[dcolton]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html

[Zimphire]

Well there goes the "Why isn't rice testifying huh!?!?!one11!! people.

[Lerkfish]

[quote]the cnn story gives a different impression

of note:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is pursuing a compromise under which national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would testify privately for a second time before the 9/11 investigative commission, with the bulk of her remarks made public in the panel's final report, administration sources said Monday.

However, the compromise would stop short of having Rice testify in public, which the White House has refused to allow on the grounds of executive privilege.

She would also not be placed under oath, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

White House lawyers and officials have had several conversations with the commission, but, as of late Monday, no agreement had been reached, according to two sources. Earlier in the day, a commission official said the panel was still hopeful that the White House would relent and allow public testimony from Rice.

The compromise under discussion would shield the release of any sensitive intelligence information from Rice's testimony, with the White House having the final say, sources said.

so, we're back where we were, right?

What kind of compromise is that?

However, since what fox is reporting is 180 degrees opposite of what CNN is reporting, I'll wait and see what officially happens.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well there goes the "Why isn't rice testifying huh!?!?!one11!! people.

um, no. Read my post below yours. Nothing is changing, if CNN is correct.

[Logic]

So the government surrendered to the masses that wanted her to testify. Good for them.

But I found this more interesting:

The White House has also offered to the commission to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath.

This seems suspect to me. Why don't they testify under oath? What could be the reason for that?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
So the government surrendered to the masses that wanted her to testify. Good for them.

But I found this more interesting:



This seems suspect to me. Why don't they testify under oath? What could be the reason for that?

It's been discussed at length in the other thread. The reason is executive privilege and the separation of powers.

Anyway, this is basically what I predicted. The executive will testify, but on terms that are more constitutionally appropriate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Logic:
So the government surrendered to the masses that wanted her to testify. Good for them.

But I found this more interesting:



This seems suspect to me. Why don't they testify under oath? What could be the reason for that?

Because they don't want to face perjury charges. If you testify under oath and you lie, you could face actual charges for your crimes. If you just come on morning news shows and you lie, you don't face charges.

Otherwise, I don't see the advantage of avoiding testifying under oath. If she didn't want to answer a specific question, she could claim "executive privelege" or "national security"

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's been discussed at length in the other thread. The reason is executive privilege and the separation of powers.

Anyway, this is basically what I predicted. The executive will testify, but on terms that are more constitutionally appropriate.

but its not a compromise as they claim.


its essentially what has already happened, called a "compromise" to give a positive PR spin for the heat Bush is getting over it.

Politics as usual.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
so, we're back where we were, right?

What kind of compromise is that?

However, since what fox is reporting is 180 degrees opposite of what CNN is reporting, I'll wait and see what officially happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html

As usual, a liberal is providing false information. CNN has the story as well and they had it prior to Fox. Why do you do this Lerk? Be honest and truthful and you might garner a little more respect. And perhaps a little credibility

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html

As usual, a liberal is providing false information. CNN has the story as well and they had it prior to Fox. Why do you do this Lerk? Be honest and truthful and you might garner a little more respect. And perhaps a little credibility

Don't ask the impossible.

The New York Times has a story about Clarke's collegue that pretty much chops his legs out from under him. I will endeavor to locate the article but if someone else would prefer to post it. I heard it was on section A18?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html

As usual, a liberal is providing false information. CNN has the story as well and they had it prior to Fox. Why do you do this Lerk? Be honest and truthful and you might garner a little more respect. And perhaps a little credibility

Actually, Fox is now saying that she will testify under oath. I'm surprised. However, they say something about an agreement that being under oath will not set a precedent for future presidential staffers.

There is obviously a lot of negotiating going on behind the scenes. Probably best to hold off until the deal is hammered out.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html

As usual, a liberal is providing false information. CNN has the story as well and they had it prior to Fox. Why do you do this Lerk? Be honest and truthful and you might garner a little more respect. And perhaps a little credibility

um...no.

What I copied and pasted is precisely what the article said this morning. They've updated the story to reflect new information. Its called an "add". A single news story can be "added" as many as 20 times or more throughout the day if its a breaking story.
What happens is editors (in this case web editors) put out the story with the information they have at the time in order to get it out there. Then, if they get new or different information, they update the story with that new or different information.
This is a lot more prevalent on the web or on tv than print.

I could go into explaining deadline cycles and all that, but its rather boring.

I did not lie, the story was updated. In the future, before you attack me personally, at least try to know what the hell you're talking about, it would really increase your credibility.

If you'll reread my posts, you'll see I was already aware of the discrepancy between the fox report and the CNN report and advised a "wait and see" approach until we hear something official. This is how the news business works. When there are conflicting reports on the same story early on in its cycle, if you wait long enough the real info will get hammered out.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...no.

What I copied and pasted is precisely what the article said this morning. They've updated the story to reflect new information. Its called an "add". A single news story can be "added" as many as 20 times or more throughout the day if its a breaking story.
What happens is editors (in this case web editors) put out the story with the information they have at the time in order to get it out there. Then, if they get new or different information, they update the story with that new or different information.
This is a lot more prevalent on the web or on tv than print.

I could go into explaining deadline cycles and all that, but its rather boring.

I did not lie, the story was updated. In the future, before you attack me personally, at least try to know what the hell you're talking about, it would really increase your credibility.

If you'll reread my posts, you'll see I was already aware of the discrepancy between the fox report and the CNN report and advised a "wait and see" approach until we hear something official. This is how the news business works. When there are conflicting reports on the same story early on in its cycle, if you wait long enough the real info will get hammered out.

You did lie...There was a big flashing banner on top of that news story, on the front page. BREAKING NEWS. And as I mentioned...CNN had the story BEFORE Fox!

And your arrogance defines your ignorance. Online, stories are updated as needed, especially with big stories. Hell, even on TV, a story will be added to a segment if it is news of significance. Don't try to act like you know much about the media and don't try to pull your "smarther than everyone" attitude on this one. You were caught being dishonest and hoped no one would catch it.

Typical.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You did lie...There was a big flashing banner on top of that news story, on the front page. BREAKING NEWS. And as I mentioned...CNN had the story BEFORE Fox!

And your arrogance defines your ignorance. Online, stories are updated as needed, especially with big stories. Hell, even on TV, a story will be added to a segment if it is news of significance. Don't try to act like you know much about the media and don't try to pull your "smarther than everyone" attitude on this one. You were caught being dishonest and hoped no one would catch it.

Typical.

reported.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You did lie...There was a big flashing banner on top of that news story, on the front page. BREAKING NEWS. And as I mentioned...CNN had the story BEFORE Fox!

And your arrogance defines your ignorance. Online, stories are updated as needed, especially with big stories. Hell, even on TV, a story will be added to a segment if it is news of significance. Don't try to act like you know much about the media and don't try to pull your "smarther than everyone" attitude on this one. You were caught being dishonest and hoped no one would catch it.

Typical.

D:

You busted him good.
I wonder how fast they will all backpeddle after all is said?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


reported.

I expected nothing less.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I expected nothing less.

What did he report you for? Oh, making him look bad, and taking him to issue on credibility. It's a good thing.

[Demonhood]

if none of you can debate in a civil manner, you'll all be banished to the south pole.

i remind you, that ISN'T the one with Santa Claus.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You did lie...There was a big flashing banner on top of that news story, on the front page. BREAKING NEWS. And as I mentioned...CNN had the story BEFORE Fox!

And your arrogance defines your ignorance. Online, stories are updated as needed, especially with big stories. Hell, even on TV, a story will be added to a segment if it is news of significance. Don't try to act like you know much about the media and don't try to pull your "smarther than everyone" attitude on this one. You were caught being dishonest and hoped no one would catch it.

Typical.

I don't think he was being dishonest. He just knee-jerked.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't think he was being dishonest. He just knee-jerked.

He said in the third post in this thread:

posted by Lerk:
I'll wait and see what officially happens.

How the **** you spin that into "knee-jerking" is beyond belief.

I think you just saw somebody disagreeing with Lerkfish and knee-jerked without bothering to read what was actually going on.

Props, though, for recognizing that Lerk wasn't being dishonest.

-s*

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He said in the third post in this thread:
How the **** you spin that into "knee-jerking" is beyond belief.

I think you just saw somebody disagreeing with Lerkfish and knee-jerked without bothering to read what was actually going on.

Props, though, for recognizing that Lerk wasn't being dishonest.

-s*

um, no. Read my post below yours. Nothing is changing, if CNN is correct.

[BRussell]

Wow, what a surprise, she's going to testify after all. No one wold have guessed it.

And there is no separation of powers issue - this isn't a congressional committee. There aren't any members of congress on the committee.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And there is no separation of powers issue - this isn't a congressional committee. There aren't any members of congress on the committee.

No, it's created by congressional statute. That's why it has subpoena powers, and the power to put people under oath. But as a creature of Congress it still falls under Article I and therefore cannot invade Article II's constitutional authority. Beside which, executive privilege would apply against any entity, no matter where you place it in the Constitution.

Here is the Commission's web site.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well there goes the "Why isn't rice testifying huh!?!?!one11!! people.

who gives a fu<k?! - she's going to lie anyway...

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's created by congressional statute. That's why it has subpoena powers, and the power to put people under oath. But as a creature of Congress it still falls under Article I and therefore cannot invade Article II's constitutional authority. Beside which, executive privilege would apply against any entity, no matter where you place it in the Constitution.

Here is the Commission's web site.

<obvious cheerleading>You are the man!</obvious cheerleading>

The left are masters of semantics in order to twish and wiggle their way around any issue. When you present them with the facts, they just nip and pick out a sentence here or there, in order to snipe and ankle-bite. It's rather amusing. It is also rather a sad and pathetic display of futility.

<munch>Popcorn anyone?</munch>

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
who gives a fu<k?! - she's going to lie anyway...

More <yawn> intelligent commentary from the left. Does it bother you that your side is nothing but a bunch of ankle-biting wannabees? Your team is really in trouble.

Clarke has zero credibility with all his contradictions, and now that Rice is going to testify again, she is going to drive him into the ground like a spike.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's created by congressional statute. That's why it has subpoena powers, and the power to put people under oath. But as a creature of Congress it still falls under Article I and therefore cannot invade Article II's constitutional authority. Beside which, executive privilege would apply against any entity, no matter where you place it in the Constitution.

Here is the Commission's web site.

Right their argument seems to be that advisors should be private so they can give candid advice, which is an executive privilege argument, not a separation of powers argument. I don't buy the separation of powers argument - sure, it was created by congress, but the president signed the legislation to create it, and it's not in front of members of congress. Is there any precedent for that kind of argument in this type of situation?

I think it's funny that they're saying in a letter that she'll testify but it shouldn't set a precedent. Haha.

BTW, I can't get into that web site with safari - anyone else having problems accessing it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

BRussell: follow this link to the statute that established the commission. Look at section 601 of the Act.

There is established in the legislative branch the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (in this title referred to as the "Commission").

QE ****ing D.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Right their argument seems to be that advisors should be private so they can give candid advice, which is an executive privilege argument, not a separation of powers argument. I don't buy the separation of powers argument - sure, it was created by congress, but the president signed the legislation to create it, and it's not in front of members of congress. Is there any precedent for that kind of argument in this type of situation?

I think it's funny that they're saying in a letter that she'll testify but it shouldn't set a precedent. Haha.

BTW, I can't get into that web site with safari - anyone else having problems accessing it?

I think it is funny that the left-wing ding-a-lings have nothing to stand on.
Clarke is going to have his legs cut out from under him, he's got zero credibility, and
Kerry is going to be handed a record loss in election history!

That's funny.

Oh, and I have no problems getting in with Safari.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
More <yawn> intelligent commentary from the left. Does it bother you that your side is nothing but a bunch of ankle-biting wannabees? Your team is really in trouble.

i doubt it. and the "only wanna-bes" i see in politics are the one's who are trying to push the neonazicon agenda, behind a (self)righteous war against terrorism.

too bad the rest of the world isn't falling for the scam.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

Clarke has zero credibility with all his contradictions, and now that Rice is going to testify again, she is going to drive him into the ground like a spike.

all she is going to do is lie about how "she never knew anything was going to happen on 9/11", "nobody had any idea" blah blah blah.

in the end clarke is going to sell his book. bush is going to lose the next election. and the neocons will continue to dream of a fourth reich...

next

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You were caught being dishonest and hoped no one would catch it.
Typical.

White House U-Turn on 9/11 Inquiry

So, lerk was not being dishonest. The White House decided to change their minds about Rice testifying on oath.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
White House U-Turn on 9/11 Inquiry

So, lerk was not being dishonest. The White House decided to change their minds about Rice testifying on oath.

It doesn't matter what you tell them.

I provided the link, and copied and pasted the type directly from the link, the only change I made was bolding those lines I found interesting.

When the story changed later in the day when they checked the link, they called me a liar.

But it would make no sense for me to fabricate something, and then provide the actual link to the original source......sometimes people can't think past their noses.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
.....sometimes people can't think past their noses.

Agreed.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
QE ****ing D.

I think I've seen that carved into ancient Roman architecture.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:

Thanks, so I didn't have to.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
who gives a fu<k?! - she's going to lie anyway...

Did your crystal ball tell you that?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
who gives a fu<k?! - she's going to lie anyway...

Nah. She'll tell the truth. The Bush admin is just so honest that they don't need to testify under oath. It's not like they've ever mislead anyone before ...

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Nah. She'll tell the truth.

Glad to see you are coming around.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Nah. She'll tell the truth. The Bush admin is just so honest that they don't need to testify under oath. It's not like they've ever mislead anyone before ...

It's not like the Dems wont call her a liar if she tells the truth or not...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's not like the Dems wont call her a liar if she tells the truth or not...

it's not like anyhting's going to happen to her whether she tells the truth or not...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It doesn't matter what you tell them.

I provided the link, and copied and pasted the type directly from the link, the only change I made was bolding those lines I found interesting.

When the story changed later in the day when they checked the link, they called me a liar.

But it would make no sense for me to fabricate something, and then provide the actual link to the original source......sometimes people can't think past their noses.

My post
Posted on : 03-30-2004 03:25 PM

Lerks post
Posted on : 03-30-2004 03:32 PM __

7 minute difference. I checked CNN's site, saw the story then proceeded to get the unbiased version from FOX. (This was prior to 3:25 - prior to the post)
When I noticed the response from Lerk, I posted the CNN story as well.
Posted on: 03-30-2004 03:50 PM

There was no later in the day. The story was there. But as you say...sometimes people can't think past their noses...especially when they continually grow

You ready to quit the attacks...or are you just going to attack then run to the mods when someone stands up for themselves?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
My post
Posted on : 03-30-2004 03:25 PM

Lerks post
Posted on : 03-30-2004 03:32 PM __

7 minute difference. I checked CNN's site, saw the story then proceeded to get the unbiased version from FOX. (This was prior to 3:25 - prior to the post)
When I noticed the response from Lerk, I posted the CNN story as well.
Posted on: 03-30-2004 03:50 PM

There was no later in the day. The story was there. But as you say...sometimes people can't think past their noses...especially when they continually grow

You ready to quit the attacks...or are you just going to attack then run to the mods when someone stands up for themselves?

Someone has a bloody nose.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's not like the Dems wont call her a liar if she tells the truth or not...

I suppose that depends on which 'truth' she tells. However, yes, anything short of admitting that the Bush admin has been lying since day one will be labeled as a lie. But, that is the job of the opposition, is it not? I certainly hope that you're not going to try and tell me that Republicans would do any different?

Of course, it doesn't help that there isn't anything compelling her to tell the truth.

[ghost_flash]

Pluuuuhhheeeeeeas.

[christ]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I ... proceeded to get the unbiased version from FOX...

Tee hee

[finboy]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
she's going to lie anyway.

You're right, of course. Lying to Congress is such an effective method of planning for one's future -- it reduces uncertainty, at least.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I suppose that depends on which 'truth' she tells. However, yes, anything short of admitting that the Bush admin has been lying since day one will be labeled as a lie. But, that is the job of the opposition, is it not? I certainly hope that you're not going to try and tell me that Republicans would do any different?

Of course, it doesn't help that there isn't anything compelling her to tell the truth.

I somewhat agree with you,but the fact is, the Clinton administration should be under as much if not more scrutiny than the Bush camp. What about the USS Cole? Clinton let a group attack the US Military. That is an act of war. And his approach to resolve the issue was zero. He had many opportunities to rid the world of Osama and even he launched missles on Iraq. The problem is that he NEVER finished the job. The end result, 9/11. And today we are debating whether or not it was the Bush administrations fault. Ridiculous! Yes, it is political, but I believe the republicans, if the situation were reversed would support the President and pick better battles that doesn't air our dirty laundry publicaly on an international level.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by finboy:
You're right, of course. Lying to Congress is such an effective method of planning for one's future -- it reduces uncertainty, at least.

Lying to Congress? Didn't someone say earlier nobody in Congress is on this panel?
Whatever.

Clarke is the Dirty Rotten Liar here.
Make Clinton testify. Bush is.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
You're right, of course. Lying to Congress is such an effective method of planning for one's future -- it reduces uncertainty, at least.

And personal housing costs.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And personal housing costs.

Only when under oath.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Only when under oath.

We'll put your post down to the time zone difference. link