Studds was molested by Hastart and Foley. Studds was a closet republican.
I love the fact that Yoni failed to expound upon Crane in the earlier scandal.
I agree with Gingrich that they both should have been expelled. Unfortunately there really isn't a specific law forbidding what they did, as the age of consent in DC is 16. There happens to be a law against what Foley was doing -- one he helped to write.
I believe this is just a ploy for Mr. Bob Woodward to sell books and stir controversy around the elections. Mr. Woodward being a know liberal has no arterial motives? Lets all take of the blinders. BTW Mr. Tenet was interviewed by the 9/11 commission, if it was in fact such an important issue such as a pending terrorist attack, wouldn’t you think Tenet would of brought it up during the commission? It just seems convenient. If it is in fact true than Rice / Administration has some explaining to do, on the same note it’s a dirty thing on the Dems part for not disclosing it during the 9/11 commission and try to use it as one of their playing cards for the elections…
Lets throw all of them out of office, Dems and Repubs…
Didn't he have a chance to burn the administration in the last two books he wrote about them?I believe this is just a ploy for Mr. Bob Woodward to sell books and stir controversy around the elections.That's between him and his cardiologist.Mr. Woodward being a know liberal has no arterial motives?
My arterial motive is for my heart to continue beating.
head has placed an unwarranted tap on Woodward's aorta.
So sue spell check... Forgive me for being human... Your reply still doesn't explain why this information came out now instead and not during the commission.
You'll have to take that up with Condi Rice and the Bush Administration. Don't hold you breath, cause they're a secretive bunch. They resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission in the first place.
9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting
The GOP has been corrupted by power and fear. Washington DC works much better with a split government, and to do that, some of the GOP need to be voted out.
No . Why am I supposed to answer for Condi and Tenet?
The book is out there -- they can refute what he wrote if they want to. That may be difficult to do considering Woodward's reputation, track record and access. Chances are they're having their lawyers read the book.
"during the commission."
Remember that the WH stonewalled even forming a comission for many months. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide? Why would they not want such a profound attack on America to be fully investigated?
I'm sure the WH agreed to the commission only after the it had negotiated very strict limits on what the WH would reveal, very much like Nixon claiming executive privilege to hide his incriminating audio tapes.
I'm sure the WH hid much more info, all of it damning of the WH's inaction prior to the attacks, than the WH revealed.
In fact, I'm absolutely certain the WH agreed to commission at all only after the WH had fully convinced itself that it could cover its stinking, duty-derelicting ass and shift the (relatively weak) blame elsewere.
I'm also absolutely sure that this WH's version of its "18 1/2 minute gap" (all the incriminating info they have hidden) will eventually be exposed.
The fact that the commission report went as far as it did in damning the dysfunctional Exec branch only indicates to me that there is much more to be exposed, in time.
The WH tactic in cooperating mininally with the commission was:
"We'll look sufficiently bad and honest and cooperative but blame the habitual Repug whipping boy of government bureaucracy, so the sheeple will be tricked into believing that's all there is"
Bull ing .
Woodward merely repeated a claim by Tenet...without any corroboration. I'm not clear what Woodward's reputation has to do with the veracity of Tenet's claim.
Here's the administration's chance to refute it.
Haven't they? I understand Secretary Rice denies ever having the conversation with George Tenet.
How do you prove a negative? How would she prove, to your satisfaction, that George Tenet never said what he claims -- without any corroboration -- to have said?
Well there you go. Now it's just a question of whom to believe.Haven't they? I understand Secretary Rice denies ever having the conversation with George Tenet.
Exactly. But, you can't say the Administration hasn't refuted the claim...so, why did you?
"George Tenet never said what he claims"
they were all covering their asses.
If Tenet really said that, it's on Condi, which isn't at all surprsing.
If Tenet didn't say that, then it's Medal-of-Freedom Tenet covering his own guility ass.
They are a bunch of panicked, rabid hyenas turning on themselves.
The truth will come out, some kind of Deep Throat, maybe several, will feel sickened and guilty enough to out the criminals, sooner or later.
For the time being, and forever, the verdicit for the entire bunch of WH/Exec bas s is:
Guilty of failing to protect America
Meanwhile, dubya is losing Iraq and Aghanistan.
The Repugs are an unmitigated disaster for USA and the world.
White House reputation or Woodward reputation.
I predict a landslide.
I hadn't read the Condi quote. Sue me.
Woodward is now labeled "liberal" because of this book. The last two books were decried by liberals because of the near deifying of Bush they did.
An interesting read on the situation I came across was that Woodward as the Bush court stenographer is only reflecting what is going on in the White House, which is a lot of back stabbing and people distancing themselves from the stench of failed administration.
And back to the 100 reasons thing, if one buys the both sides do it theory, there are more Republicans in Washington today than Democrats, then that means Republican corruption is greater than Democratic corruption. Throw the bums out.
Deny, deny, deny...
Oct 2, 4:15 AM EDT
Rice: No Memory of CIA Warning of Attack
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Diplomatic Writer
APSHANNON, Ireland (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
"What I am quite certain of is that I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said.
Rice was President Bush's national security adviser in 2001, when Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" outlines a July 10 meeting among Rice, Tenet and the CIA's top counterterror officer.
"I don't know that this meeting took place, but what I really don't know, what I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told there was an impending attack and I refused to respond,"Rice said.
'Hair on fire'
MSNBCClarke said that “on June 21, I believe it was, George Tenet called me and said, 'I don't think we're getting the message through. These people aren't acting the way the Clinton people did under similar cir stances.' And I suggested to Tenet that he come down and personally brief Condi Rice, that he bring his terrorism team with him.
“And we sat in the national security adviser's office. And I've used the phrase in the book to describe George Tenet's warnings as ‘He had his hair on fire.’ He was about as excited as I'd ever seen him.
“And he said, ‘Something is going to happen.’”
That smacks of corroboration.
And Bill Clinton worked hard at killing UBL, but FAILED!
And boutons loves UBL because he thinks it makes
the Shrub look bad. So what's new.
"I refused to respond"
She's lying.
A "brush off", implicilty showing little no interest or concern, or a "thank you for your input" is NOT the same as explicitly REFUSING TO RESPOND. The lying .
As NSA director for the 8 months before 9/11, she was one of the principals of the Exec branch that refused to take terrorism and al Qaida seriously.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
