Rice/Boxer
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
I just voted
now I'm back to Joe average tax payer
You are right about the Dems being very predictable
now I'm back to Joe average tax payer
You are right about the Dems being very predictable
You want to see many Red states chang to blue. Just have the Reb's run Rice for President. That love fest would end in about a week.
Some things even faster...
The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo - - - perhaps because she's never understood our brave military to begin with.
The picture shows that this soldier has been thru Survival School and learned his lessons well. He's giving the sign of "coercion" with his left hand. These hand signs are taught in survival school to be used by POW's as a method of posing messages back to our intelligence services who may view the photo or video. This guy was obviously being coerced into shaking hands with Hillary Clinton. It's ironic how little she knew that he would so inform us about the photo - - - perhaps because she's never understood our brave military to begin with.
I wonder if he knows how she has been one of the Senators trying to up soldiers Benni's. And for that matter led a task force to up grade the Walter Reed V A hospital wing.
If I remember right she voted for the ok for war. Even if that just makes her wrong with about 90 other Senators that were lied to about WMD. Be careful what that sign he's making means. For us it meant get lucky. I don't like her much either but I try to be fair with everyone.
If I remember right she voted for the ok for war. Even if that just makes her wrong with about 90 other Senators that were lied to about WMD. Be careful what that sign he's making means. For us it meant get lucky. I don't like her much either but I try to be fair with everyone.
Obviously she is not a military person like Bush and Cheney two brave soldiers.
STEVIE HOW DARE U TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT THE PRES/VICE PRES. SO UNPATRIOTIC.
BUT THE TRUTH ALWAYS WINS. 2 LITTLE CREEPS THAT STOLE MONEY FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND HAVE HAD LOTS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED FOR OIL/MONEY. PATHETIC.
ID FEEL PROUD IF I VOTED FOR THESE 2 THATS 4 SURE. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING TO THINK A HUMAN BEING COULD VOTE FOR SCUM LIKE THAT.
IMPLOSION
STEVIE HOW DARE U TALK LIKE THAT ABOUT THE PRES/VICE PRES. SO UNPATRIOTIC.
BUT THE TRUTH ALWAYS WINS. 2 LITTLE CREEPS THAT STOLE MONEY FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND HAVE HAD LOTS OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED FOR OIL/MONEY. PATHETIC.
ID FEEL PROUD IF I VOTED FOR THESE 2 THATS 4 SURE. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING TO THINK A HUMAN BEING COULD VOTE FOR SCUM LIKE THAT.
IMPLOSION
Boxer asked the tough questions and Rice went into the same posture that every liar does when confronted with their lies. She says don't call me a liar! LOL! But Condi, you are a liar! When confronted with your own words, which contradict not only the President but yourself,l you say don't call me a liar! This should be a fun 4 years as Bush continues to promote the same people who created the mess we are in and the gutless press and congress does nothing to stop it.
hmm another Clinton supporter "trying" to chastise someone one for lying.
Heres a challege for you and Boxer--while the 2 of assert someone is a liar put up the lies here in their "entire context.
You report we'll decide.
If you like i'll do the same on Slick
DJV
"You want to see many Red states chang to blue"
You best worry more about the Blue turning Red
Appears to me from map below with exception of D.C-Mass-and New Jersey most Blue states are basically Red and the ones in jeopardy--especial worry about CA--but will concede DC and Mass
you can have them--Demographics of each are liberal locks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Heres a challege for you and Boxer--while the 2 of assert someone is a liar put up the lies here in their "entire context.
You report we'll decide.
If you like i'll do the same on Slick
DJV
"You want to see many Red states chang to blue"
You best worry more about the Blue turning Red
Appears to me from map below with exception of D.C-Mass-and New Jersey most Blue states are basically Red and the ones in jeopardy--especial worry about CA--but will concede DC and Mass
you can have them--Demographics of each are liberal locks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
Dogs I will easily get you Condi's lies to Boxer but you really should really get over the Clinton BJ. In case you don't understand he has been out of office for about 4 years now. His last few years were crippiled because of those lies you speak of. We all admit he lied. But your boy is still out there slugging away and the press doesn't press him on his lies.
For starters, and this isn't really considered a lie by our lovely press, Condi states that Saddam was a threat because he had already attacked his neighbors twice. The first time, when he attacked Iran, I did so not only with our blessings but with our weapons! So that may not be a lie but it is certainly a mistruth or something you republicans would like to call it.
For starters, and this isn't really considered a lie by our lovely press, Condi states that Saddam was a threat because he had already attacked his neighbors twice. The first time, when he attacked Iran, I did so not only with our blessings but with our weapons! So that may not be a lie but it is certainly a mistruth or something you republicans would like to call it.
Here is some of it Dogs. If you want to post the transcript go right ahead. This is Boxer addressing Rice just before Rice starts to whine.
"Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one
about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the
image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to
frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the
verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be
placing into the record a number of such statements you made which
have not been consistent with the facts.
As the nominee for secretary of State, you must answer to the American
people, and you are doing that now through this confirmation process.
And I continue to stand in awe of our founders, who understood that
ultimately those of us in the highest positions of our government must
be held accountable to the people we serve.
So I want to show you some statements that you made regarding the
nuclear threat and the ability of Saddam to attack us. Now, September
5th -- let me get to the right package here. On July 30th, 2003, you
were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by
the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and
months leading up to the war.
In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare
tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was
a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire
nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next
year." So that's what you said to the American people on television --
"Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."
Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to
the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his
speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able
to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little
larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less
than a year."
So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months
later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when
in fact the president said it.
And here's the real kicker. On October 10th, '04, on Fox News Sunday
with Chris Wallace, three months ago, you were asked about CIA
Director Tenet's remark that prior to the war he had, quote, "made it
clear to the White House that he thought the nuclear-weapons program
was much weaker than the program to develop other WMDs. Your response
was this: "The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting
his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear
weapon by the end of the year."
So here you are, first contradicting the president and then
contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about
this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an
issue. And this does not serve the American people.
If it served your purpose to downplay the threat of nuclear weapons,
you said, "No one said he's going to have it in a year." But then
later, when you thought that perhaps you were on more solid ground
with the American people because at the time the war was probably
popular, or more popular, you'd say, "We thought he was going to have
a weapon within a year."
And this is -- the question is, this is a pattern here of what I see
from you on this issue, on the issue of the aluminum tubes, on the
issue of whether al Qaeda was actually involved in Iraq, which you've
said many times. And in my rounds -- I don't have any questions on
this round, because I'm just laying this out; I do have questions on
further rounds about similar contradictions. It's very troubling.
You know, if you were rolling out a new product like a can opener, who
would care about what we said? But this product is a war, and people
are dead and dying, and people are now saying they're not going to go
back because of what they experienced there. And it's very serious.
And as much as I want to look ahead -- and we will work together on a
myriad of issues -- it's hard for me to let go of this war, because
people are still dying. And you have not laid out an exit strategy.
You've not set up a timetable.
And you don't seem to be willing to, A, admit a mistake, or give any
indication of what you're going to do to forcefully involve others. As
a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements; that the territory
of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says
it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled."
"Now, perhaps the most well-known statement you've made was the one
about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the
image of, quote, quoting you, "a mushroom cloud." That image had to
frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the
verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be
placing into the record a number of such statements you made which
have not been consistent with the facts.
As the nominee for secretary of State, you must answer to the American
people, and you are doing that now through this confirmation process.
And I continue to stand in awe of our founders, who understood that
ultimately those of us in the highest positions of our government must
be held accountable to the people we serve.
So I want to show you some statements that you made regarding the
nuclear threat and the ability of Saddam to attack us. Now, September
5th -- let me get to the right package here. On July 30th, 2003, you
were asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if you continued to stand by
the claims you made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and
months leading up to the war.
In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear-weapons scare
tactics you used before the war, your answer was, and I quote, "It was
a case that said he was trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire
nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next
year." So that's what you said to the American people on television --
"Nobody ever said it was going to be the next year."
Well, that wasn't true, because nine months before you said this to
the American people, what had George Bush said, President Bush, at his
speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center? "If the Iraqi regime is able
to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little
larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less
than a year."
So the president tells the people there could be a weapon. Nine months
later you said no one ever said he could have a weapon in a year, when
in fact the president said it.
And here's the real kicker. On October 10th, '04, on Fox News Sunday
with Chris Wallace, three months ago, you were asked about CIA
Director Tenet's remark that prior to the war he had, quote, "made it
clear to the White House that he thought the nuclear-weapons program
was much weaker than the program to develop other WMDs. Your response
was this: "The intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting
his nuclear program; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear
weapon by the end of the year."
So here you are, first contradicting the president and then
contradicting yourself. So it's hard to even ask you a question about
this, because you are on the record basically taking two sides of an
issue. And this does not serve the American people.
If it served your purpose to downplay the threat of nuclear weapons,
you said, "No one said he's going to have it in a year." But then
later, when you thought that perhaps you were on more solid ground
with the American people because at the time the war was probably
popular, or more popular, you'd say, "We thought he was going to have
a weapon within a year."
And this is -- the question is, this is a pattern here of what I see
from you on this issue, on the issue of the aluminum tubes, on the
issue of whether al Qaeda was actually involved in Iraq, which you've
said many times. And in my rounds -- I don't have any questions on
this round, because I'm just laying this out; I do have questions on
further rounds about similar contradictions. It's very troubling.
You know, if you were rolling out a new product like a can opener, who
would care about what we said? But this product is a war, and people
are dead and dying, and people are now saying they're not going to go
back because of what they experienced there. And it's very serious.
And as much as I want to look ahead -- and we will work together on a
myriad of issues -- it's hard for me to let go of this war, because
people are still dying. And you have not laid out an exit strategy.
You've not set up a timetable.
And you don't seem to be willing to, A, admit a mistake, or give any
indication of what you're going to do to forcefully involve others. As
a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements; that the territory
of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says
it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled."
I've seen this--now I'll ask you again--which are lies-be specific please--
lie
n 1: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth [syn: prevarication]
liar
n : a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly [syn: prevaricator] eg Slick
You know like pointing finger at "the people" and scowling like like his minions shouldn't dae beleve what he "knows" to (a lie)
--and swearing under oath the same.
lie
n 1: a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth [syn: prevarication]
liar
n : a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly [syn: prevaricator] eg Slick
You know like pointing finger at "the people" and scowling like like his minions shouldn't dae beleve what he "knows" to (a lie)
--and swearing under oath the same.
No I am not joking--unless you like boxer are referring that the president saying they could have weapons with in a year and Rice saying no one said they would have weapons is in year a lie.
Definition of joke
The left trying to say opinion of interpretation of what another says makes one a liar--but a finger waving-felonious disbarred perjurer is their knight in shining armor.
Definition of joke
The left trying to say opinion of interpretation of what another says makes one a liar--but a finger waving-felonious disbarred perjurer is their knight in shining armor.
No just read what she said. She pointed out the lies in the piece. I know that lying traitor Hannitty has been telling his legions of kool aid drinkers to just keep asking liberals to explain what they mean. Dogs, iit is all there in black and white for you if you can't see it that is your problem.
I just don't understand Rice not paying attention to the 9/11 warnings right under her nose. She sure helped it happen. So now we think she is good enough for a bump up.
To be fair djv, who would you suggest? We now know about the Muslim Extremists role in 9/11. What would happen if someone tried to raise the alarm prior to 9/11? They would be denounced as racists, Nazi's, etc. What do you suggest? I don't have all the answers but, my whining won't help at all. WTF- Vote for Hillary in 2008. Maybe she'll let the military wear their uniforms@ White House functions by then.
Sure, because she does whatever Dubya says. We don't want someone in there who might challenge the President any more than we want a Senator challenging the Secretary of State. Worst thing you can do in this era is challenge anything, regardless of the facts.djv said:
