• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Condoleezza Rice presenting her case

I've deliberately maintained ignorance on this. Basically people are looking for a scapegoat and want to know if the Bush administration could have prevented this, based upon reasonable responses to intelligence they had at the time, right? So, they want Condi to testify to see as to whether she knew there would be a 9/11 and was negligent, or if in fact the Bush admin didn't think there would necessarily be one and was in fact dealing reasonably with info prior to 9/11?
 
If she's worth anywhere near her weight in salt, she damn well better use the Clinton defense (well that depends on what your definition of is, is -- actual quote) or Johnny Cochran's Chewbacca defense.
 
"I've deliberately maintained ignorance on this."


We are waiting to see if this is the current administrations philosophy as well.
 
Originally posted by: PliotronX
If she's worth anywhere near her weight in salt, she damn well better use the Clinton defense (well that depends on what your definition of is, is -- actual quote) or Johnny Cochran's Chewbacca defense.
Click to expand...

hahahaha.... :-D
 
Originally posted by: PliotronX
If she's worth anywhere near her weight in salt, she damn well better use the Clinton defense (well that depends on what your definition of is, is -- actual quote) or Johnny Cochran's Chewbacca defense.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I was personally thinking that she should invoke the spirit of that drooling puss bag Reagan. "I don't recal". LOL.

Why do we have so many crooks and liars as Presidents?
 
Ohhh... I'm listening now on the radio. She's trying to skate and the questioner just got applause for nailing her on it. Her voice is all shakey.

"I don't remember" seems to be her catch phrase. Ollie would be proud.
 
The whole thing is stupid, of course there was strong evidence in hindsight.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda...

They get thousands of threats a week. Its hard to filter through all that information, they screwed up, what more do you want...
 
Originally posted by: Thera
Originally posted by: PliotronX
If she's worth anywhere near her weight in salt, she damn well better use the Clinton defense (well that depends on what your definition of is, is -- actual quote) or Johnny Cochran's Chewbacca defense.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I was personally thinking that she should invoke the spirit of that drooling puss bag Reagan. "I don't recal". LOL.

Why do we have so many crooks and liars as Presidents?
Click to expand...

First . Reagan was awesome. Second he probably didn't recall he was 76 years old and in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's .
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
The whole thing is stupid, of course there was strong evidence in hindsight.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda...

They get thousands of threats a week. Its hard to filter through all that information, they screwed up, what more do you want...
Click to expand...

I agree with the second part, and have said so elsewhere. However this is not stupid. Because it is likely that 9/11 could not be forseen does not mean that it could not have been. This was an event of sufficient magnitude to warrant an investigation. The commission exists not only to see if this was avoidable, but how it may be best prevented in the future.

If for no other reason, people deserve to know what was known and when. If it turns out that Bush and Co was blameless, then so be it. If they were at fault, then that too should be known. I want to know what happened, and I think others ought to as well.
 
Third: Condi Rice already testified before these assclowns for four hours in private. They were satisfied THEN, what's their problem NOW???

Steve
 
Originally posted by: scauffiel
Third: Condi Rice already testified before these assclowns for four hours in private. They were satisfied THEN, what's their problem NOW???

Steve
Click to expand...


I do not recall, but was she under oath then, and were you satisfied with her private testimony? I would like to hear your insight on what was said there.
 
Originally posted by: scauffiel
Third: Condi Rice already testified before these assclowns for four hours in private. They were satisfied THEN, what's their problem NOW???

Steve
Click to expand...

It's an election year so they are looking for anything to bring the current administration down. I hop they drown in their own hate and vitriol.

Way to go Condy...Intelligent, beautiful, huge football fan, and a trained classical pianist... :heart:
 
The Democrats don't ask her real questions, they just argue with her. They ask a question that instantly makes her look bad (pulling applause from the other Democrats) and when she tries to answer it, they interrupt and argue. They're just arguing like a bunch of kids back and forth blah blah. Then, when they realize they're being idiots, they simmer down and argue politely.

The Republicans seem to just kiss her ass by asking questions that are worded to make her look good.

It seems to me like Condi is making a general attempt at answering some hard questions.. and the dumb 9/11 panel members are seeing this as their 15 minutes of fame to get applause. Didn't she basically volunteer to answer these questions? I mean.. she's an advisor to the President - she doesn't even have to be there, does she?

Something tells me that we're not gonna see much more of these commissions interviewing presidential advisors..
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: scauffiel
Third: Condi Rice already testified before these assclowns for four hours in private. They were satisfied THEN, what's their problem NOW???

Steve
Click to expand...


I do not recall, but was she under oath then, and were you satisfied with her private testimony? I would like to hear your insight on what was said there.
Click to expand...


She didn't have a chance to publicly smear Clarke then. 😀


I don't think its as important whether the Bush admin could have prevented 911, as sometimes bad things just happen. For arguements sake say 911 was unavoidable, what is needs to be known is whether the Bush admin was fully competent in what they did before the attacks (did they really do everything they could, or was there some negligence?) This question is vital in whether the Bush admin can be considered competent in preventing further attacks and be trusted with the nation's security today. Condi just trying to sweep the issue away saying "it was too spectacular to imagine" is not good enough.




 
Dude, there is NO WAY IN HELL that someone can say she's sexy. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but you'd have to be on LSD to see beauty in that face.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
Dude, there is NO WAY IN HELL that someone can say she's sexy. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but you'd have to be on LSD to see beauty in that face.
Click to expand...

thank you.
i dont see why people find this woman attractive whatsoever.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
Dude, there is NO WAY IN HELL that someone can say she's sexy. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but you'd have to be on LSD to see beauty in that face.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, at least these hearings have paved the way for substantive debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top