consider an inquiry in the first place, and if it wasnt for the families of those killed on 9-11 who growled around the administration's pant legs like angry pitbulls, there would never have been any inquiry. The bad publicity resulting from this attitude resulted in a commission headed by Henry Kissinger, probably the rudest slap in the face for the families of those 3000 killed that day. Even Kissinger decided to step down.
These people in the Bush administration are public employees, aka our servants. We pay them to run this country and they are accountable to us. All we ask for is public testimony, no questions barred. It is the least we should expect: anything less gives the impression that something is being hidden.
Rice's decision to testify publicly is entirely appropriate, but the original intention, ie, not to testify i public, stinks. Bush and Cheney's decision to do so in private stinks even worse.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, that's quite an interesting argument you have there, Naples. In your world, the Bush admin is, as HOM paraphrased, misleading the public for political gain, and those that don't vote for him because of it are stupid. Interesting.
In your world, it seems that all possibilities add up to "Bush misled" or "Bush lied", it really boils down to that in every thread.
In your world it seems that no-one uses politics to achieve gain except for republicans.
I and I would venture to say that America is getting sick of the type of vitriol that you and like minded partisans are spreading. I think that the more it is spread the more people will see it for what it is.
So please, make sure that you elude to that in every post, put it in your signature, spread that message. Cast aspersions if you really think that it furthers the debate. I don't and I frankly am getting tired of it.
Hey that's just me though, you should probably continue it seems to work for you.
Never-mind, good job.
I can guarantee 100% that one question not permitted by the inquiry will be that concerning the warnings given to San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and Attorney General John Ashcroft who were both pre-warned not to fly on September 11, 2001. Brown's warning came from Condoleeza Rice.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew2.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
I and I would venture to say that America is getting sick of the type of vitriol that you and like minded partisans are spreading. I think that the more it is spread the more people will see it for what it is.
Oh, let's see. So far, people who have dared to characterize the Bush administration as anything but a pargon of efficiency have been called:
embittered, crazy, out of the loop, arrogant, clueless, money grubbing, chair warmer, vindictive, partisan, racist, cowardly, traitorous, self aggrandizing, confused, mendacious, mistaken, irrelevant and working for Kerry. Oh, and gay. And not as an aside, but as a constant , coordinated media drum beat. CIA agents have been outed, classified documents declassified, information leaked, jobs threatened, and rumors spread.
Of course there are attacks back in forth in politics, but for anyone to speak of "vitriol" being spread by "partisans" in the face of the take no prisoners savagery of this white house is really just much too much.
I mean really really really. Get a grip.
Originally posted by sammi jo
By far the most important aspect of Rice's testimony: What questions will she be asked, and what questions will be out of bounds? and who will be screening the questions?
I can guarantee 100% that one question not permitted by the inquiry will be that concerning the warnings given to San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and Attorney General John Ashcroft who were both pre-warned not to fly on September 11, 2001. Brown's warning came from Condoleeza Rice.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew2.html
You should contact your congressman to demand that question be asked!