Richard Clarke vs double standard

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
Guest

#21 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:37 pm

I realize the republicans as a RULE never deal with facts... but lets so I can show you how idiotic Lindlaoo's post is.



GalvestonDuck wrote: How about explaining just what factual errors to which you are referring anyway? If it's such a shame, point them out, please.


Lindaloo says this....

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!


On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.


This is meaningless DRIVEL. why ?

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#22 Postby GalvestonDuck » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:48 pm

Spelling had nothing to do with it.

The problem was that you left out "THERE ARE and so your sentence was unclear. For all I know, you could have been saying "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is lower than a Democrat like me could even comprehend" or "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is equal to the number of college basketball teams that have won both men's and women's NCAA Division I tournaments."

I seriously didn't know what it was you were trying to say because your sentence was not complete. I could have made any number of assumptions, but I didn't.

I don't argue and hide behind spelling. I simply can't argue something when a sentence doesn't make sense.

DT wrote:

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH


Who said it was part of Congress? I'm still waiting for you to point out your factual error.

The post clearly says:
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!


It's a congressionally-appointed panel, not Congress itself. No one said it was. Therefore, there is no "factual error" in what you've pointed out as one.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#23 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 4:27 pm

DT wrote:I realize the republicans as a RULE never deal with facts... but lets so I can show you how idiotic Lindlaoo's post is.



GalvestonDuck wrote: How about explaining just what factual errors to which you are referring anyway? If it's such a shame, point them out, please.


Lindaloo says this....

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!


On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.


This is meaningless DRIVEL. why ?

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH


Nope no match yet. What I meant by this whole copy and paste essay is that you left wing or left winded folks were trashing Condi Rice for this very same reason you are now trying to take up for Clarke. Get a political clue DT. The only idiotic thing here is the fact that you hide behind big words and are not backed up by any facts.

Now it is GAME, SET, MATCH!!
0 likes   

Guest

#24 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:33 pm

Duck please stop posting . You are embrassing yourself....

Lindaloo was off attacking everyone and everything and said that the democrats were HYPOCRITES for excusing Clarke when he did NOT testify in FRONT OF CONGRESS and the national security issue.

Lindallo entire argument was that this commission was part of congrees.

game over dude



GalvestonDuck wrote:Spelling had nothing to do with it.

The problem was that you left out "THERE ARE and so your sentence was unclear. For all I know, you could have been saying "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is lower than a Democrat like me could even comprehend" or "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is equal to the number of college basketball teams that have won both men's and women's NCAA Division I tournaments."

I seriously didn't know what it was you were trying to say because your sentence was not complete. I could have made any number of assumptions, but I didn't.

I don't argue and hide behind spelling. I simply can't argue something when a sentence doesn't make sense.

DT wrote:

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH


Who said it was part of Congress? I'm still waiting for you to point out your factual error.

The post clearly says:
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!


It's a congressionally-appointed panel, not Congress itself. No one said it was. Therefore, there is no "factual error" in what you've pointed out as one.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#25 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:35 pm

DT wrote:Duck please stop posting . You are embrassing yourself....

Lindaloo was off attacking everyone and everything and said that the democrats were HYPOCRITES for excusing Clarke when he did NOT testify in FRONT OF CONGRESS and the national security issue.

Lindallo entire argument was that this commission was part of congrees.

game over dude



GalvestonDuck wrote:Spelling had nothing to do with it.

The problem was that you left out "THERE ARE and so your sentence was unclear. For all I know, you could have been saying "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is lower than a Democrat like me could even comprehend" or "The shame is that the number of factual errors in your copy and paste essay is equal to the number of college basketball teams that have won both men's and women's NCAA Division I tournaments."

I seriously didn't know what it was you were trying to say because your sentence was not complete. I could have made any number of assumptions, but I didn't.

I don't argue and hide behind spelling. I simply can't argue something when a sentence doesn't make sense.

DT wrote:

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH


Who said it was part of Congress? I'm still waiting for you to point out your factual error.

The post clearly says:
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!


It's a congressionally-appointed panel, not Congress itself. No one said it was. Therefore, there is no "factual error" in what you've pointed out as one.


Okay Mr. Priss it seems you are doing all the attacking when the fact is you have offered nothing to this debate but a bunch of name calling. Either put up or shut up.
0 likes   

Guest

#26 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:37 pm

No dummy. nice try

YOU called the democrats HYPOCRITES for allowing Clarke to NOT testify in front of congress.

YOU called them that.

not me. YOU did.

YOU did. Therefore YOU tried to establish that the 911 commission was congressional hearing and therefore Rice does not have to testify.

That is correct. IF 911 commission was congressional hearing Rice would not and SHOULD not testify. But your facts are wrong. period. Admit it and move on.

Its Not the Liberal media's fault. You are Just WRONG.



Lindaloo wrote:
DT wrote:I realize the republicans as a RULE never deal with facts... but lets so I can show you how idiotic Lindlaoo's post is.



GalvestonDuck wrote: How about explaining just what factual errors to which you are referring anyway? If it's such a shame, point them out, please.


Lindaloo says this....

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!


On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.


This is meaningless DRIVEL. why ?

BECAUSE THE 9-11 COMIMMISON IS NOT PART OF CONGRESS!!!

Duuuhhhhhhh!!!!!!

GAME SET AND MATCH


Nope no match yet. What I meant by this whole copy and paste essay is that you left wing or left winded folks were trashing Condi Rice for this very same reason you are now trying to take up for Clarke. Get a political clue DT. The only idiotic thing here is the fact that you hide behind big words and are not backed up by any facts.

Now it is GAME, SET, MATCH!!
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#27 Postby GalvestonDuck » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:35 pm

DT wrote:No dummy. nice try
...You are Just WRONG.


Am I to understand that you are a professional meteorologist? When your colleagues disagree about forecasts, do you argue the actual climatological and atmospheric conditions to support your case...or do you just attack?
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#28 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:36 pm

He attacks Duck. But then again. what do you expect from someone that has no clue about politics.
0 likes   

Guest

#29 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:52 pm

GOOD debate. !!!

ROTFLMAO!

You attack Liberal Media
You assert falsely that 911 commission is a congressional hearing
You are then PROVEN to be wrong since the 911 comission has NOTHING to do with congress.

so rather than admit that you over reacted -- heck we all do-- you say I know nothing about politics.

I know 2 things.

One I know when to admit I am wrong.
And two... you dont


Lindaloo wrote:He attacks Duck. But then again. what do you expect from someone that has no clue about politics.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#30 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:52 pm

DT wrote:GOOD debate. !!!

ROTFLMAO!

You attack Liberal Media
You assert falsely that 911 commission is a congressional hearing
You are then PROVEN to be wrong since the 911 comission has NOTHING to do with congress.

so rather than admit that you over reacted -- heck we all do-- you say I know nothing about politics.

I know 2 things.

One I know when to admit I am wrong.
And two... you dont


Lindaloo wrote:He attacks Duck. But then again. what do you expect from someone that has no clue about politics.


Well admit it right now you are wrong without calling someone names. Just one time I dare you.
0 likes   

Guest

#31 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:59 pm

Lindaloo this is NOT that complicated

YOU asserted the democrats were hypocrites b/c the excused Clarke from testifying in the late 90s in front of a CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE

YOU used those words. Not me.

The 911 hearings are a non partisan hearing. There are NO active congressional people on that committee.

Your premise is wrong. You are wrong.

Please spend hours and hours trying to prove that the 911 hearings are really part of congress. Please waste the time
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#32 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:05 pm

The Clinton administration's final document was 45,000 words long and titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," but it hardly mentioned bin Laden and his terrorist network.


The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#33 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:07 pm

Who are you to say I am wrong? The facts are facts. The Dems demanded Rice testify but yet Clarke did NOT for the same reasons. Get a clue will ya?
0 likes   

Guest

#34 Postby Guest » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:16 pm

Thank you for admitting the 911 commission is not part of congress.


Lindaloo wrote:
The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#35 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:19 pm

DT wrote:Thank you for admitting the 911 commission is not part of congress.


Lindaloo wrote:
The September 11 commission will look at the discrepancy between the testimony of Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered the threat of al Qaeda "urgent" and its final national-security report to Congress, which gave the terror organization scant mention.


Quote me where I said that! I demand that you be banned from here!! Sound familiar?
0 likes   

GalvestonDuck
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 15941
Age: 57
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)

#36 Postby GalvestonDuck » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:28 pm

DT wrote:Duck please stop posting . You are embrassing yourself....


Nah...I probably embarrassed you a bit though.

Hope your strep throat gets better.
0 likes   

User avatar
Lindaloo
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 22658
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 10:06 am
Location: Pascagoula, MS

#37 Postby Lindaloo » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:34 pm

ROFLMBO Duckie!!
0 likes   

User avatar
Corona
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 5:30 pm

#38 Postby Corona » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:31 am

DT wrote:Thank you for admitting the 911 commission is not part of congress. ...


That's right, it's not.

Now everyone should record Thursday's testimony as this will probably be the most watched proceedings on the tube since Clake was on himself. She has to do her thing before Rumsfeld (and possibly Robert Mueller) testify next week - there has to be a 'breather'. You can be sure that today and for days previous, they are scripting answers to most probable questions and developing the party line on what will be said and what won't. Remember, the guy some of you love to hate (Clarke) has already provided 15 hours of previous closed-door testimony to the Commission and they've studied the information very closely. Tim Roemer (Center for National Policy President) and Commission member has repeatedly said that Richard Clarke is very credible and the information - including notes, documents, etc. - that he provided is the baseline of their data based on facts. Clarke is not the bad guy here. The bad guys are Al Qaeda. Remember much of this is hindsight (minus the Clarke data), so the best the Commission will do is point out the communication failures (and we already know most of the big details there) and then make recommendations to fix the big issues. There will be no single smoking gun if that is what everyone is waiting for. Reforms and new processes are needed, and that will be the main result of the Commission.
0 likes   

Guest

#39 Postby Guest » Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:07 am

OF course its right. someone has to telll Lindaloo
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests