| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
NidPuterGuy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 237
|
Why won't Condi testify under oath? It's because she doesn't want to perjure herself. Clarke has testified under oath. Pubbies will drag up some old documents or voice recordings of him that are mildy damaging to him. The fanatics will buy into this as proof his testimony is invalid. The rest of us will weigh the facts. Kinda hard for dubya follower to talk about facts. I remember Powell in front of the UN describing trucks used for WMD's when in fact he knew they were helium ballon trucks. Lies and pesonal attacks can only go so far to abrogate the facts. |
Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:18 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
| Re: The usual two suspects.. |
|
quote:
Originally posted by NidPuterGuy
Why won't Condi testify under oath? It's because she doesn't want to perjure herself. Clarke has testified under oath. Pubbies will drag up some old documents or voice recordings of him that are mildy damaging to him. The fanatics will buy into this as proof his testimony is invalid. The rest of us will weigh the facts. Kinda hard for dubya follower to talk about facts. I remember Powell in front of the UN describing trucks used for WMD's when in fact he knew they were helium ballon trucks. Lies and pesonal attacks can only go so far to abrogate the facts.
Ms Rice has been reluctant to testify because she can be made to look bad. There are certain issues that she CAN NOT answer in a public forum. Her opponents know this, and can manuever the questioning in such a way as to either make her look like she is not telling the whole truth (cuz she can't) or make her look dumb.
I am surprised that she has agreed, and I am very, VERY curious as to what she has to say.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:36 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
I just finished listening to to her testimony. Let's just say I wouldn't mind Bush putting Cheney out to pasture and picking her for a running mate this election. That woman is brilliant.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 5:01 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
I just finished listening to to her testimony. Let's just say I wouldn't mind Bush putting Cheney out to pasture and picking her for a running mate this election. That woman is brilliant.
This does not surprise me! I was delighted when the administration chose her, and so far she has lived up to my expectations. I am glad she performed well today.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:49 pm |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Here's a "funny" one about Condi Rice:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098500/
But I agree she's better than Cheney. That guy is just scary. Rice may have had an oil tanker named after her for her services to the industry, but Cheney says stuff like this:
"In recent interviews, Cheney has mostly joked about his image problem. "Why do I want to deal with it?" he told the Los Angeles Times and USA Today in mid-January. "What's wrong with my image?... Am I the evil genius in the corner nobody ever sees come out of his hole? It's a nice way to operate, actually," the vice president chuckled in his dry, mirthless way." |
|
Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:51 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
The only thing funny in that article is the author's poor attempt to make Rice look bad. You want to see someone who looked bad? Watch Janet Reno's testimony from today. You'll feel sorry for that woman!
I especially enjoyed the parts that shot Clark's book all to heck. 
As for Cheney, not a fan of dry humor, I see?
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:15 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
Oddly enough, I got the feeling that the author was trying very hard to make "Condi" look bad, but I got the exact opposite impression reading the article. If that was the best he could come up with, then she must've ripped a good one.
In fact some of the the stuff in there works the other way:
quote:
Swatting flies: Bill Clinton's weak, partial counterterrorist measures. Example: [Bush] made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies.
He felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that's what he meant by swatting flies.
Fly swatting ... not a bad summary of Cruise Missile Bill's foreign policy.
Or:
quote:
Specific threat information: The precise, useful information the administration didn't get, thereby absolving it of responsibility. Example: On Aug. 6, 2001, the president's intelligence briefing
referred to uncorroborated reporting, from 1998, that a terrorist might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists.
This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:37 pm |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Yeah, Cheney is a laugh riot. "Vice President Dick Cheney received $178,437 in deferred pay last year from Halliburton Co., the Texas oil-field services company he once headed that has since received billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq."
It will be interesting to see what side the commission comes down on: Clarke or Rice. From what I have seen on "The News Hour" they seem to take Clarke very seriously (they often interview the commissioners - so it's from the horse's mouth, not from a partisan pundit). Certainly they are not being dismissive about his allegations. After all, what he said can basically be boiled down to "President Bush did not fully grasp the threat from Al Qaeda". Priorities changed during the handover of power. This is not a tough one to prove, since you can say "President Bush does not fully grasp X", and whatever you replace X with, you will probably be right!! Though if it was Clinton you could replace it with "girl's booties" and you would be wrong...
EDIT: I found this quote from a partisan pundit while reading on the web...
"For the record, I believe Richard Clarke is a very knowledgeable man, and I believe he recognized the danger Al Qaeda presented to America. I believe he could not convince President Clinton or President Bush to act on that danger."
(Bill O'Reilly) |
|
Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:26 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
It was recieving billion dollar government contracts for years before the war in Iraq too. Your point?
Which commissioners? The one that's trying to cover her butt, the political hack, or the one that is trying to get noticed?
And how, pray tell, could Bush not grasp the threat when he asked for the report? Your poor attempt at a joke isn't appreciated.
Bully for O'Reilly. So what? I don't need a pundit to tell me how to think. All I need is information resources and I'll draw my own conclusions.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:28 pm |
|
|
Scribelus
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 46
|
Heh heh, my poor attempts at jokes are usually appreciated by everyone! (Sorry, that was another poor attempt at a joke.)
I think this new Bob Woodward book is really interesting, especially since no-one is trying to deny it. Woodward wrote a very complimentary book about Bush after 9/11, though it did contain the admission by Bush that he did not consider Al Qaeda a priority before the attacks. "I was not on point. I have no hesitancy about going after him, but I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly at boiling." (from Bush at War)
If you guys are actually interested in this topic, try this article:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/04/20/woodward_clarke/
(You have to watch a short commercial to get access.)
I do not view myself as particularly partisan, politically speaking. I don't consider myself "left wing". I am not a "socialist" or anything - I believe in capitalism and democracy above all. I don't have a high opinion of Clinton. I don't think America is an evil empire . Though I read sites like Salon which is liberal, I also read other stuff and watch Fox News. Not trying to pretend I am Republican, but there ARE a lot of Republicans who are very worried about Bush's cabal, and it looks like Congress is going to take over control of Iraq policy, with a lot of new commissions starting. Not a minute too soon.
I think eventually people are going to have to realize that Bush is a very strange man, who thinks God talks to him personally and tells him what to do, and that he is under the influence of some pretty sinister types who were sidelined by Bush 1. I think Bush is capable of just about anything if he thinks "God told him" or Dick Cheney gets him alone for long enough. In some leaders, "out of the box thinking" is great, but you have to have checks and balances for safety.
You guys' loyalty to Dubya is admirable, but I think you are sorely mistaken.
Well, posting here is beginning to feel a lot like trolling, since the reactions are quite emotional. So I guess I will quit. YAY! says everyone! (No, really, I am sure you are all crying bitter tears of sadness.) Let's see how the facts play out in Iraq and other contentious areas for a while. |
|
Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:22 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
I have to admit that I am not a big "W" fan either. I like some of his stances, but abhor others. Ms Rice I give an A to. She's had a tough job to do and aquitted herself very well .... much better than her predecessor (sp?).
My biggest problem with American presidential elections is the constant having to choose the lesser of two wevils ... er ... weasels ... err ... evils, and the 365.25 day a year campagning (thank you Mr Clinton). Oh well, it may not be the best but it sure beats the heck out of living in a state of anarchy.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:40 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
No one refuting the book, eh? I guess you missed Colin Powell setting the record straight on Monday. And by the way, have you read the book? I flipped through it at the bookstore a few days ago. It's not the big scandal/controversy people are making it out to be. In fact, in some ways it's actually flattering to the administration by not portraying everyone in it as yes-men. There are some things in it that are wrong, but overall, it's all plop-plop with no fizz-fizz.
As for being worried, the only thing I'm worried about is Kerry putting me to sleep during the debates. Good grief, and I thought Bob Dole was boring!
As for the control of Iraq, it's not going to Congress, it's going to the Iraqis. 
And as for Bush's faith, I think people are mischaracterizing it. I pray and I think that God answers those prayers and speaks to me. Am I crazy? If Bush admits that he gets a little help from the big guy upstairs, then that just means one of my prayers has been answered, because I pray for our leaders to be inspired to make good decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by Scribelus
You guys' loyalty to Dubya is admirable, but I think you are sorely mistaken.
Do you know what the word condescending means? I'd be insulted, but luckily I don't care about your opinion.
As for getting emotional? No, I'm not getting emotional. I'm just refuting what you have said.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:49 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
I knew not to look at this thread. I knew Id see something wacky and need to suppress the urge to respond. Well, here goes -
quote:
I think this new Bob Woodward book is really interesting, especially since no-one is trying to deny it.
Really read the book there, Scrib? From what Ive heard and read today, the reason why nobody is trying to deny it, is that the book is complimentary to Bush! Really! You guys have been hoodwinked! Talk about a rope-a-dope, Woodward's tv appearances have been mostly about things not even in the book. The book doesnt slam Bush, it cuts people off at the knees by highlighting how much he consulted everyone and how much debate took place in the White House. This is almost as good as Condi's cameo on the "the 9/11 Commission". Hilarious!!
Shows Bush as a "man of faith" is a bad thing? He tries to actually say that a President who prays to God is a bad thing? Oh man, these people are completely out to lunch. They simply have no clue. Sorry guys, I know you think that actually portraying "people of faith" as a bunch of abject idiots or backwoods hicks is good for your cause. It's not. In case you havent noticed the Passion did pretty good, why the Left is so tone-deaf on this matter never ceases to amaze me.
The parts where he says Powell was left out, has been refuted by numerous sources. For Pete's sake, Powell was the one that made the huge presentation to the UN! All these ankle-biters like Salon.com got duped into first completely misrepresenting the book by their pals begging for a Woodward slam after the Clark fizzle, and actually ended up promoting a complimentary book!
In fact, it casts Bush in such a good light and smashes quite a few misconceptions made by the opposition so well, that he linked to it on his official site as "Suggested Reading".
Seriously, Bush wants you to read this book, Scribelus!
Here, check it out about 3/4 of the way down the page-
http://www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/
All you people in foreign countries watching stuff like CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC, thinking that's a snapshot of American culture and opinion, youre wrong. You think all these idiot sitcoms and idiot celebrities and these fake anything-but-reality shows are us? Not. You think Woodward/Clark/Hitman Of The Month going from show to show, answering softball questions by partisan hosts influences us at large. It doesnt. You actually think someone getting up there with a straight face, and saying that 9-11 should not be a part of campaign 2004 is going to be met with universal cheers of support? Wrong again. Clinton and crew really talked alot about terrorism, really thought about it alot? Change the channel already..
I really love to watch the Left flail away at this stuff. It's just so funny to watch them get so excited thinking they got "the big one", then open the door right into their own noses again. See, they really cant get people to vote for them. Nope, they can only win by trying to personally destroy their political opponent, like kids on a playground or something. That's why they are losing, all this has amounted to greater poll numbers for Bush, not worse. This has made these people look worse, not better.
First Dean is going to cream Bush- yeah right, self-destructs
Then Kerry is gonna clobber Bush- this guy is a totally boring, flip-flopping fool who has come out against things like lower gas prices! what a dreamboat!
Then Bush is going down for using 9-11 in his ads- grow up!
Then Clark is going to destroy Bush- Sorry, cant make people actually believe 8 mos of inaction trumps 8 years
Then Bush in trouble because Condi wont testify- Ok, fine. She gets up there and mops the floor with them
Some memo needs to be de-classified, going to cream Bush! - ok, declassified. does nothing of the sort
Bob Woodward has a new book out, must be really bad for Bush! - the book shows Bush in a good light, and a man of faith! He links to it on his site!
I cant help just snickering at the futilty of these little children, thinking that its still 1965 we are all playing in their sandbox. Not so, its 2004 and theyre playing in ours now.
edit-changed "people if faith" to "people of faith". oops ='.'=
_________________
Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.-Mark Twain
Last edited by xSamhainx on Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:21 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Hahahhaha...
The most hilarious part was this:
quote:
Originally posted by xSamhainx
Then Bush in trouble because Condi wont testify- Ok, fine. She gets up there and mops the floor with them
Condi didn't mop the floor with anyone. What she did get stumped at several occasions, contradicting herself and others on other occasions. I had thought she would do much better. Unimpressive.
This one was also pretty good:
quote:
Some memo needs to be de-classified, going to cream Bush! - ok, declassified. does nothing of the sort
Really? It highlights several threats to the US that the Bush administration didn't care about.
quote:
Then Bush is going down for using 9-11 in his ads- grow up!
Hey! Good comeback! Another equally good one would be "talk to the hand, 'cuz the head, it ain't listening!" |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
