Basso, that is stunning information. I am shocked that the liberals would stoop so low as to trivialize the 9-11 Commission on account of their partisan buffoonery. Typical liberals. No wonder they can't win an election. Looks like I shut them up above with the questions. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, libs. Looks like you can't.
Oh my. The irony-o-meter has just exploded. Two questions full of word games and assumptions, including misuse of the word "testify"? (According to the administration, this was "a talk," and not testimony). Anyway, no thanks. The following statement can stand on its own: any American imaginable will be very glad if any statement by the president and/or the vice president (perhaps in unison) make the nation more safe as a result. edit: so that any sane reader avoid the conclusion that anyone has been shut up, I hereby state complete boredom with a thread again, and this is my last post here. (The fart smell is getting a little too strong anyway). My only real comment about the event at all can be summed as follows: it seems ultimately disrespectful to the POTUS to have him appear to need hand holding. I was really surprised, and I truly wonder if this is the way George Walker Bush really wanted this to happen. I am worried that Richard Bruce Cheney has far too much power in this administration. That is all. I trust that Bush ultimately has good intentions, even if some of us find him misguided. Cheney? I can only shudder at the evidence presented in his lifetime.
basso, do you think it was reasonable to have this meeting stuffed into the President's office, with the ten commission members having one staff person, and Bush having Cheney, the White House Counsel (the President's attorney) and two staff members? You honestly think this was reasonable?
LMAO! In response to the question as to why Bush had to have Cheney with him, and the increasingly bizarre/evasive responses, T_J attempts to rebut with the following: ( Note "little helpers") Apparently not satisfied that the numerical disparity had been trumpeted enough, he goes on to reaffirm it's significance: Once again, note "little helpers") Then, when it is pointed out that, in fact, Bush had more advisers, T_J's predictable response? ( Note, "principals now are the only issue") LOL! Priceless. An idiot at this ( or any other point) would post something like EXPOSED, but I am simply content to let the master of self exposure once again revela himself for what he is. By the by, did y'all see T_J's correction on the lunatic liberal fringe? How many here have seen him use that exact phrase countless times? SImply awe inspiring, the lengths some people will go to to make themselves appear more pathetic... THen, when it is pointed out that Bush in fact had
...blah blah blah Look, I wont' quote THE NATION if you don't quote THE NATIONAL REVIEW. Seems fair. The National Review is about as objective as FOX News. Oh, wait. FOX is fair and balanced. My bad.
You know, MacBeth, if you actually ponied up some cash to help Clutch pay for the very expensive equipment and bandwidth needed to run this site, then you could edit fragments such as this. You are one of the last few to not pitch in and help. Why? Don't you love it when you try to pin me down with a semantics game, and it blows up in your face? OWNED
what possible diffeence could it make where the meeting was held, how big a room, or how many staffers were allowed each member? honestly, you sound like the north vietnamese delegation to the paris peace talks arguing about the shape of the table...
it's a transcript, not verbatim, but as a daily show watcher i'd say they got the prevailing attitude about right.
Ummm..I SAW the show in question, and this is nice spin, but not at all factual, given context. First of all, the screw you, buddy was said when he said that Bush's buddy system contradicted Washington's normal policy of "screw you buddy." The "life is ****" comment was made in context with what is behind political manipulation at all levels. The question Stewart proposed was in response to Kerrey's question to Stewart about what question he would ask were he able, and Kerrey made it obvious he was joking when he nodded/chuckled assent while the audience was laughing. ANd one more qualifier left out: Stewart's comment to Kerrey following his comments: " The only thing I can say to you is that it is obvious you are no longer a man running for office." to which Kerrey laughed and agreed. Interesting that this is spun as an example of 'partisanship." I suppose any criticism is automatically partisan?
Oh, God. This is too much. Your response is to revert again to pointing out a typo ( one captial letter to many) and possibly that had should have come before in fact? !?!?!?!?!?! I point out the complete hpocrisy evident in your flip flop, and you come back with this!?!? THAT is your version of owned!?!?! Man, that's about the weakest response I've ever seen... Sad.
what partisan is any commissioner making prejudicial statements about a witness or testimony before the commission in advance of the commissions report. kerrey's not alone in this, and even kean has said some things he shouldn't have. there's no way at this point to suppose the commission's report can be truly unbiased given all the public prejudgement of the evidence by the commissioners themselves. they should just all go home, and shut the **** up.
There was no prejudice. They were not judging anything before the facts. No one commented on Bush's testimony, which, agreed, would have been prejudiced. There was commentary on the following: * The fact that Bush/his people had stipulated as a condition for even appearing that Cheney accompany him, for which no reason has ever been given. * The fact that they wouldn't even consent to being under oath, as every other witness had. and possibly, though I can't recall for certain, the fact that Bush et al had stalled and tried to abort the Commission to begin with. Additionally Kerrey made note of the fact that the Foreign Affairs committee had recieved even less cooperation, with only an asst. secretary of State even bothering to show up despite repeated requests from the committe for Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. to attend and inform them about our policy on Iraq. THESE and these alone were the elements of the Bush/Cheney role in this. These are all known facts. As such, they are in the present for evaluation, and to so evaluate is not to prejudge, but simply to judge.
does not judging before the facts are fully known, before the report is written, much less released, constitute prejuding? i guess you could argure the meaning of does, but who'd do that?
