PDA

View Full Version : Questions C Rice should ask the commission....



eg8r
04-06-2004, 12:15 PM
Here is a pretty interesting read and surely the questions should be asked.... [ QUOTE ]
This week National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will be on the hot seat, answering questions under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission. What she says will almost certainly better inform us all of what went wrong inside the bureaucracy. But while she has the opportunity, Ms. Rice might want to turn the tables and ask the commission two questions:

1. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton went on "Meet the Press" Sunday and said that their final report will include surprises and, more stunningly, that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been thwarted. How did the commissioners come to these conclusions before the long-awaited public questioning of the national security adviser? Or for that matter before reading through all those Clinton-era documents said to have been withheld from the commission, and before FBI Director Robert Mueller, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush have testified? And before former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Attorney General Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have weighed in under oath?

2. How can a commission with a very narrow focus accurately portray the wider national-security picture that Ms. Rice and the rest of the Bush administration had to work with?

This second question is worth keeping in mind as Ms. Rice is pulled over the coals for failing to mention al Qaeda in speeches, and as reports come out claiming terrorism lost out to other defense agenda items--like national missile defense. The truth is that there are national-security threats other than al Qaeda, and the Bush administration was right to focus on them before Sept. 11 and is still right to focus on them today. It is this broader vision of defense that is vital to national security but that is obscured by premature conclusions and narrowly tailored inquiries.

Take missile defense. For decades the idea of blasting a missile out of the sky has been ridiculed--critics simply dismissed Ronald Reagan's proposal as "Star Wars"--even as the threat of a such an attack grew. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was no longer plausible to argue that "mutually assured destruction" would deter a missile attack. Yet throughout the 1990s the Clinton administration dragged its feet--usually saying the technology wasn't advanced enough to set up a national missile defense shield, even after Patriot missile batteries shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

Meanwhile, missile technology proliferated. China developed the ability to arm an intercontinental missile with a nuclear warhead. North Korea bought what it could not develop internally and sent a warning to the international community by launching a missile over Japan. In Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khan developed nuclear weapons and proceeded to sell his technology to Libya and other places. And Saddam secretly developed the ability to use his missiles at ranges forbidden under United Nations resolutions--the one banned weapons program for which the coalition found conclusive evidence. <hr /></blockquote> Any of the anti-Bush crowd wanna give them a try (Q, nhp, etc.)?

Here is the web page (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110004913) where I copied the quote from.

eg8r

nhp
04-06-2004, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, missile technology proliferated. China developed the ability to arm an intercontinental missile with a nuclear warhead. North Korea bought what it could not develop internally and sent a warning to the international community by launching a missile over Japan. In Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khan developed nuclear weapons and proceeded to sell his technology to Libya and other places. And Saddam secretly developed the ability to use his missiles at ranges forbidden under United Nations resolutions--the one banned weapons program for which the coalition found conclusive evidence. <hr /></blockquote>

lol and which of these threats did we focus on... the one in which we had no evidence of posing a threat to us at all lol

After the point that Saddam posed no threat to us is rubbed in the face of conservatives, what do they fall back on? "Our cause in Iraq was to create a democracy and free the people" lol sure! Lie to yourselves enough and eventually you will believe your own lies.

eg8r
04-06-2004, 08:29 PM
Was it on purpose your ignored answering the questions, choosing rather a paragraph later in the quote to address?

Let me make it a little easier on you, I will post only the questions so that you don't get confused with the other stuff. I had no idea it would be this hard for you (you are beginning to closely mirror Q and it has since led me to wonder)... [ QUOTE ]
1. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton went on "Meet the Press" Sunday and said that their final report will include surprises and, more stunningly, that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been thwarted. How did the commissioners come to these conclusions before the long-awaited public questioning of the national security adviser? Or for that matter before reading through all those Clinton-era documents said to have been withheld from the commission, and before FBI Director Robert Mueller, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush have testified? And before former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Attorney General Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have weighed in under oath?

2. How can a commission with a very narrow focus accurately portray the wider national-security picture that Ms. Rice and the rest of the Bush administration had to work with?
<hr /></blockquote> So, I sit her wondering just what smart/smug reply you will come with next.

eg8r

Steve - Detroit
04-07-2004, 07:59 AM
OK, I’ll bite on this one eg8r. First off the article you posted is from an opinion page and it is just that, an opinion.
Did Mr Kean say 9/11 could have been thwarted? What he actually said was that it didn’t have to happen, and he originally said that back in December. But, and this is important, he then conditioned it on a long string of “ifs”. Basically, if the intelligence gathering and interpretation of that intelligence had been flawless, the signals were there. That’s like you or I saying “if I never missed a shot and always got perfect shape, I’d be a world champion”. True enough but that’s a pretty important “if”.

As far as the author of that opinion's surprise that such a conclusion can be made before hearing from Condo, there are two things.
First, don’t forget that they already talked to her for 4 hours. There is probably nothing coming from her tomorrow that they haven’t already heard. That’s not just my opinion, that’s also shared by Brit Hume, he spoke at length about it last week. He said these commissions typically like to interview the witness beforehand and then try to trap them once under oath. Typical witch hunt stuff.

Secondly, his mentioning all the other bigwigs that haven’t yet appeared? So what. His premise is that in the intelligence community, information flows from the top down, it doesn’t, it flows up. These people aren’t in the trenches, gathering and interpreting the raw data, all they see are summaries. That was the whole point of Mr. Kean’s statement, the failure was in the interpretation and passing up of info.

eg8r
04-07-2004, 08:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I’ll bite on this one eg8r. First off the article you posted is from an opinion page and it is just that, an opinion. <hr /></blockquote> You might want to look before you bite, there might be something there you don't want in your mouth. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif As for the quote above, Opinion page or not, the questions are merely questions that could be asked so I am not sure why you feel the reason to make such a point. Opinion or not, is that not what your view would be also? I did not state that any of this would be a fact or not, but rather that these would be questions that should be asked.

[ QUOTE ]
Did Mr Kean say 9/11 could have been thwarted? What he actually said was that it didn’t have to happen, and he originally said that back in December. <hr /></blockquote> Before you go any further, what do you think the difference is between using the word thwarted and "it didn't have to happen". If something was done on the part of the admin that would cause 9/11 not to have happened, would that not have "thwarted" 9/11. If you are caught up in the words becuase they were quoted here from the WSJ Opinion Journal then you can take a short hop over to the Washington Post, New York Times, etc., and see they all understood Kean much the same way as the WSJ-OJ. You seem to be the only person I have read or heard so far that takes issue with phrase.

[ QUOTE ]
But, and this is important, he then conditioned it on a long string of “ifs”. Basically, if the intelligence gathering and interpretation of that intelligence had been flawless, the signals were there. That’s like you or I saying “if I never missed a shot and always got perfect shape, I’d be a world champion”. True enough but that’s a pretty important “if”.
<hr /></blockquote> So if the "ifs" are so abundant based on happenings that are probably impossible (intelligence gathering and interpretation of that intelligence had been flawless) then why would he even mention it (9/11 not having to happen)? It is quite apparent to everyone you will never reach "flawless" as that is merely the goal, so if he is basing his opinion in the way your interpretation goes, he only set himself up to fail. Of course this is merely just your opinion of the facts also.

[ QUOTE ]
First, don’t forget that they already talked to her for 4 hours. There is probably nothing coming from her tomorrow that they haven’t already heard. That’s not just my opinion, that’s also shared by Brit Hume, he spoke at length about it last week. He said these commissions typically like to interview the witness beforehand and then try to trap them once under oath. Typical witch hunt stuff.
<hr /></blockquote> Exactly, she is not going to tell them anything new, which makes this an entire waste of taxpayer time and money.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, his mentioning all the other bigwigs that haven’t yet appeared? So what. His premise is that in the intelligence community, information flows from the top down, it doesn’t, it flows up. These people aren’t in the trenches, gathering and interpreting the raw data, all they see are summaries. That was the whole point of Mr. Kean’s statement, the failure was in the interpretation and passing up of info.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, if the man bases his opinion of the situation on flawless data then he has set himself up to fail. He was the one that mentioned it could have been thwarted, and he did this under the precursor that it only could have happened if the intelligence was flawless. Why is this Bush's admin's fault?

Oh yeah, you forgot to take a bite out of the second question.

eg8r

Steve - Detroit
04-07-2004, 10:03 AM
I do see a difference between the two statements and if you and others don’t, so be it. To word it as “could have been thwarted” implies to me that Mr. Kean was saying it shouldn’t have happened and I don’t think that is even remotely true. To say it didn’t HAVE to happen is saying it wasn’t an unstoppable inevitability. There’s a huge difference (in my opinion). I guess we’ll see what he meant when the report comes out.

At no time during that interview did he say that flawless intelligence gathering and interpretation “should” have happened. You’ve missed the whole point of what he was saying (in my opinion, again). All he said was that the clues were there, buried amongst the millions of other bits of data. He never condemned anyone for not picking up on what was available, only that it WAS available, prior to 9/11. We knew about the flight lessons for example and that several of the hijackers were in the country and that some of them were on lists of known terrorists. The “chatter” that was picked up during that summer signaled that something big was in the works. The clues were there, that’s all he was saying. Mr. Hamilton even added that “if you'd had a little luck” it might have been averted. Hardly the stuff to base any kind of accusation on, or point the finger at any person or group, which is what the people who are most upset about the remark seem to believe he is doing. Was it an irresponsible statement for him to make? Probably, but I think its been blown way out of proportion.

As far as your question, Why was it Bush's fault?
I dunno, who said it was?

As for the second question from the editorial, it doesn’t even deserve comment.

eg8r
04-07-2004, 10:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
At no time during that interview did he say that flawless intelligence gathering and interpretation “should” have happened. You’ve missed the whole point of what he was saying (in my opinion, again). <hr /></blockquote> I don't think I am missing any point, rather I might be disagreeing with your opinion on what Kean's is trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
The clues were there, that’s all he was saying. Mr. Hamilton even added that “if you'd had a little luck” it might have been averted. Hardly the stuff to base any kind of accusation on, or point the finger at any person or group, which is what the people who are most upset about the remark seem to believe he is doing. <hr /></blockquote> You are correct, that is what I believe he is doing along with the wildly "conservative" NYT and Washington Post and everyone else out there that has mentioned Kean.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as your question, Why was it Bush's fault?
I dunno, who said it was?
<hr /></blockquote> Clarke, if we are talking most recent past.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the second question from the editorial, it doesn’t even deserve comment. <hr /></blockquote> When one does not have an answer the quote above seems to be the first choice.

eg8r

Qtec
04-07-2004, 10:56 AM
C.Rice is coming before the commision to ANSWER questions, not ASK them.

Wally and yourself are always going on about taking resposibility for one's actions.

Wonder why you dont apply these standards to REP politicians.

Q

eg8r
04-07-2004, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
C.Rice is coming before the commision to ANSWER questions, not ASK them.
<hr /></blockquote> Boy, if you only practiced what you preached once in awhile. Apply this to you life the next time you decide to respond to a thread that is asking you a question.

eg8r &lt;~~~doubts q will ever live by his quote above

Qtec
04-07-2004, 11:10 AM
HaHa. You should talk!!

Answer me this.
Why wont GW appear bfore the commision ALONE, instead of bringing somebody along to hold his hand????


Q

eg8r
04-07-2004, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
HaHa. You should talk!! <hr /></blockquote> I figure since you were so bold to make the statment you might wanna clean your own laundry first.

[ QUOTE ]
Why wont GW appear bfore the commision ALONE, instead of bringing somebody along to hold his hand????
<hr /></blockquote> Because it will not affect anything one way or the other. I don't know really, but maybe you might send him an email and see if he responds. Seems to me, in the past you used to always know what W was thinking, so why ask the question if you already know the answer you want to hear?

eg8r

Qtec
04-07-2004, 11:30 AM
LOL. You dont want to say it.

Q [ maybe he might actualy answer a question?]

eg8r
04-07-2004, 11:34 AM
You were answered. I told you because I did not think it would make a difference one way or the other. Why don't you just tell us what you want to hear, it will save you the anticipation.

eg8r

nhp
04-07-2004, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Was it on purpose your ignored answering the questions, choosing rather a paragraph later in the quote to address?

Let me make it a little easier on you, I will post only the questions so that you don't get confused with the other stuff. I had no idea it would be this hard for you (you are beginning to closely mirror Q and it has since led me to wonder)... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
1. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton went on "Meet the Press" Sunday and said that their final report will include surprises and, more stunningly, that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been thwarted. How did the commissioners come to these conclusions before the long-awaited public questioning of the national security adviser? Or for that matter before reading through all those Clinton-era documents said to have been withheld from the commission, and before FBI Director Robert Mueller, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President Bush have testified? And before former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Attorney General Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have weighed in under oath?

2. How can a commission with a very narrow focus accurately portray the wider national-security picture that Ms. Rice and the rest of the Bush administration had to work with?
<hr /></blockquote> So, I sit her wondering just what smart/smug reply you will come with next.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Why am I going to attempt to answer some questions directed at somebody else? Sorry, I'm not like you and Wally. I prefer to be the one asking the questions, not being a kiss-ass and answering them for someone that I idolize (lol). I don't hold any of these politicians in high regard. If Clark wants to come out with all of these accusations, be my guest. I'll sit back and watch. If the Bush administration ends up getting barbecued because of this, I'll sit back and watch. I'll sit back and watch while you and Wally brownnose them until you're blue (brown) in the face. Have fun.

eg8r
04-07-2004, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't hold any of these politicians in high regard. If Clark wants to come out with all of these accusations, be my guest. I'll sit back and watch. If the Bush administration ends up getting barbecued because of this, I'll sit back and watch. I'll sit back and watch while you and Wally brownnose them until you're blue (brown) in the face. Have fun. <hr /></blockquote> Go ahead and sit back and watch, seems you found what you are good at.

eg8r

Qtec
04-08-2004, 07:11 AM
I,m watching CR right now.


I think she is going to cry.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
04-08-2004, 08:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think she is going to cry. <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif This is a shame, I am leaving work around 12 to go boating and I am going to miss it all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif (joking about the /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif ) I would rather be out floating in the ocean than sitting at home watching CR answer questions.

eg8r

eg8r
04-08-2004, 08:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In her prepared testimony, Rice neither criticized Clarke nor offered a point by point rebuttal of his appearance.

She said she made the unusual decision to retain him when the new administration came into office, saying, he was an "expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager."

She said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida."


(AP) Eighth-grader Blaine Gabrisch, visiting New York with other students from Grace School in Houston,...
Full Image


Bush, she said, "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she said.

"He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies'," Rice told the commission.

<hr /></blockquote> I cannot wait to hear what Clarke has to say about the portion I highlighted.

eg8r

cheesemouse
04-08-2004, 10:24 AM
I know this question is not directed at me but eg8r, but then we all know his answer in advance and it would be something like.....Well aaaaagh just because he is sooooo resolute in his Blahhhhhhhhh....

...the answer is: they can't afford to let GW be questioned in ANY open ended fashion because they're afraid he will say something that turns the English lanquage upside down and in turn scare the $hit out of me, you and all the world leaders...LOL
...GW's crew traded executive privilege for a hand holder....LOL...amazing stuff...

eg8r
04-08-2004, 08:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I know this question is not directed at me but eg8r, <hr /></blockquote> Your mouth is big enough, so take this one for me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

highsea
04-08-2004, 11:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Blahhhhhhhhh....

...the answer is: they can't afford to let GW be questioned in ANY open ended fashion because they're afraid he will say something that turns the English lanquage upside down and in turn scare the $hit out of me, you and all the world leaders...LOL
...GW's crew traded executive privilege for a hand holder....LOL...amazing stuff... <hr /></blockquote>

So why was Clinton's testimony in a closed session, while they insisted CR testify in public and under oath?

Cheese, do you know what executive privilege is? Do you know why it exists? What do you mean when you say GW's crew traded it for a hand holder?

-CM

highsea
04-08-2004, 11:27 PM
This story is about John O'Neill, who was the head of the FBI's counterterrorism effort in the 90's, and perished in the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Full article:

The testimony we won't hear (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116564,00.html)

Exerpt from this article:

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to the testimony provided by Richard Clarke, who eventually recommended that O’Neill succeed him as the nation’s terrorism czar, O’Neill held a different view of the Clinton administration’s war on terrorism. O’Neill believed that Clinton’s political handlers ultimately dominated the decision-making process on how to attack bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the President and his wife struggled with scandal, and that the White House did not develop the resolve to attack Al Qaeda. Top-level State Department officials who were more concerned about protecting the status quo with the heads of other countries rather than take the necessary steps to send tough messages to advance U.S. efforts to thwart bin Laden also victimized O’Neill rather than support him. Finally, after years of fighting for change that might have prevented 9/11 — from large scale requests for tighter security on airplanes, to asking for funds to hire more translators — O’Neill felt marginalized and unsupported. He retired. <hr /></blockquote>
-CM

eg8r
04-09-2004, 06:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Cheese, do you know what executive privilege is? Do you know why it exists? What do you mean when you say GW's crew traded it for a hand holder?
<hr /></blockquote> You have to understand Cheese, he probably does not believe half the crap he posts, rather he does it just to spite Wally and I. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Well, maybe just me, if I remember correctly quite a while ago Cheese was hitting on Wally and telling him how much fun they would have at a bar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-09-2004, 09:54 AM
After all the hoopla of C Rice not speaking where is the news now? Why did the liberal media decide to not talk about it that much after she did finally talk? The reason is because they do not want anyone to actually hear what she said, because it was damning of the Clinton admin. The media just wanted everyone to think she was hiding info, when it came out and she told them about the previous admin, the liberal media clammed shut.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-09-2004, 10:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ... the liberal media clammed shut.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

so did Q

Qtec
04-09-2004, 10:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
O’Neill believed that Clinton’s political handlers ultimately dominated the decision-making process on how to attack bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the President and his wife struggled with scandal, <hr /></blockquote>


Exactly. The Rep witchhunters who vowed to bring down Clinton by ANY means are in a way directly resposible for not allowing the President to do his job.

Its tantamount to treason.

At the very least its UNPATRIOTIC.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
04-09-2004, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Exactly. The Rep witchhunters who vowed to bring down Clinton by ANY means are in a way directly resposible for not allowing the President to do his job.

<font color="blue">So you blame the Republicans for 9/11? I laugh at you. Ha. </font color>

Its tantamount to treason.

<font color="blue">So what do you call selling ballistic missle technology to China for campaign cash? </font color>

At the very least its UNPATRIOTIC.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

cheesemouse
04-09-2004, 10:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Blahhhhhhhhh....

...the answer is: they can't afford to let GW be questioned in ANY open ended fashion because they're afraid he will say something that turns the English lanquage upside down and in turn scare the $hit out of me, you and all the world leaders...LOL
...GW's crew traded executive privilege for a hand holder....LOL...amazing stuff... <hr /></blockquote>

So why was Clinton's testimony in a closed session, while they insisted CR testify in public and under oath? <font color="blue"> I suppose because the commission didn't ask him too appear in open session, if they had Billy would surely do it but rest assured THAT is the last thing the WHITE HOUSE wants...LOL </font color>

Cheese, do you know what executive privilege is? <font color="blue"> An asserted common-law privilege of the president and other executives to keep presidential papers, records and other documents secret, even from the Congress. </font color> Do you know why it exists? <font color="blue"> If I'm not mistaken it was president Ike that first asserted the existance of this priveledge. </font color> What do you mean when you say GW's crew traded it for a hand holder? <font color="blue"> The crew could have stood on 'principle' and said "no" she will not be testifiying, but due to public pressure and political expediency they choose the let her do so. But they did some horse trading first: Gw would not have to appear before the Commision alone but would have his handler, Dick, with him.</font color>

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
04-09-2004, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The crew could have stood on 'principle' and said "no" she will not be testifiying, but due to public pressure and political expediency they choose the let her do so. But they did some horse trading first: Gw would not have to appear before the Commision alone but would have his handler, Dick, with him.

<hr /></blockquote>


Right on the nose.

Q

cheesemouse
04-09-2004, 11:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Cheese, do you know what executive privilege is? Do you know why it exists? What do you mean when you say GW's crew traded it for a hand holder?
<hr /></blockquote> You have to understand Cheese, he probably does not believe half the crap he posts, rather he does it just to spite Wally and I. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <font color="blue"> Ed, you in particular will never understand the Cheese because of that tiny little input information pipe connected to your brain; you need to be re-plumbed...LOL</font color> Well, maybe just me, if I remember correctly quite a while ago Cheese was hitting on Wally and telling him how much fun they would have at a bar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <font color="blue"> Now I see your a homophobe...Ed, when a guy asks you to play pool do you think they want in your pants?... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

cheesemouse
04-09-2004, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> After all the hoopla of C Rice not speaking where is the news now? Why did the liberal media decide to not talk about it that much after she did finally talk? <font color="blue"> Ed, you must have actually been working during and after CR's testimony. I watched it live, it was on about 10 different channels. For the rest of the day and all of the night and this next day anyone with a finger capable of operating a remote can take his/her pick. In fact one can hardly get away from the coverage. You should try it sometime. Fox is not the only channel out there, Ed, all you have to do is use your finger. I will gladly explain to you how this is done if you need assistance... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> The reason is because they do not want anyone to actually hear what she said, because it was damning of the Clinton admin. The media just wanted everyone to think she was hiding info, when it came out and she told them about the previous admin, the liberal media clammed shut. <font color="blue"> What's it like in fantasy land, Ed?</font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
04-09-2004, 11:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well, maybe just me, if I remember correctly quite a while ago Cheese was hitting on Wally and telling him how much fun they would have at a bar. [ QUOTE ]
Now I see your a homophobe...Ed, when a guy asks you to play pool do you think they want in your pants?...
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, cheese this is the same stupid logic that has kept you liberals down. You can see past your own nose. Change my quote around and instead of you, add a woman, given your backwards logic that would insinuate I was a heterophobe (sp? is this even a word). This is the kind of mindless thought you bring to board, welcome back.

eg8r

eg8r
04-09-2004, 11:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheese:</font><hr> The crew could have stood on 'principle' and said "no" she will not be testifiying, but due to public pressure and political expediency they choose the let her do so. But they did some horse trading first: Gw would not have to appear before the Commision alone but would have his handler, Dick, with him. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> Right on the nose.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Q, whether it is right on, should not matter to you one bit. That is not the stance you took. You did not care at all about "principle" you wanted her to speak. Now that she has spoken you have been quiet almost non-existant as far as that discussion is concerned. Are you now saying, after she went public, that you would have accepted it if they did stand behind "principle", and never allowed her to speak publicly? I doubt it, and this was all said here on the board prior to cheese restating it.

eg8r

eg8r
04-09-2004, 11:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you must have actually been working during and after CR's testimony. I watched it live, it was on about 10 different channels. For the rest of the day and all of the night and this next day anyone with a finger capable of operating a remote can take his/her pick. In fact one can hardly get away from the coverage. You should try it sometime. Fox is not the only channel out there, Ed, all you have to do is use your finger. I will gladly explain to you how this is done if you need assistance... <hr /></blockquote> As far as watching it live on 10 different stations, that was a "who cares" type statement. It is quite obvious from my post (which you quoted) that I was referring to AFTER she spoke. I guess we are all getting a bit different feed (doubtful). All that was on the news was a small snippet of Rice talking about there not being any silver bullet to stop 9/11 from happening. No more than that. There was so much coverage (prior) about her hiding things and not doing anything, however when she comes out with the real info and the majority of it stems from Clintons admin, the media clammed up.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-09-2004, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ..Cheese was hitting on Wally...<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>Now I see your a homophobe...<hr /></blockquote>

Now hold on just a minute fellers...........

I'm not sure I like the way this thing is headed /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
04-09-2004, 11:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now hold on just a minute fellers...........

I'm not sure I like the way this thing is headed <hr /></blockquote> LOL, cheese took a liberal left hand turn. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

highsea
04-09-2004, 11:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> O’Neill believed that Clinton’s political handlers ultimately dominated the decision-making process on how to attack bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the President and his wife struggled with scandal, <hr /></blockquote>


Exactly. The Rep witchhunters who vowed to bring down Clinton by ANY means are in a way directly resposible for not allowing the President to do his job.

Its tantamount to treason.

At the very least its UNPATRIOTIC.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Well, your logic escapes me, but at least you can admit that Clinton did not do his job.

-CM

cheesemouse
04-09-2004, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Ed, you must have actually been working during and after CR's testimony. I watched it live, it was on about 10 different channels. For the rest of the day and all of the night and this next day anyone with a finger capable of operating a remote can take his/her pick. In fact one can hardly get away from the coverage. You should try it sometime. Fox is not the only channel out there, Ed, all you have to do is use your finger. I will gladly explain to you how this is done if you need assistance... <hr /></blockquote> As far as watching it live on 10 different stations, that was a "who cares" type statement. It is quite obvious from my post (which you quoted) that I was referring to AFTER she spoke. I guess we are all getting a bit different feed (doubtful). All that was on the news was a small snippet of Rice talking about there not being any silver bullet to stop 9/11 from happening. No more than that. There was so much coverage (prior) about her hiding things and not doing anything, however when she comes out with the real info and the majority of it stems from Clintons admin, the media clammed up.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>


There is more information out there to be had than anyone of us could possibly consume...once again just push gently on the channel change button...it is really quite easy to learn this move; it is kind of like learning not to misque in pool. Once you get this move down in pool you can move onto stop shots, follow &amp; draw shots and that's when the fun begins and you can use your pool skills to start playing an intelligent game. Now take this analogy and apply it to the TV remote...it's really fun, Ed... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
04-09-2004, 12:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Exactly. The Rep witchhunters who vowed to bring down Clinton by ANY means are in a way directly resposible for not allowing the President to do his job.

Its tantamount to treason.

At the very least its UNPATRIOTIC.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Well, Q, I believe in the concept of personal responsibility.

Clinton brought his problems upon himself. His behavior as Governor of Arkansas and later as President is what caused the scandals. I'm not just referring to his sexual indiscretions, but His and Hilary's involvement in very shady financial dealings, His exchange of political favors with China and others for large campaign contributions, committing perjury, etc.

That's why he was impeached, after all.

There is no question in my mind that he could have done a lot more to prevent 9/11 and cripple Al Qaeda than he did. The truth is that he chose to pass the responsibility over to his handlers, so that, as we have observed, he could focus on his personal scandals.

By doing this, he allowed the nations security to take a back seat to his own political ambitions.

I find it humorous that the Rep Witch Hunters were Treasonous and Unpatriotic, but the Dem Witch Hunters are Shining examples of Democracy in Action who have only our best National Interests at heart.

Please...

-CM

cheesemouse
04-09-2004, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ..Cheese was hitting on Wally...<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>Now I see your a homophobe...<hr /></blockquote>

Now hold on just a minute fellers...........

I'm not sure I like the way this thing is headed /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

LOL...don't worry Wally. If we ever do meet and play some pool the last thing you will be thinking about is sexual orientation, you'll just be hoping for another shot.....I do have this disturbing image of you and Ed french kissing while slow dancing to some country and western tune though..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-09-2004, 01:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr>
...you'll just be hoping for another shot.....<hr /></blockquote>

I'm used to that.

nAz
04-09-2004, 02:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ...I do have this disturbing image of you and Ed french kissing while slow dancing to some country and western tune though..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

OH DAMN! F U Cheese! now i haVE THAT PICTURE IN MY HEAD! except i also visualize a picture of Bush and Dick Kissing hanging over their heads too. ARGGHHHH! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif