|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 12:19 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I think the faladrol over which administration is more to blame is a huge waste of time (which is to say I agree, but make it sound more like I said it first). I do think, though, that W and Co.'s love affair with Tom Clancyesque need-to-know cliques is counterproductive and dangerous. Whatever caused them to yield in this instance, it's a good thing and I hope there's more of it. Do you think Vinthy will read that? 'Cause I can't wait for the whole "I guess the heart bleeding liberal traitorcrats are bitches now on account of Condi telling it out under oath like they demanded and SUPRISE no big secrets having been hidden." post that is sure to come by proxy. |
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 12:12 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Apparently Bush and Cheney will both be testifying in private, too. I'm not sure if under oath or not.... Anyway, I agree with you Max. This shouldn't be a witch hunt for the Bush administration, it should be an open discussion about where (if at all) we messed up, and how we can prevent such things from happening again. |
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 11:26 AM | ||
| Miss Modular |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 11:08 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I guess the administration finally figured out secrecy was doing more damage than anything Rice could possibly say. As a proponent of transperancy, I say this is good no matter what comes of it. Oh, and for the record, I think the fact she's going to testify under oath is way more impirtant than the fact she's going to testify publicly. By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - In a reversal, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as long as the panel seeks no further public testimony from White House officials, the administration said Tuesday. White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Air Force One with President Bush , said the commission had unanimously agreed to the conditions. The decision was conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent and that the commission does not request "additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice," White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said in a letter to the panel. Subject to the conditions, the president will agree "to the commission's request for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the commission's statutory mandate," Gonzales's letter stated. "The president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts," Gonzales added. Congressional leaders, Gonzales noted, have already stated that this would not be a new precedent. The decision to have Rice testify is made in the wake of the publication of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's book, in which he charges that the Bush administration was slow to act against the threat of al-Qaida. Rice offered a rebuttal on Sunday to criticism by Clarke that President Clinton "did something, and President Bush did nothing" before Sept. 11 and that both "deserve a failing grade." Rice responded: "I don't know what a sense of urgency — any greater than the one that we had — would have caused us to do differently." Clarke testified before the commission last week. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 09:50 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | It's a very clever tactic on their part, because they get to be the "principled"ones who are merely defending the constitution, whereas everybody else looks like an opportunist. | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 09:48 AM | ||
| mburbank | Say, I remember that excuse! That's the same one they use to explain why they won't tell you which big oil executives wrote President Chenney's energy bill for him! | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 09:45 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
The line the administration is now taking is that they are protecting the sanctity of separation of powers. Rumsfeld was quoted on a news show this weekend saying basically this. For Condi to be put under oath and made to testify, that would be an infringing on the power of the executive branch. Even Richard Perle was quoted as saying that this isn't a good enough excuse, and that it would suit her best to testify. But her supposed concern is that it will hinder her ability as a security advisor to speak candidly with the president. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 09:40 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I just found out an interesting tidbit. Clarke's previous private testimony? Under oath. Condi's private testimony? NOT under oath. Now I disagree with her explanation of why she won't testify publicly, but I do follow it. Somebody want to explain why she hasn't testified under oath? I also think it's cute that the bi-partisan investigatory comission UNANIMOUSLY think her explanation isn't cutting it. When your own party thinks you're sstonewalling, I'd say you're in trouble. And you want to know the stupidest part? I personally don't think Condi has anything to hide. She'll stick to her sie and Clarke will stick to his and there'd be know damn way to prove who's interpretation was closer to the truth. So why won't the administration let her testify (but are totally cool with her going on sixty minutes, meet the press and American friggin' I dol for all I know)? Because theya re control freaks and they are addicted to secrecy. They truly believe that the Amercian peopl should know as close to nothing as possible, not just about big things, but about everything, and that inlcudes congress. It jives perfectly with Chenney statement tht the FRIGGIN COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR was kept 'out of the Loop' on COUNTERTERRORISM! |
|
| Mar 27th, 2004 05:56 PM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux | so what are you if you eat back bacon and drink Molson beer? | |
| Mar 27th, 2004 12:58 PM | ||
| AChimp |
I think Vinth was looking for the word "default." Of course, when attempting to show off how intelligent you are, sometimes simple words get thrown out the window in favour of fancy looking words that have "X" in them. Using fancy words when you don't need to makes you a hoser, by default. |
|
| Mar 27th, 2004 12:18 PM | ||
| mburbank |
prox·y Â*Â* n. pl. prox·ies 1. A person authorized to act for another; an agent or substitute. 2. The authority to act for another. 3. The written authorization to act in place of another. Why in the world would you post a deffinition that clearly shows you use the word incorrectly. Is this your way of actually admitting you're wrong, or do you, even with the deffnition right in front of you, not understand that you are using the phrase wrong? Why do you keep beggig to have your nose rubbed in this? Not knowing the meanings of words is no big crime and isn't your main problem. It's your arrogance and overreaching coupled with your insistence that you are right that makes you look so damn stupid. By Proxy means SOMEONE ELSE DOING SOMETHING IN YOUR PLACE or DOING SOMETHING FOR SOMEONE ELSE WITH THEIR AUTHORITY. It means theree are always two people involved. You CAN NOT do something for yourself BY PROXY. In addition, a situation cannot do something for you BY PROXY becuase a situation is not a person. That covers the ways you almost always use the phrase. Now lets look at the way you used it most recently. "I can't prove you are wrong, so I will say something stupid to make you look stupid by proxy." Since you are pretedning to be me in this situation, I = Max, and you = Vinth. First of all my saying something stupid doesn't make you look stupid, unless it's true, like when I quote you, which is actually you sounding stupid anyway. But leave that aside. You're doing allright in that you have two agents, Max and Vinth. But in a proxy relationship, there is agreement. It's by design, it's arranged. I can cast your vote in a committe if I have proxy. I can act as an agentfor your mortgage if you've signed papers saying so, or make a decision for you if you're in a coma, if we hve proof of an agreement. Proxy is about partnership, and it's essentially a legal term. There's no 'proxy' about me making you look stupid. It's not the right word. It's in the ballpark, maybe, but it' wrong, and this is why you're a bad writer. If I want to tell you about a horse, and I right 'the kind of really big dog cowboys ride', people will know what I man, but I'll still be wrong. If I want to say that you are a knee jerk right wing republican but what I say is "Vinth allides himself for all intense purposes with the Conservators" people will know what I was trying to say, but they'll also know I was wrong and I should have just used words I knew or LOOKED THE WORDS UP. And if I looked the words up, I'd look at the meanings, look back t my sentecne and make sure it actually meant what I'd intended before bragging about how I'd made someone else look stupid or saying "Screw what it means, if I asked 100 people they'd say have same accuration!" "Now that I have shown yet AGAIN that I used a word in the correct sense, " The word AGAIN would mean you've done it before, and you haven't yet, not even this time. Stop living in a fantasy. On no occasion have I said you've used a word ir phrase incorrectly UNLESS YOU HAVE! You just used the word AGAIN wrong you retard. And I don't mean retard not in the literal medical sense. I'm just insulting you. |
|
| Mar 27th, 2004 09:19 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proxy - the definitions of proxy. Sspadosky, when you try to be funny, it makes me weep. It's like watching a badger in a trap trying without success to chew its own leg off to escape. Now that I have shown yet AGAIN that I used a word in the correct sense, will everyone stop trying to show how THUPID VINTH IZ, or do I have to continue making the lot of you look like dumasses? It's a shame that my half-ass writing skills are better than the posts you all put so much effort into. |
|
| Mar 26th, 2004 09:11 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I say declassify it all. Let's have a big declassification party. We can see what Clarke said, and what the Condi Rice said. It would be nice however if the Condi Rice would do as our secretaries of State and Defense did, and publicly testify. But hey, I learned from the Vinth School of Internet Debate (VSID) that being held accountable for the things you say only leads to accountability, and who would want that nonsense...? | |
| Mar 26th, 2004 05:48 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Oh, Jewy, why are you always perscribing to neanderthal left-wing conspiracy nut ward crap? If you look at the facts which I have gathered for why my beliefs are what they are, you'd slit your cyber-wrists post-haste by proxy. Jew. | |
| Mar 26th, 2004 04:50 PM | ||
| mburbank | Now that Bill Frist is all hepped up to declassify Clarkes private testimony, I really think we ought to declassify hers. You know. Just in case she's commited perjury somehwere along the line. SAY NOW! You don't suppose THAT's why they won't let her testify publicly? | |
| Mar 26th, 2004 01:50 PM | ||
| Brandon | Is it just me or does she seem like a nervous wreck in every interview she's done so far about this? | |
| Mar 26th, 2004 01:25 PM | ||
| AChimp | Why don't they get it through their heads that "private meeting" has cover-up written all over it? | |
| Mar 26th, 2004 01:16 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Condi seeks another private meeting http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html Rice seeks another private meeting meeting with commission Bush insists he would have stopped 9/11 attacks if possible Friday, March 26, 2004 Posted: 11:14 AM EST (1614 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has told the independent panel investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, that Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, wants another private meeting with the commission. The request comes in the wake of two days of public hearings this week by the commission, during which Bush's anti-terrorism policies were sometimes criticized. Rice did not testify at those sessions, but she has met privately with the commission before. The commission, along with some 9/11 family members, have asked Rice to testify publicly. Thursday evening, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a letter to the commission's chairman and vice chairman. "In light of yesterday's hearings in which there were a number of mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions, Dr. Rice requests to meet again privately with the commission," he wrote. Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said the panel is sure Rice has more to share and said something will likely be set up soon. Rice had previously verbally offered to hold further meetings with the commission; the letter from Gonzales is a formality. Former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, testified Wednesday that Bush did not see the threat from the terrorist network al Qaeda as "urgent" before September 11, 2001 -- contrasting the current administration unfavorably with the Clinton White House, in which he also served. Rice has called Clarke's assertions "scurrilous" and has said that administration records refute Clarke's allegations. Clarke's allegations -- including his assertion that Bush sought to tie Iraq to the 9/11 attacks at the expense of undermining al Qaeda -- have also been denounced by several other administration figures, and were challenged by Republican members of the 9/11 panel. Bush's defense In the wake of the week's public hearings, Bush insisted Thursday that he would have used "every resource, every asset, every power of this government" to avert the attacks, had he known they were coming. Speaking in Nashua, New Hampshire, Bush diverted from his planned remarks on the economy to respond to assertions that his administration may not have done all it could to prevent the attacks. In doing so, he made a point of noting his administration's relative short tenure before it was faced with the devastating attacks. "There is a commission going on in Washington D.C.," Bush said. "It is a very important commission determined to look at the eight months of my administration and the eight years of the previous administration to determine what we can learn, what we can do to make sure we uphold our solemn duty. "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Family Pressure on Rice Rice faced some new pressure Thursday to testify publicly. "The American public deserves to see in public under oath what she knew ahead of time," said Carrie Lemack, vice president of the Families of September 11 group. Lemack's mother, Judy Larocque, was a flight attendant on one of the hijacked planes that hit the World Trade Center in New York City. Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private, but the White House has maintained that a member of the president's staff can't appear before a congressionally chartered commission without violating the Constitution's separation of powers. "I've heard Dr. Rice say that she has evidence that what he said was wrong," said Lemack, referring to Rice's comments about Clarke. "I implore her to come forward and speak in front of the commission and American public -- under oath, in public -- and let us know what that evidence is." Clarke's assertions about the Bush administration are in his book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," which was released this week. They have been challenged vigorously by the White House. Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, told the commission that Bush recognized terrorism as a key priority even before he took office. The 9/11 panel -- known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- is charged with coming up with an authoritative account of events leading to the attacks, including any security and intelligence lapses. It will also draft recommendations on how to prevent future attacks. |
|
