Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Condi Rice: whats your view?

NSA Condoleezza Rice has declined the request that she publicly testify under oath be

  • Not good for this administration, nor the country.

    Votes: 9 52.9%
  • She has something she wants to keep secret

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • She has an obligation to testify.

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • She can do whatever she likes, she works for the President.

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

ChefWide

Elite Mentor
Platinum
NSA Condoleezza Rice has declined the request that she publicly testify under oath before the 9/11 terror commission.

What is your take on this?


I think she needs to serve the people of this country before her boss.
 
They should not be given the choice.
 
I thought I heard on the news this morning that she spent 4 hours with them and agreed to more if necessary. The Republicans are scrambling like mad over this.
 
It smells that she's not telling the whole truth and afraid she'll be prosecuted for lies like Clinton.
Especially after she's on every talk show all over the place telling all,.....but not under oath.
 
she testified in private, right?
anyway, these hearings are a joke. First, the administration denied the motion to extend the hearings because it cuts too close to election time. 2nd, if you watch any of the hearings everyone is playing the blame game. It's all finger pointing and trying to blame each administration instead of finding out what the hell happened. It's a farce and a waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing. Nothing.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
I thought I heard on the news this morning that she spent 4 hours with them and agreed to more if necessary. The Republicans are scrambling like mad over this.

That is great news. I am sorry that hasn't been available here yet, will check the evening news online indepth.

K for the heads up as soon as I can shed the green.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
I thought I heard on the news this morning that she spent 4 hours with them and agreed to more if necessary. .

My take is she did not want to speak in public for whatever reason. but provided the same information in private.. What's the big diff ?
 
Oh, and I agree like most all political hearing this one will be a bust on findings and
making things better for the future.. Much like my last Dr visit..
 
Y_Lifter said:
Oh, and I agree like most all political hearing this one will be a bust on findings and
making things better for the future.. Much like my last Dr visit..

True. Like therapy: costs an arm and a leg and you never really know what the hell went on in there.
 
puppet.
 
The Nature Boy said:
she testified in private, right?
anyway, these hearings are a joke. First, the administration denied the motion to extend the hearings because it cuts too close to election time. 2nd, if you watch any of the hearings everyone is playing the blame game. It's all finger pointing and trying to blame each administration instead of finding out what the hell happened. It's a farce and a waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing. Nothing.
ANOTHER reason to vote ABB in the next election.








Anybody But Bush
 
The Nature Boy said:
she testified in private, right?
anyway, these hearings are a joke. First, the administration denied the motion to extend the hearings because it cuts too close to election time. 2nd, if you watch any of the hearings everyone is playing the blame game. It's all finger pointing and trying to blame each administration instead of finding out what the hell happened. It's a farce and a waste of taxpayer money if you ask me. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing. Nothing.

of course, neither administration wants to admit that they knew about al-queada, the dems chose not to shake the boat to much and the repub's allegedly didnt seem to care
 
See what happens when you place racial deviants in jobs they can't do? It's that affirmative action hand out that caused all this. Of course, rather than getting a homosexual (more qualified) to do the job, Bush picked someone sneaky with something to hide to help him out.
 
ttlpkg said:
A rising star in the GOP.


Because of her lying secretive behaviour?

or the fact she doesn't want to be held accountable for her own job?
 
ttlpkg said:
Because she is a great National Security Advisor.

What makes her great? Apparently, she doesn't think of herself as too great, hence the reason she is practicing the 5th.
 
AAP said:
What makes her great?

Why do you force me to overstate the obvious?

Taliban -gone
Al Queda - severely weakened
Bin Laden - in hiding
Libya - cooperating
Saddam Hussein - in prison
Iraq - Liberated
Would-be-roque nations and harborers of terrorists - scared shitless of the US


Stay tuned...
 
ttlpkg said:
Why do you force me to overstate the obvious?

Taliban -gone

Not gone yet.

Al Queda - severely weakened

And still bombing the bejeezus out of us and others and STILL ellusive.

Bin Laden - in hiding

Damn! We still haven't found him yet?

Libya - cooperating

Libya has been cooperating long before this. They started back when we bombed the hell out of his home many years ago.

Saddam Hussein - in prison

YAY! But it wasn't her doing any more than it was mine or yours.

Iraq - Liberated

Liberated from one unwanted dictator and controlled and forced into a democracy by another unwanted dictator.

Would-be-roque nations and harborers of terrorists - scared shitless of the US

Most of the rest of the world community didn't back our excursion into Iraq. Those that did are slowly backing out one by one. Iraq didn't harbor terrorists or contribute to Al-Queda. The other nations are naturally afraid of a bullying renegade nation trampling the rights of other countries to rule themselves.


Stay tuned...

I can hardly wait? What other things is the US going to get themselves involved to trample all over the sovereignity of those nations?
 
Regarding Saddam. Hard to criticize for natl sec failings if you don't give her credit for successes.

Regarding Bin Laden. Unfortunately there are many liberals who have found religion of late-praying to God at night that we don't find him. :)
 
ttlpkg said:
Regarding Saddam. Hard to criticize for natl sec failings if you don't give her credit for successes.

Regarding Bin Laden. Unfortunately there are many liberals who have found religion of late-praying to God at night that we don't find him. :)


They'd have found Saddam with or without her or anyone else in that position. It's not something to credit or discredit her for.

That last statement is way beneath you, and patently untrue.
 
strongsmartsexy said:
That last statement is way beneath you, and patently untrue.

I didn't say all, but there are many. Many on this board have already stated that if he is ever found, it will have been staged.
 
ttlpkg said:
I didn't say all, but there are many. Many on this board have already stated that if he is ever found, it will have been staged.

And even you have to admit that has a high probability of being true. If it's to a political advantage to "stage" it, either side would certainly do so if they could really leverage off of it and spring board into winning the election. Especially in a race this close to date. I'd not blame Bush and crew for doing so, as whether his capture is now or 3 days from election isn't relevant overall.
 
The Nature Boy said:
AGAIN, Libya was holding talks with the Brits well before the Iraq war.
We've been "holding talks" with North Korea for 50 years. I'm talking about action. With Libya we now have a pact to give up WMD. We (the US, not UK) have already pulled some out.
 
ttlpkg said:
We've been "holding talks" with North Korea for 50 years. I'm talking about action. With Libya we now have a pact to give up WMD. We (the US, not UK) have already pulled some out.

And we'll continue to hold talks with North Korea, since China is the big brother standing in the way of the normal US bullying tactics.
 
ttlpkg said:
Why do you force me to overstate the obvious?
...


Oh, you mean SHE did all that? If so, why is she not testifying about it? Truth of it is, she ain't done shit buy Uncle Tom around under Bush's smoke screen.
 
does she have a nice onion?
 
Just the first few drops of the eventual administrative blood flow from their absolute failure to deal with urgent warnings about 9/11.


Bush said he was tired of "swatting flies" when warned about increasing intelligence chatter etc.


This summer will see unprecedented best sellers exposing Bushbarian shenanigans.


You saw it here forst folks.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Just the first few drops of the eventual administrative blood flow from their absolute failure to deal with urgent warnings about 9/11.


Bush said he was tired of "swatting flies" when warned about increasing intelligence chatter etc.


This summer will see unprecedented best sellers exposing Bushbarian shenanigans.


You saw it here forst folks.


Yes. But to more important matters: where are the links to the Crispy Piece in your avanargus?
 
strongsmartsexy said:
And even you have to admit that has a high probability of being true. If it's to a political advantage to "stage" it, either side would certainly do so if they could really leverage off of it and spring board into winning the election. Especially in a race this close to date. I'd not blame Bush and crew for doing so, as whether his capture is now or 3 days from election isn't relevant overall.

I do not admit this at all. When he is captured, we will know about it. US Soldiers are dying right now trying to find him, just like they died finding Saddam. It is disrespectful to them to suggest that they would "keep him on ice" until it was politically expedient. Our soldiers are not stupid, nor are they bashful when it comes to resisting unlawful orders.
 
Top Bottom