Puffed Rice...

Squiggy said:
:confuse3: DOES NOT APPLY
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want to find her guilty of something, whether she is or not...

Here's what I've read in these posts from the left...Please correct me if I've got something wrong...

She refuses to testify, but will give a private interview

You want her to testify publically, regardless of whether what she has to say is in the realm of national security or not, so you can decide the truth of her statements...

You also say, at that point that, if she has nothing to hide, she should testify

She says no, and won't say anything

You then say...AHA...You're lying because you won't say you're lying...

:tardbang:

Refusing to testify publically is, in and of itself, innocent. You wish to find somebody guilty. If a witness proves to be uncooperative, that does not make them a liar. If called upon, and she invokes the 5th amendment, what will you say then? It all boils down to the same thing...a witch hunt. If you want a scape-goat so bad, why not pick on somebody like Tenet?
 
freako104 said:
Im sorry to say it this way Gato but refusing to answer to me makes me a little more suspicious
Click to expand...

How? Remember the guy who was arrested for obstruction of justice because he wouldn't tell the police officer his name? You were all for this same idea, then, so why is it so easy to be against it now?
 
Gato...read again. SHE REFUSES TO GIVE SWORN TESTIMONY WHETHER ITS CLOSED SESSION OR NOT. In other words, she refuses to stand behind the truthfullness of any story she might tell. Shes a worm..an asshole.
 
I didnt say it was guilt by means Gato. There has to be a legit reason the cop asked him for id. I did sya to leave the 5th Amendment did I not? I just said it makes me wonder a little more about them
 
Gonz said:
Not if one isn't answering the questions.
Click to expand...


Shes talking her ass off. Telling the same faery tales shes been told to say on every TV station that will put her on camera. But she refuses to repeat her story under oath.
 
freako104 said:
I didnt say it was guilt by means Gato. There has to be a legit reason the cop asked him for id. I did sya to leave the 5th Amendment did I not? I just said it makes me wonder a little more about them
Click to expand...


But she's doing the exact same thing...That 5th amendment remark was meant for Squiggy, though. I'm still waiting for his scathing riposte. ;)
 
Gato...you're missing the most of this. I have replied. She is NOT saying she won't say anything. She is saying she won't say it under oath. She does not have that option as far as I'm concerned. She serves the American people. Not the other way around.
 
Squiggy said:
Gato...you're missing the most of this. I have replied. She is NOT saying she won't say anything. She is saying she won't say it under oath. She does not have that option as far as I'm concerned. She serves the American people. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...

But she's still an American citizen. She has the same rights that you and I have, and the same responsibilities. As for her talking on TV, but not to Congress under oath, how do you feel about Jon Benet Ramsey?
 
nobody said she didnt have the same rights but she does have one responsibility that laypeople dont: dont you think she should give the answers. and she isnt above the law now is she? if that is the case she does have a right to the 5th. but if people are put under oath why cant she be?
 
Why are you trying to put this in the context that this commission is trying to criminalize her? You're comparing apples to oranges and stretching thin to do it. She accepted the oath of office and this is part of fulfilling THAT oath. She also accepts her pay for that office.
 
Squiggy said:
Why are you trying to put this in the context that this commission is trying to criminalize her? You're comparing apples to oranges and stretching thin to do it. She accepted the oath of office and this is part of fulfilling THAT oath. She also accepts her pay for that office.
Click to expand...


How did I know you'd say that? If she refuses to testify, as a government official or not, she doesn't have to testify. If she refuses to talk under oath, then she refuses to talk under oath. Where was all your bluster when the mayor of San Francisco actually broke a law by marrying homosexuals? You want to talk apples and oranges, and stretching things thin :rolleyes: Talk about hypocrisy. When you like what's being done illegally, you lump it all under the old, and overused, 'power to the people' banner, but when it's something you don't like we all get to hear about corruption. Can't have it both ways, Squiggy... :nono: :p

BTW...your riposte wasn't as scathing as usual. You okay? ;)
 
First of all...there are a few thread topics I try to avoid. Gay, Religion, Abortion...I do that because I've seen that they seldom seem to converge on a point.
If Rice feels she can spout off about what happened but refuses to make those same statements under oath, I have just cause to believe that its because she is lying. And I'm exercizing that right. She has denounced the testimony of Clarke, who had enough confidence and conviction in his statements to take the oath and present his position. If you want to shake it off and pretend that there is no conclusion to be drawn from her actions, fine...Thats your right. I happen to have more empathy and respect for those who have died and are still dying because of the self serving ineptness of this administration.
 
gato when you compare her to the mayor of SF, there is one major difference. the mayor broke an unjust law. she is not breaking any laws. just refusing to testify
 
Squiggy said:
First of all...there are a few thread topics I try to avoid. Gay, Religion, Abortion...I do that because I've seen that they seldom seem to converge on a point.
If Rice feels she can spout off about what happened but refuses to make those same statements under oath, I have just cause to believe that its because she is lying. And I'm exercizing that right. She has denounced the testimony of Clarke, who had enough confidence and conviction in his statements to take the oath and present his position. If you want to shake it off and pretend that there is no conclusion to be drawn from her actions, fine...Thats your right. I happen to have more empathy and respect for those who have died and are still dying because of the self serving ineptness of this administration.
Click to expand...

I think you may have missed my point...She is allowed to say whatever she wants off the record. If she doesn't want to go on record saying it, then that's just too bad. If there is actual proof that she's lying, then you'd have something...but you don't, and niether does anyone else at this point. You don't have to like what she did, and you don't have to like what she says, and niether do I. We do, however, have to take the good with the bad, and the ugly with the beautiful. As for Clark...he was exposed on tape. They had, and still have, evidence that he is an idiot. While being an idiot is not against the law, it does cast severe doubt on everything he's said so far...while under oath. Now, because Clark's testimony has been pretty much disallowed because he, himself, didn't keep consistent, you want to drag Condoleeza Rice through the gutter because your guy turned out to be useless. Put up, or shut up. ;)
 
:confuse3: Dude...You're getting different news than me. Rice is scrambling to rebutt Clarke's testimony but still REFUSES to do it under oath. I'll go with the guy who has faith in what hes saying...You and Gonz should keep looking for the WMDs...:rolleyes:
 
Condoleezza's going to be the one left twisting in the wind????

Looks like it just might be scapegoat time to me. After all she is (and more importantly was) national security advisor. I wonder...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top