Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 10, 2004, 10:48:05 pm
-
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
-
Awesome. Hopefully this means that the Shrub is screwed and the Commission has Rice up on charges for perjury.
-
The Shrub, eh? :lol:
I'd love to see that happen...
-
I simply don't understand why they (American people, Dubya's critics etc ) ignore their obvious delay tactics, and just order the administarion up on the stand. I mean, certain people had to fight very hard just to get a few hours of Rice's time under oath. It seems obvious to me that any administration official who does not fully cooperate - this means any amount of reasonable time on the stand, under oath and with no resotrictions - is implying their guilt. Oh well, better than nothing.
I still maintain they knew about it and let it happen. Indeed, even maybe helped it along.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/politics/11INTE.html?ei=5062&en=9e7f143b787872cc&ex=1082260800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
just to clear up a few facts...
-
Just to clarify, Dr. Rice didn't have to testify. She had already talked to the Commision in a Closed Door Session. The Administration is protected by the Separation of Powers, the only way they can have the President, VP, and their staff testify under oath is if they Impeach him and they no cause save their own partisan back-biting.
And for those who think this Commission is non-Partisan, I'll remind you that anything Bob Kerrey is involved in automatically becomes highly partisan just by his participation.
-
"...and they no cause save their own partisan back-biting."
:wtf:
what
and Kerry's involvment doesn't particise this, the fact that it's takeing place in washington and/or involving any member of any branch of the government does.
-
So, Liberator, you think that the best way to get the truth out of **** & Co. is to have them asked a few question by a comitee of career-politicians, yes-men and appointees; behind closed doors, and have no part of the process under public scrutiny? Hmm...right.
They'll tell the truth, honest. Just cause their ass is on the line doesn't mean they would *gasp* lie. Even under oath, its almost a certainty that Rice lied or bent the truth.
edit: Libertor, if you think that there are people or factions in Washington who are not to some degree yes-men, you are deluding yourself. Even the Democrats subscribe to the same beliefs as ****, only in a *slighty* different format. Where is the dissent? The Democrats have been fully cooperative with all of ****'s schemes, no reason to think they'de stop now.
-
"its almost a certainty that Rice lied or bent the truth"
to find out you must answer two questions
1) is she a politician?
2) did her mouth open, or was audable sound made through her nasal cavity or other such oraffice?
if the following qualifications are met then there is a good posability that truth bending/lieing took place.
-
Damn. I was expecting a much more interesting thread topic...
-
I'd vote for ****, just to irritate you people. "Evil will always flourish because good is dumb!"
-
Originally posted by Janos
"Evil will always flourish because good is dumb!"
Use the Schwartz, Lonestar!
But I lost the ring!
You don't need the ring! I found it in a crackerjack box!
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Use the Schwartz, Lonestar!
But I lost the ring!
You don't need the ring! I found it in a crackerjack box!
Damn you! Now I have to watch it again! :D
*Rumages through his old videos to find Spaceballs and watch it.*
-
Don't we have a few pieces of the "SpaceBalls: The Flamethrower" merchendise around here somewhere?
*Looks under seat*
Hey, what do you know! :lol:
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Use the Schwartz, Lonestar!
But I lost the ring!
You don't need the ring! I found it in a crackerjack box!
Im a bonafide prince! And **** is a liar! WOOHOOO!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Just to clarify, Dr. Rice didn't have to testify. She had already talked to the Commision in a Closed Door Session. The Administration is protected by the Separation of Powers, the only way they can have the President, VP, and their staff testify under oath is if they Impeach him and they no cause save their own partisan back-biting.
I agree that there's not much they can do to compell Shrub and Company short of a full scale impeachment. On the other hand, I'd say lying to the entire nation and the Congress systematically and blatantly in order to push the nation into invading a sovereign country on false pretenses counts as "high crimes and misdemeanors". After all, it got a hell of a lot more people killed than blowjobs and land deals. But this is politics: facts and reality and honesty have nothing to do with it, I guess. I guess the standards change depending on whether you personally like the president or not. Is that what they call "partisan back-biting"? I think so. ;)
And for those who think this Commission is non-Partisan, I'll remind you that anything Bob Kerrey is involved in automatically becomes highly partisan just by his participation.
Anything ANY politician is involved in is "partisan"--unless its a politician you like, then its "just".
-
There is a difference between agreeing to disagree and getting on with life and the out and out partisan bulldogging that Mr. Kerrey and his ilk(aided and abetted by the "Mainstream Media") take part in.
mik, we don't need to know the everything, more importantly, that's why we elect people like GW and Co., to handle and know about the stuff we don't have the desire or need to know.
-
Lib, you just proved Mikhael's point. I get really tired of the slander that goes on in politics, yes, but honestly there's no way you can place the current administration above it. Hell, **** and Co are worse about it than anyone in the Senate, it's widly known and accepted that the White House routinely attacks the credibility of dissidents within its own ranks, and I'm not even going into outright opponents. So please, find some sound arguments or take your religious right, hyper-patriot babbel somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
There is a difference between agreeing to disagree and getting on with life and the out and out partisan bulldogging that Mr. Kerrey and his ilk(aided and abetted by the "Mainstream Media") take part in.
mik, we don't need to know the everything, more importantly, that's why we elect people like GW and Co., to handle and know about the stuff we don't have the desire or need to know.
I thought Messers Bush & co was *cough* 'elected' *cough* to run the country for the benefit of the people, not obfuscate the facts from them when they screw up? The governemnt - and democratic government - has to be held accountable for their actions and decisions - that's what democracy is.
And hiding those actions, covering up their mistakes and subtly obstructing crucial enquiries is simply un-democratic. Let them come out, and say their story. the the Us, and the world, can judge. But don't let the accussed judge themselves, and don't blame 'bias' when you don't like what the judgement is.
-
Indeed, Aldo: "of the people, for the people, by the people" is the pertinent verbiage. Nowhere, in any of the documents that define the formation and governance of our nation does it say that we elect the government to make decisions for us in ignorance. Indeed, the freedoms of speech and the press were enshrined in the Constitution to help ensure that the citizenry was never ignorant of the actions and decisions of government. To suggest that it is acceptable or desireable that there be things that we do not "want or need to know" is to be disloyal to the spirits of democracy and patriotism that we claim to hold so dear.
To address impeachment again:
Consider the "impeachment" of a sitting president. The Constitution is a bit vague on what is required to do so. It specifies "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the measure by which we decide to impeach.
When we, the people, as represented by our Congress, decided to impeach Clinton, we lowered the bar for impeachment. By the standard set by the Clinton impeachment, we MUST impeach ****, as his "high crimes and misdemeanors" are far, far worse than Clinton's. Clinton just lied. **** lied and got American soldiers killed.
About a year ago, Trent Lott (I believe it was) lost his position in Congress for a simple faux pas: he said that we should have elected Strom Thurmond president during the 40s--not knowing that Thurmond was running on a segregationist platform (and indeed advocated, among other things, sending black americans back to Africa). His fellow Republicans said that he "should have known" about Thurmonds politics during the 40s. This is a telling and crucial point. His own party felt like such a mistake could not be excused with a defense of ignorance.
The **** administration rests heavily on a defense that can be summed up as "we trusted what they gave us". Unfortunately, like Mr. Lott, **** and company should have known better. Indeed, they committed troops--not just American troops, but British and Australian--on the basis of either an outright lie, or an ignorant misunderstanding of the facts. Surely, if it wasn't a lie, they "should have known". Surely they should have done due diligence.
I know it seems like partisan back biting. I'm just think that we should follow the standards we, the people, set for ourselves and our government.
-
mik, as I'm sure you are aware, he was simply trying to make an old man feel good on his birthday, Mr. Thurmond is 100 after all.
I'm not defending it, but I understand the spirit in which it was used.
Mr. Lott was crucified by his opposition for the statement, there are few on the Right that would do the same.
-
You say that--and I agree with it: Lott was just trying to make the old guy feel good. What happened to Lott wrong. He should have stayed right where he was, but politics took him down, but it wasn't PARTISAN politics.
If you look at the record, it was the GOP that excoriated Lott first, not the Democrats. Further it was the GOP that was calling for him to be removed from his position of authority, not the Democrats. Lott was pulled down by GOP infighting, plain and simple. But hey, why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of declaring the Right would never do such a thing?
None of that, however, obviates the point made: he should have known what Thurmond stood for when running for President. His ignorance, is no excuse. By the same token, Shrub's protestations of ignrance are likewise no excuse. He should have known better. He should have done his research better. In short: he should have done his job better.
-
To put it simply, Clinton got impeached for getting a blowjob.
Now, Dubya:
Quite obviously stole the election. Crimes enough for impeachement right there. But, lets go on. Presided over the largest deficit in American history, after inheriting a nice, fat surplus from Clinton. He quite possibly KNEW that thousands of Americans were about to die, and did nothing. Perhaps you say he didn't KNOW, well know we realize that even if we take this more charitable stance, he still *should* have known. Personally I hold the former to be true, but either one is very, very damning. He then proceeded to to invade Afghanistan, and failed to catch the man who he claimed was responsible for 9/11. But there's more.
After failing top catch bin Laden, he decides to finish his daddy's war and invade Saddam. We are given literally mountains of evidence to show that Saddam has biological and chemical, as well as nuclear weapons. He fails to get any significant international support, and simply invades anyway.
Next, we have one year of occupation, which kills over 600 Americans, as well as thousands of Iraqis. But, still no WMD are found. He then backtracks, trying to weasel out of his outlandish claims about WMD stockpiles, and the press cooperates as always. Right, then the Kurds hand over Saddam, and everyone has a nice few days. Yay! But still no weapons.
Now, over the past several months, we have more and more evidence coming to light that Dubya knew full well there were no WMD, and lied to the American people, Congress as well as the international community. Not to mention that little spying fiasco at the United Nations. Through all this, over 15,000 innocent Iraqis have died, but who cares about them, right?
________
I'm leaving quite a bit out, like the Enron and Worldcom scandals, as well as such tasty tidbits as the illegal detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, and Dubya attrocious environmental policies (Kyoto etc).
This has got to be one of the worst track records for any US President, ever. And you're telling me he shouldn't be impeached? While Billy was bad, compared to **** he's an angel.
No, Dubya should not be impeached. Of this, I am certain. he should be raped, shot and burned at the stake, and his execution broadcast to every corner of the Earth, so that the people of this world can at least have some hope in justice. Once Kerry of whoever takes over, the normal process of being ****ed up the ass will resume, but by slightly less cruel tormentors, if nothing else.
-
Purely out of curiosity, do the self-proclaimed political exparts here reckon Shrub will be re-elected one way or the other?
-
I'm not self-proclaimed, how dare you! I'll have you know, I got a "Terrific Tiger" award in my history class in Grade 12. I'de like to see your credentials Mr. Know it all.
:D:D
I think he will be re-elected. When they lift the curtains and out comes bin Laden, he'll get his crucial advantage. Either way, he's got the whole setup rigged again, via Diebold and a million other little kinks I don't know about. I mean, if he can be as bad a President as I''ve outlined above, and still get high approval ratings, that speaks volumes about the people who are supposed to be voting in November. Nevermind that his opponent is, well, obviously. He's Kerry, for which I give him slightly better odds at winning the elections than I do my cat.
As I said, I'm hoping he does get re-elected or atleast manages to steal it again, hopefully with a big scandal and so forth.
-
I wonder what he will make when re-election no longer matters?
Outlaw condoms? [see the recent "outlaw porn" attempt, lol]