NationStates Jolt Archive

I had to - just to see Condi explain herself. I mean - it's nice that she can talk to the press left and right - but not under oath.

I find it pathetic the excuse for her not testifying. As she puts it "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."

This "principle" is codified anywhere? No. It is just a matter of executive priviledge. Excusing it under the thought that because the need hasn't arisen before it somehow proves that it is a government principle that shall remain inviolate is a lame argument.

Bush is the first to use 9-11 as a watershed moment that changed the world and defined his tenure. I guess it just wasn't unique enough to warrant unique treatment when it comes to letting the people who elected you know the truth.

Anyway - she seemed on the defensive the whole time, and just kept repeating the same tired phrasesshe has used all week.. "when we got to Camp David it was a map of Afghanistan that was unrolled on the table..." Does anybody in office actually do more than parrot approved lines anymore?

My favourite quote from her, when asked about the meeting with Clarke right after 9-11 when the President asked about Iraq's involvement... the meeting that at first the Whitehouse denied having and then said made perfect sense:

'This was a country with which we'd been to war a couple of times, it was firing at our airplanes in the no-fly zone. It made perfectly good sense to ask about Iraq,"

Ummm ...been to war with...a couple of times

Excuse me?

There was '91.... and when exactly was the other time?

But at least she is consistent...."the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq."

OK... all that despite the fact that Bush still had to admit a couple of months back that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda and was in no way involved with 9-11. You can argue the point as to whether this war was needed on it's own merits - but enough of the attempt to call it part of the War on Terror. That is BS and the whole world knows it.

But I guess it must be working. After all, when reminded that there have been more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 than before it, she replied: "I think that's the wrong way to look at it."

Really?

So what's the right way?

This invasion has helped the War on Terror by causing more terrorism?

Interesting concept.


Now get your ass on stage Condi and testify under oath same as everyone else.

If you have the truth on your side - then surely you have nothing to fear, and besides that it is your duty as a servant of the people.


-Z-

Oh - and for the record about them blaming "historical precedent", like they want her to testify but they are afraid that this will somehow tear the holy fabric of governmental machinations - they make it sound like this is a really longstanding thing.

Fact is - the position of National Security Advisor was only created post WWII as part of the National Security Council. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/history.html) So exactly what watershed moments like 9-11 have happened since then where this need might have been required?

you know - a precedent similar in scope where the Security Advisor refused to testify.

They aren't following precedent - they are making it!


And if they are claiming that advisors are somehow exempt from explaining themselves - why did Admiral Poindexter get hauled before the Iran/Contra hearings? The claim that this is irrelevant because he was forced out of his office first is somehow the lynchpin of that argument?

Sorry - but this position is NOT exempt from scrutiny. It never has been.

-Z-

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?

yeah, i have been utterly disgusted with Rice's cowardice and the Administrations blatant efforts to cover up their own mistakes...they're not even making a good show of it any more, the lies are right out there in our faces. it's insulting.

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?

If she would testify fully under oath - I would accept that it were done in private. However soo far the Administration has refused to allow her even to do that.

They say she can testify again in private - but not under oath.

That smells. Bad.

-Z-

As dispicable as I find the woman.... I still find her damn foxy.

My non relevent comment made, I'll now withdraw and seek physicatric help.

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?

If she would testify fully under oath - I would accept that it were done in private. However soo far the Administration has refused to allow her even to do that.

They say she can testify again in private - but not under oath.

That smells. Bad.

-Z-

Awwwrighhty...a compromise...see..that didn't hurt neither of us..ouch, now where is my percocet...hehe

Mind you - the Bush adminitration doesn't even think that the commission in private deserved to see all of his intel briefings relevant to the matter.

But on the other hand they point to the Dems and say "well, you voted for war on the same intel we had!"


Doesn't quite mesh does it?

They had all the same intel... they just still aren't allowed to actually look at it?

Another oderous incident from this commission.

-Z-

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?

If she would testify fully under oath - I would accept that it were done in private. However soo far the Administration has refused to allow her even to do that.

They say she can testify again in private - but not under oath.

That smells. Bad.

-Z-

Awwwrighhty...a compromise...see..that didn't hurt neither of us..ouch, now where is my percocet...hehe

I'm not a totally unreasonable fellow!

However, the fact that you and I agree on a satisfactory compromise is irrelevant. Bush is standing on Executive Privelidge and refusing to allow her to testify under oath under any circumstances.

And that is a disservice to his country.

-Z-

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?

If she would testify fully under oath - I would accept that it were done in private. However soo far the Administration has refused to allow her even to do that.

They say she can testify again in private - but not under oath.

That smells. Bad.

-Z-

Awwwrighhty...a compromise...see..that didn't hurt neither of us..ouch, now where is my percocet...hehe

I'm not a totally unreasonable fellow!

However, the fact that you and I agree on a satisfactory compromise is irrelevant. Bush is standing on Executive Privelidge and refusing to allow her to testify under oath under any circumstances.

And that is a disservice to his country.

-Z-

Well..that's an unfortunate drawback of the Executive Branch, Executive privledge is an accepted part of our system....to do away with it one time endangers future administrations.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200403260836.asp

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?
Are you? I noticed the comparison to the Kennedy documents -- after the Oliver Stone film "JFK" there was a renewed interest in brining out the sealed documents (the ones that escaped the paper shredder) and this is one of those documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

There's no reason to seal it for 50 years... I'll go with four...

There is a very simple remedy here...Seal the chamber, seal the records. Some of what Rice may or may not be said could still be considered part of ongoing intelligence operations..So fine..there are those who want her to testify...fine..I say...seal the room..no press..no press releases..the official record kept sealed for 50 yrs..just like the commission into Kennedy's assassination..and throw a gag order on everyone even remotely associated with it...cause leaks are bound occur if some clerk of a Senator or Rep happens to overhear something they shouldnt.

Would that satisfy you Zep?
Are you? I noticed the comparison to the Kennedy documents -- after the Oliver Stone film "JFK" there was a renewed interest in brining out the sealed documents (the ones that escaped the paper shredder) and this is one of those documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

There's no reason to seal it for 50 years... I'll go with four...

Tell ya what...let's call it midway..I want 50 ( and yes I'd want that much), you want 4...let's call it even steven at 20..

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

I also just love how if you don't agree with the far right-wing now we have become "Baathist apologists" LOL.. that's a new one. Does the stupidity ever end? Next he'll be calling us commies and reporting us to the FBI..LMAO :P

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

I also just love how if you don't agree with the far right-wing now we have become "Baathist apologists" LOL.. that's a new one. Does the stupidity ever end? Next he'll be calling us commies and reporting us to the FBI..LMAO :P

Oh don't sweat that Zep.....my group the American Indian Movement has been on the FBI's list for decades...seems we are subversive element, heck..we take great pride in sniffing out infiltrators..lol...hard to get an Indian to rat on another unless they got him on something such a parole violation or something....

So take that "I'm investigated by the FBI and all I got was this T-shirt" and wear that badge with pride..hehe

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

dammit, i was gonna say the same thing but stupid server wouldnt let me

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

I also just love how if you don't agree with the far right-wing now we have become "Baathist apologists" LOL.. that's a new one. Does the stupidity ever end? Next he'll be calling us commies and reporting us to the FBI..LMAO :P


So take that "I'm investigated by the FBI and all I got was this T-shirt" and wear that badge with pride..hehe

LOL.. good one Salishe. :lol:

No what he says is true though, we sat there last night watching 60 Minutes together just shaking our heads. I believe if she won't testify under oath (even if behind closed doors ) then she is hiding some thing. She has no problem calling other people liars who freely testified under oath and are willing to release every document known to man about them (Clarke) but we should believe her version when she won't even swear to it. Nah, I'm not buying it personally.. my husband is a fairly objective person, I'd say probably more so then I. I have to agree with him here.. some thing doesn't smell right at all.

a little counter balance for the Baathist apologists.

Can you please stick to a discussion without resorting to reprehensible and petty insults that are completely without foundation.

:roll:

Adding your own thoughts rather than a link would be a nice touch too.


As to the articles, the first one required a membership that I can't be bothered to fill out right, and the second had nothing to do with the topic of Condi's testifying or not.

So what the heck is that supposed to "balance"?

-Z-

I also just love how if you don't agree with the far right-wing now we have become "Baathist apologists" LOL.. that's a new one. Does the stupidity ever end? Next he'll be calling us commies and reporting us to the FBI..LMAO :P


So take that "I'm investigated by the FBI and all I got was this T-shirt" and wear that badge with pride..hehe

LOL.. good one Salishe. :lol:

No what he says is true though, we sat there last night watching 60 Minutes together just shaking our heads. I believe if she won't testify under oath (even if behind closed doors ) then she is hiding some thing. She has no problem calling other people liars who freely testified under oath and are willing to release every document known to man about them (Clarke) but we should believe her version when she won't even swear to it. Nah, I'm not buying it personally.. my husband is a fairly objective person, I'd say probably more so then I. I have to agree with him here.. some thing doesn't smell right at all.

You must realize..anything to do with spooks (slang for intel ops) by their very nature don't like to testify to ANYTHING...it's no small wonder she is hesistant to testify..last time something this big blew up it was the Iran-Contra hearings and before that Operation Phoenix in Vietnam....

Now...do I believe I smell a rat..not necessarily..but I believe that for the security of intelligence assets that may still be in use secrecy must be preserved...that's why I opt for a sealed chamber/no press/press releases and a gag order on everyone involved..let the committee hear her but don't risk operations.

You must realize..anything to do with spooks (slang for intel ops) by their very nature don't like to testify to ANYTHING...it's no small wonder she is hesistant to testify..last time something this big blew up it was the Iran-Contra hearings and before that Operation Phoenix in Vietnam....

Now...do I believe I smell a rat..not necessarily..but I believe that for the security of intelligence assets that may still be in use secrecy must be preserved...that's why I opt for a sealed chamber/no press/press releases and a gag order on everyone involved..let the committee hear her but don't risk operations.

You know - I'd buy that..... if they hadn't been able to limit question scope to allow the head spook himself (Tenet) testify under oath and in public safely on this matter.

The idea that Condi would open the commision up to compromising ongoing operations but Tenet wouldn't is pretty laughable.


-Z-

You must realize..anything to do with spooks (slang for intel ops) by their very nature don't like to testify to ANYTHING...it's no small wonder she is hesistant to testify..last time something this big blew up it was the Iran-Contra hearings and before that Operation Phoenix in Vietnam....

Exactly..lol and they were hiding a whole world of stuff. Very bad stuff indeed.

Although in fairness every one else has stepped up to the plate. Clintons former NSA (Sandy Berger) and the head of the CIA (George Tenet) etc..etc..

Now...do I believe I smell a rat..not necessarily..but I believe that for the security of intelligence assets that may still be in use secrecy must be preserved...that's why I opt for a sealed chamber/no press/press releases and a gag order on everyone involved..let the committee hear her but don't risk operations.

Yeah, but she is not even willing to do that.. I believe that says a whole lot right there.

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

What?

You want us Liberals to let go of our trees to hug a Conservative?!

:shock:

Well... ok... maybe this once!

lmao!

-Z-

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

What?

You want us Liberals to let go of our trees to hug a Conservative?!

:shock:

Well... ok... maybe this once!

lmao!

-Z-

I don't know Zep.. might be a trap.. they make fun of us and say we hug trees.. what will they say about us if we hug conservatives? It's a conservative trick I tell ya!... next thing you know they'll have us up on assault charges..lol :mrgreen:

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

What?

You want us Liberals to let go of our trees to hug a Conservative?!

:shock:

Well... ok... maybe this once!

lmao!

-Z-

I don't know Zep.. might be a trap.. they make fun of us and say we hug trees.. what will they say about us if we hug conservatives? It's a conservative trick I tell ya!... next thing you know they'll have us up on assault charges..lol :mrgreen:

listen here young lady....if you're stil into your tree-hugging phase...then I ain't gonna hug ya...you have any idea how much dry cleaning cost these days?....hehe

Save the Conservatives! Ruthless liberals have been cutting them down and there are hardly any left.

The politi-ecosystem is collapsing.

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

What?

You want us Liberals to let go of our trees to hug a Conservative?!

:shock:

Well... ok... maybe this once!

lmao!

-Z-

I don't know Zep.. might be a trap.. they make fun of us and say we hug trees.. what will they say about us if we hug conservatives? It's a conservative trick I tell ya!... next thing you know they'll have us up on assault charges..lol :mrgreen:

listen here young lady....if you're stil into your tree-hugging phase...then I ain't gonna hug ya...you have any idea how much dry cleaning cost these days?....hehe

This is one of those sixties issues isn't it? Where does it say I have to hug trees to be a liberal? I'm only 35.. I missed the whole burn your bra and hug a tree thing.. I don't even recycle..lmao.. however, in fairness Zeppistan does.. Does that mean my husband is more liberal then me? It better not!.. :shock:

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

What?

You want us Liberals to let go of our trees to hug a Conservative?!

:shock:

Well... ok... maybe this once!

lmao!

-Z-

I don't know Zep.. might be a trap.. they make fun of us and say we hug trees.. what will they say about us if we hug conservatives? It's a conservative trick I tell ya!... next thing you know they'll have us up on assault charges..lol :mrgreen:

listen here young lady....if you're stil into your tree-hugging phase...then I ain't gonna hug ya...you have any idea how much dry cleaning cost these days?....hehe

This is one of those sixties issues isn't it? Where does it say I have to hug trees to be a liberal? I'm only 35.. I missed the whole burn your bra and hug a tree thing.. I don't even recycle..lmao.. however, in fairness Zeppistan does.. Does that mean my husband is more liberal then me? It better not!.. :shock:

Pshaw..my wife didn't burn her bras....told me point blank..."These costs money ya know...and some of them I like...all that lace you adore so much so I'll burn a scratched hose if that'll pacify them"...lol..course..she is probably one of the most ardent feminists I konw.

Pshaw..my wife didn't burn her bras....told me point blank..."These costs money ya know...and some of them I like...all that lace you adore so much so I'll burn a scratched hose if that'll pacify them"...lol..course..she is probably one of the most ardent feminists I konw.

I actually never bought into that whole "feminists" stuff personally.. I like not paying for dinner.. and I would give my husband dirty looks if he didn't open my door for me, heck, ask him.. I want door to door service!..lol I have always found the problem with feminists is they think we are equal the same, we aren't, we are equal but different. There are in fact some things men do better then women.. (sorry ladies but there is) Although, there are some things women do better then men, it all works out in the wash... see, not all liberals fit into that nice little stereotype that people seem to like to put us in. As I'm sure not all conservatives do either.

My region, "Role Play University" is run by myself and a dear friend Wolfish who is my arch political enemy.. he was the communication director for the conservatives in the last election (provincial) but he sure is one of my best damn friends. We have partnered on NS since we both basically started the game.

It's nice to see that people can get along even if they don't believe in the exact same things.. isn't diversity a wonderful thing.. agree to disagree and all that.. Freedom is a wonderful thing, as long as it's not misused to further people's personal agendas..

Now Condi Rice get your ass up there and testify! :wink:

This is great...just outstanding..see..compromises..civil discourse..sorry...I'm misting here.....GROUP HUGGGERSS!!!!!

:)

Psst. Someone tell her the USSR doesn't exist anymore and that she's actually as useless as the next guy.

Wait a minute, the whole gang is useless.

She already testified for 4 1/2 hours .... This is just more nonsense asking her to testify again.

She already testified for 4 1/2 hours .... This is just more nonsense asking her to testify again.

That testimony was in private and not under oath. It also was one of the first sessions held before a lot of other information came out from Powell, Tenent, Albright, Clarke, etc.

Do you know what was asked? Or whether her answers were contradicted by others? And by others I don't just mean Clarke. What if Tenet made directly opposite statements? Or maybe just whether other testimony leads to questions that they didn't ask her the first time around because they didn't know many of the details?

Every single member of the commission wants her back - Republicans AND Democrats (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=359102004) - which says a hell of a lot to me! This is NOT just a partisan issue you know. It is supposed to be about learning what happened that caused the failure so that thousands more might not die in a repeat incident.


Oh, and when she says that they have found no evidence of other testimony by security advisors to Congress... you know - her argument about it being some sacrosanct ideal ...looks like her research sucks! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=3&u=/ap/20040329/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission)


-Z-

I'm a little hesitant to believe her if she won't go under oath.

I hope Canada is next on the chopping block, if only to stop threads like this from being created.

Because it's Canada's fault that republican congressmen want Rice to testify?


Or just because you don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

-Z-

Because it's funny to see people from a country that considers itself superior to the U.S. obsessing so much over not only American foreign policy, but domestic policy as well.

Nice of you to resort to pathetic attempts to simply attack the person instead of the argument.


And gosh - you must have thought long and hard about that one. Really, really original.

*yawn*



And once again - nice of you to add nothing of any substance to a discussion.

-Z-

I find it amusing that Rice will apparently appear everywhere EXCEPT the panel under oath.

That is BS and the whole world knows it.

No...IM BS and everyone knows it.


OH..YOU meant bull shi**

Im thought you meant "backwoods squatches."

never mind.

This discussion has no substance anyway, just anti-Conservative rhetoric we could easily hear on PBS or CNN without paying for internet access.

Like you are adding to this discussion in any way, shape or form, Dissidence. :roll:

This discussion has no substance anyway, just anti-Conservative rhetoric we could easily hear on PBS or CNN without paying for internet access.

Agreed. And do you know what would show the liberals who's boss? Leaving. Now go.

This discussion has no substance anyway, just anti-Conservative rhetoric we could easily hear on PBS or CNN without paying for internet access.

Yup, a discussion about the top national security advisor refusing to testify to the 9/11 commission under oath has no substance. Yep, this thread is just a buch of "anti-conservative rhetoric" like you say it is. :roll:

You just can't criticise the US, because if you do...

Your a baathist, and really loved Saddam or

Your a Canadian, so you have no right to criticise or

We could hear the same criticism somewhere else, so it doesn't count.

Don't you just love the way the rabid right has the perfect answer for any form of attack.

So substative, well reasoned, and logical.

So easy to shoot the messenger, and refuse to address the issue.

No wonder Rice thinks she can brazen it out as well.

This discussion has no substance anyway, just anti-Conservative rhetoric we could easily hear on PBS or CNN without paying for internet access.

*sings to the tune of 'She'll be comin round the mountain'*

If the right-wing looses arguments what do they do?
They blame the 'liberal media' and blame you.
If theres no other scape-goat,
And they've lost all sense of logic,
They blame the 'liberal media' and blame you.

Excuse the hasty generalisation of right-wingers. Back to the topic, I find Ms. Rice's decision appaling! Can't the 9/11 commision (or whatever it's called) simply call her? Have they any power?

Also, people are saying that both parties want her to testify? I assume that means the Republicans lower down in the party. I can't imagine Bush & Co. losing much sleep over her refusal.

This is for my fellow conservatives....listen guys and girls...I'm just as uneasy bout them forcing another round of questions on Rice...but..but..I see no reason why she shouldn't be recalled if other questions by other members who have testified give them reason to recall her. If Tenet could go on the record (a sitting Director of Central Intelligence) then I can't rationalize for the NSA to go under oath.

I've said it on here previously..if they want her testimony under oath, then fine...seal the chamber..seal the records, and place a gag order on all involved. This to me would satisfy my desire to safeguard intelligence, intelligence operatives and Executive Priviledges.

News Flash!

The White House buckles to pressure. She will now in fact not only testify under oath but in public. Yippie! We can't bitch, that's all we wanted. It's nice to know that some times this administration is willing to listen to reason when they're wrong. Now if pressure could just get them to admit all the other things they're wrong about!

It would of been political suicide had she not testified.. I guess they finally figured that out. I can't wait.. I will be glued to the TV on that day!

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-

Rice has already testified once for 4 1/2 hours -- now she will testify again. Interesting that Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton refused to allow his National Security Advisor, Clark to testify after the first attack on the WTC.

Hope the Demorats and Liberals don't waste this opportunity by playing politics with it but have doubts.

Rice has already testified once for 4 1/2 hours -- now she will testify again. Interesting that Bill (I didn't have sex with that woman) Clinton refused to allow his National Security Advisor, Clark to testify after the first attack on the WTC.

Hope the Demorats and Liberals don't waste this opportunity by playing politics with it but have doubts.

Are we going to still have to listen to stuff about Clinton and his blowjob till the end of time? Get over it.. it was a blowjob, it didn't affect YOUR life. It's not like he went to war with another country and lied about his reasons or any thing.. sheesh..LOL..

As for Condi "already testifying" you have totally missed the point.. She never testified under oath and as for Clintons former NSA Sandy Berger he's already testified under oath and in public for the 9/11 commission.. so get over it. Really.

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/30/world/rice040330

Rice is testifing in from of the 9/11 panel, end of arguement I suppose :wink:

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

Personally..from my point of view...there was more then one reason to go to War with Iraq..all valid...but apparently human rights abuses, mass graves and support of terrorism weren't enough for Democrats...so the WoMD issue was brought up..to date..I've not seen one one thing that to me would indicate Saddam had destroyed the stockpiles the UN stated he had at the end of the first Gulf War..all I hear is "There aren't any"...welllll....if there aren't any then there should be documentation showing he destroyed them..which by the way he was obligated to show he had via said documentation...to date.. no such documentation has been offered up.

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

Personally..from my point of view...there was more then one reason to go to War with Iraq..all valid...but apparently human rights abuses, mass graves and support of terrorism weren't enough for Democrats...so the WoMD issue was brought up..to date..I've not seen one one thing that to me would indicate Saddam had destroyed the stockpiles the UN stated he had at the end of the first Gulf War..all I hear is "There aren't any"...welllll....if there aren't any then there should be documentation showing he destroyed them..which by the way he was obligated to show he had via said documentation...to date.. no such documentation has been offered up.

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

Personally..from my point of view...there was more then one reason to go to War with Iraq..all valid...but apparently human rights abuses, mass graves and support of terrorism weren't enough for Democrats...so the WoMD issue was brought up..to date..I've not seen one one thing that to me would indicate Saddam had destroyed the stockpiles the UN stated he had at the end of the first Gulf War..all I hear is "There aren't any"...welllll....if there aren't any then there should be documentation showing he destroyed them..which by the way he was obligated to show he had via said documentation...to date.. no such documentation has been offered up.

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

The blowjob isn't the point, he lied in front of the Grand Jury, and was caught in it, a felony.

What exactly has Bush lied about? I haven't heard a single lie yet.

So... are you going to be the one to tell more_dissidence that the "anti-conservative rhetoric" from the REPUBLICAN members of the commission actually worked?

Or shall I?


:wink:


-Z-
Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

Well, in all fairness, if Clinton got impeached based on lying about a blowjob.. don't think that Bush is well over due to be impeached himself? After all.. Clinton's lie about his blowjob didn't get 600 Americans killed in a war he lied about, Bush did! I would think lying about why you're invading a country is a more serious offence then lying about a blowjob. Not that I'm keeping a score card. Which is good for the Republicans on this board that I'm not..lol :P

The blowjob isn't the point, he lied in front of the Grand Jury, and was caught in it, a felony.

What exactly has Bush lied about? I haven't heard a single lie yet.

Here's (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/) a site that details the lies/misleading statements of the Bush Administration. It includes the quotes, as well as the reason that what was said was misleading.

Check it out and then tell me he didn't lie.

"misleading statements" are not lies, are they? If so, your hero Michael Moore is the biggest liar ever.

Was referring to this thread when I mentioned anti-Conservative rhetoric. The actual situation will pan out in favor of Bush, if there is no bias or Conservative bias in the procedings of the commission (Clinton got away with Perjury with Conservatives controlling the house), if there's Liberal bias, expect impeachment procedings.

So... the fact that I said the same thing as the Republicans on the Commission makes this "anti-Conservative rhetoric"? Or has that little nugget of recent interviews completely escaped your attention?

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.

But once again, all you can do is highlight the reason's why you don't add anything of substance to discussions. You see - if you actually followed the news you would know that the commission is all hand-picked by Bush himself, and led by Republicans. So which "bias" do you think it might have?

:roll:

But - since you're big on "rhetoric", would you care to tackle the clear misstatement of fact when Condi claimed that at the time of the events in question - which is to say at the time of 9-11 - that the US had already gone to war with Iraq "a couple of times".

Please - explain that one to me.

When was the other time besides '91?

If you can't come up with the other war I will have to assume that she is either a) incompetent or b) a liar. This is the spin she has been playing for over a week, and not the only time she has stated that - so please don't try and write it off as an error.

-Z-

Personally..from my point of view...there was more then one reason to go to War with Iraq..all valid...but apparently human rights abuses, mass graves and support of terrorism weren't enough for Democrats...so the WoMD issue was brought up..to date..I've not seen one one thing that to me would indicate Saddam had destroyed the stockpiles the UN stated he had at the end of the first Gulf War..all I hear is "There aren't any"...welllll....if there aren't any then there should be documentation showing he destroyed them..which by the way he was obligated to show he had via said documentation...to date.. no such documentation has been offered up.

Actually Salishe, the amount of weapons destroyed after the Gulf war is very well documented by the UN. No country in the world has ever been so thoroughly disarmed in many areas. Where most of the discrepencies exist were in issues of accounting. For example, disputes over the number of chemical bombs dropped during the Iran-Iraq war. The US and UN expected full accounting but, as you might expect, a corrupt tinpot dictatorship did not keep perfect records of logistics and transfers. Surely you, at some point in your 20 years in the Military heard of some back-channel procurement that might have happened even in the most high-tech military in the world? How would the government account for that discrepency if required?

So - no receipt for each and every bomb dropped was equated to "unaccounted stockpiles" and unless they could find each and every bomb they were still deemed to be in violation.

This site references, cross references and annotates a number of the claims and counterclaims plus analysis on many of the points (http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html#csumm). IT is maintained by a University of Cambridge professor.

But to hear some speak - you'd think he never destroyed a single weapon...

-Z-

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Once again - not paying attention are we...

I agreed with Salishe that private testimony to the Commission under oath was enough to satisfy any thoughts that she was hiding behind priviledge. Hell - the Republicans on the commission were the ones making it very clear that it should be public as well.

Apparently I'm more forgiving on the issue that YOUR party. Call me crazy - but that seems to support a lack of partisanship on this issue on my part. Just the same concern with gathering full evidence on this issue that both parties share.

Now - your turn.

How about you read a newspaper..... or something educational so you can contribute to the discussion beyond knee-jerk personal attacks. You might actually learn something.

Oh yeah. And still waiting for someone to explain to me what the other war was. You seem to be ignoring that issue.

-Z-

"misleading statements" are not lies, are they? If so, your hero Michael Moore is the biggest liar ever.

More lame excuses.

Bush doesn't lie, its just "misleading statements".

Bush might lie, but Clintion lied first!

Bush might lie, but Michael Moore lies worse!

It really just doesn't wash does it.

To say you can lie because someone else does is just warped morality.

The Iraq war is not a question of whether the Republicans or Democrats are better or worse than each other. Sorry, but the war is not just an internal domestic issue for the US.

The rest of the world is watching the behaviour of both sides in what could be termed as "shock and awe".

How about, just for once, More Dissidence actually addresses the issue/s instead of saying "they're worse than us", or "Clinton lied" or attacking the messenger on any sort of feeble grounds while ignoring the message.

Just for once.

You may find it liberating.

Kaaaa-bump

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Once again - not paying attention are we...

I agreed with Salishe that private testimony to the Commission under oath was enough to satisfy any thoughts that she was hiding behind priviledge. Hell - the Republicans on the commission were the ones making it very clear that it should be public as well.

Apparently I'm more forgiving on the issue that YOUR party. Call me crazy - but that seems to support a lack of partisanship on this issue on my part. Just the same concern with gathering full evidence on this issue that both parties share.

Now - your turn.

How about you read a newspaper..... or something educational so you can contribute to the discussion beyond knee-jerk personal attacks. You might actually learn something.

Oh yeah. And still waiting for someone to explain to me what the other war was. You seem to be ignoring that issue.

-Z-
Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Talk about avoiding the question!!

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

Still not getting that brain past it's black-and-white stage, are we?

Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Talk about avoiding the question!!

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

Still not getting that brain past it's black-and-white stage, are we?
It's more of a "Black and Dark Grey" really.

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Once again - not paying attention are we...

I agreed with Salishe that private testimony to the Commission under oath was enough to satisfy any thoughts that she was hiding behind priviledge. Hell - the Republicans on the commission were the ones making it very clear that it should be public as well.

Apparently I'm more forgiving on the issue that YOUR party. Call me crazy - but that seems to support a lack of partisanship on this issue on my part. Just the same concern with gathering full evidence on this issue that both parties share.

Now - your turn.

How about you read a newspaper..... or something educational so you can contribute to the discussion beyond knee-jerk personal attacks. You might actually learn something.

Oh yeah. And still waiting for someone to explain to me what the other war was. You seem to be ignoring that issue.

-Z-
Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

In a democracy, your politicians are as evil as you allow them to be.

Once you accept that "they're all evil" they've got you.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing".

I just believe that all politicians should be held accountable for their actions, and that the "yours are worse than mine" lets them all off the hook.

Could we perhaps agree on that?

It's more of a "Black and Dark Grey" really

Whatever. Still not answering the question though...

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Once again - not paying attention are we...

I agreed with Salishe that private testimony to the Commission under oath was enough to satisfy any thoughts that she was hiding behind priviledge. Hell - the Republicans on the commission were the ones making it very clear that it should be public as well.

Apparently I'm more forgiving on the issue that YOUR party. Call me crazy - but that seems to support a lack of partisanship on this issue on my part. Just the same concern with gathering full evidence on this issue that both parties share.

Now - your turn.

How about you read a newspaper..... or something educational so you can contribute to the discussion beyond knee-jerk personal attacks. You might actually learn something.

Oh yeah. And still waiting for someone to explain to me what the other war was. You seem to be ignoring that issue.

-Z-
Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

In a democracy, your politicians are as evil as you allow them to be.

Once you accept that "they're all evil" they've got you.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing".

I just believe that all politicians should be held accountable for their actions, and that the "yours are worse than mine" lets them all off the hook.

Could we perhaps agree on that?
Power corrupts. No matter the virtue of the man or woman we elect, power will always infect and corrupt them. Whether they were evil before they came to office, or became so in office, the result is the same.

Hold them accountable, hang them all! Hm, a new generation of politicians is just as evil... hang them again? Eh... what's the use?

They're all evil spawn. The fundamental difference between you and I, is you support Government leaning towards Socialist thought, and I despise Socialism in all its forms. We're not going to agree, ever. What you see as evil I see as pragmatism. What I see as evil you see as "the greater good" or some other communist nonsense.

So... what exactly do you hope to accomplish by yelling at me about how evil you think Bush is?

Can you try to think just a hair outside of your partisan world for once.
You first.

Once again - not paying attention are we...

I agreed with Salishe that private testimony to the Commission under oath was enough to satisfy any thoughts that she was hiding behind priviledge. Hell - the Republicans on the commission were the ones making it very clear that it should be public as well.

Apparently I'm more forgiving on the issue that YOUR party. Call me crazy - but that seems to support a lack of partisanship on this issue on my part. Just the same concern with gathering full evidence on this issue that both parties share.

Now - your turn.

How about you read a newspaper..... or something educational so you can contribute to the discussion beyond knee-jerk personal attacks. You might actually learn something.

Oh yeah. And still waiting for someone to explain to me what the other war was. You seem to be ignoring that issue.

-Z-
Can you say all that again without being insulting? It's killing my buzz, man.

Smeagol - You people are the original attackers with the "these guys are evil" statements, so, I respond with "the guys you like are worse" naturally. Why? They're politicians, so they're all evil, but yours are worse than mine.

In a democracy, your politicians are as evil as you allow them to be.

Once you accept that "they're all evil" they've got you.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing".

I just believe that all politicians should be held accountable for their actions, and that the "yours are worse than mine" lets them all off the hook.

Could we perhaps agree on that?
Power corrupts. No matter the virtue of the man or woman we elect, power will always infect and corrupt them. Whether they were evil before they came to office, or became so in office, the result is the same.

Hold them accountable, hang them all! Hm, a new generation of politicians is just as evil... hang them again? Eh... what's the use?

They're all evil spawn. The fundamental difference between you and I, is you support Government leaning towards Socialist thought, and I despise Socialism in all its forms. We're not going to agree, ever. What you see as evil I see as pragmatism. What I see as evil you see as "the greater good" or some other communist nonsense.

So... what exactly do you hope to accomplish by yelling at me about how evil you think Bush is?

You obviously have the government you deserve, and therefore need do nothing.

I believe I deserve better from government, and will strive to achieve it.

Power corrupts. No matter the virtue of the man or woman we elect, power will always infect and corrupt them. Whether they were evil before they came to office, or became so in office, the result is the same.

As the late, great Bill Hicks said: "All politicians are lying cocksuckers."

Power corrupts. No matter the virtue of the man or woman we elect, power will always infect and corrupt them. Whether they were evil before they came to office, or became so in office, the result is the same.

As the late, great Bill Hicks said: "All politicians are lying cocksuckers."

And will continue to be for as long as you accept that.

If you lift your expectations, they will be forced, however unwillingly, to lift their standards.

If you lower your expectations, you can be just as certain that they will race you to the depths.

In the end, it comes down to what standards you set, and what you are prepared to accept.

In a democracy, you basically get the government that you deserve.

So according to you Smeagol, All I have to do is believe that politicians are lovely, wonderful people, dedicated to helping all, and they'll magically become good and without corruption.

I wish.

I have incrediably high standards for politicians. So far not one has met them.

So according to you Smeagol, All I have to do is believe that politicians are lovely, wonderful people, dedicated to helping all, and they'll magically become good and without corruption.

I wish.

I have incrediably high standards for politicians. So far not one has met them.

I never suggested that "All I have to do is believe that politicians are lovely, wonderful people, dedicated to helping all, and they'll magically become good and without corruption" at all.

What I did say is that if you are prepared to accept poor behaviour, you will get it. If you are not so prepared, you may be able to make changes. Not by "wishing" but by acting.

If politicians do not meet your standards, what are you doing about it?

Democracy carries responsibilities as well as rights.

What I did say is that if you are prepared to accept poor behaviour, you will get it. If you are not so prepared, you may be able to make changes. Not by "wishing" but by acting.

I have never accepted poor behaviour. I want my politicians - if we have to have them - to be fair, just, uncorrupt, peaceful and kind. I haven't yet met one who fits that profile.

If politicians do not meet your standards, what are you doing about it?

Democracy carries responsibilities as well as rights.

What am I doing? Protesting, marching, e-mailing, writing letters, sticking up posters, debating with people. But as we live in a democracy, my minority opinion is cancelled out. Raising your standards do shit all to make politicians better.

What I did say is that if you are prepared to accept poor behaviour, you will get it. If you are not so prepared, you may be able to make changes. Not by "wishing" but by acting.

I have never accepted poor behaviour. I want my politicians - if we have to have them - to be fair, just, uncorrupt, peaceful and kind. I haven't yet met one who fits that profile.

If politicians do not meet your standards, what are you doing about it?

Democracy carries responsibilities as well as rights.

What am I doing? Protesting, marching, e-mailing, writing letters, sticking up posters, debating with people. But as we live in a democracy, my minority opinion is cancelled out. Raising your standards do shit all to make politicians better.

If you don't believe that you can make a difference, why are you doing anything?

If you do believe you can make a difference, why not act accordingly?

I cannot see how you can reconcile the two positions.

Please explain.

I have incrediably high standards for politicians. So far not one has met them.

It seems the only solution to these problems is to become a politician yourself. :wink:If you have the perserverence to make it to prime minister, this country could become your playground - but isn't that the problem in the first place? Despite what you believe to be the best course of action, you would still have to accept the majority's opinion, otherwise there would be even more marches, protests, posters going up about the place, agressive emails being sent to YOU, asassination attempts to get you out of power, ladeda, ladeda...

Smeagol, blocking traffic won't stop a war, and wishful thinking won't stop corrupt politics. Also, you claim to be for non-corrupt politics, and encourage people to vote for Kerry in the U.S., who is one of the many corrupt politicians of today? Where are your morals? Ah, even if he's corrupt, he's better than a Conservative, eh? I see, so, you think exactly like me, lesser of two evils, and you don't deserve better politicians.

Smeagol, blocking traffic won't stop a war, and wishful thinking won't stop corrupt politics. Also, you claim to be for non-corrupt politics, and encourage people to vote for Kerry in the U.S., who is one of the many corrupt politicians of today? Where are your morals? Ah, even if he's corrupt, he's better than a Conservative, eh? I see, so, you think exactly like me, lesser of two evils, and you don't deserve better politicians.

I have never, ever advocated a vote for Kerry.

As I am not an American, I would not be so presumptious.

But, as a citizen of the world, I feel I have a right to criticize Bush for his actions in international matters.

That is all I have ever done.

I have even ignored the shambles of his efforts in the US economy, believing that that is not my concern.

To accuse me of thinking like you I regard as an insult. To question my morals, equally so.

But I have come to expect nothing other than personal attacks from you, so I am not at all surprised.

I will not stoop to your level and attack you personally. I consider that anyone reading your posts would conclude that there is little need for anyone else to insult you.

Try just debating the facts for a change. As I have said, you may even find it liberating.

You just spent your last two posts insulting me, essentially calling me a cretin, and now you claim to take the high ground? Get over yourself already.