Moderator: S2k Moderators
Rainband wrote:It is an attack but consider the sourceGalvestonDuck wrote:rainstorm wrote:utterly ridiculous
Are you calling Johnathan ridiculous or a specific comment that he made? Care to elaborate so it doesn't look so much like an attack? I'd appreciate it.
It doesn't mean it's a fact lolmf_dolphin wrote:Rainband wrote:It is an attack but consider the sourceGalvestonDuck wrote:rainstorm wrote:utterly ridiculous
Are you calling Johnathan ridiculous or a specific comment that he made? Care to elaborate so it doesn't look so much like an attack? I'd appreciate it.
I wouldn't call it an attack. I think Helen is pretty clear that she thinks Johnathan's statement is "Utterly rediculous". That too is an opinion.
rainstorm wrote:Dem Intel Committee Memo Reveals Anti-Bush Plot
A memo circulated among Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence shows the committee's minority plotting to use classified information against the White House in next year's presidential campaign.
The document, obtained and disclosed by nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity Tuesday afternoon, suggests that the top priority among senior Democrats entrusted with guarding the nation's security is instead driving the Bush administration from power based on claims it exaggerated intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq.
The memo as reported by Hannity reads as follows:
"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
"1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
"For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
"2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
"In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
"The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
"In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
why do the dems want us to lose? are they traitors, or just power hungry?
rainstorm wrote:its simple. the dems are giving encouragement to the terrorists. the terrorists are using the dems to win the war.
Derek Ortt wrote:The Communists, if they use classified information, are guilty of violating federal law. That would show thier true colors as common criminals and not respected elected officials. This would not be all that surprising as anytime we try to do something to protect our national security, they begin interference and whine like 3 year old babies (those they actually let live)
Yep...Thats the politicians for ya. ALL of themstormchazer wrote:what I see...and it saddens me to consider, is a group who find it more desirable to obtain power then for our country to achieve success.
It's always been about power..the country was forgotten a long time ago. By the country..I mean "The people" 
- but I thought I'd throw in the deffinitions just in case the terminology was used hastily- without forethought to the actual deffinition of the term.
opera ghost wrote:Okay I must have missed that last turn into communists...
Someone care to elaborate? That felt like a sling at the democrats, but it was so far left field (forgive the pun) that I'm quite certain I must have just missed something.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
