Skip to comments.
(DemoRat) Senators Push for Rice Testimony
Foxnews.com ^
| March 30, 2004
| Sharon Kehnemui
Posted on 03/30/2004 5:26:04 AM PST by LavaDog
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911commission; condoleezzarice; dontappeasethedems; schumer; tedkennedy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
1
posted on
03/30/2004 5:26:05 AM PST
by
LavaDog
To: LavaDog; StriperSniper; Mo1; Peach; Quilla
NO WAY!!!!
2
posted on
03/30/2004 5:27:17 AM PST
by
OXENinFLA
To: Howlin; Dog
Looks like there's going to be some skulduggery in the Senate today.
3
posted on
03/30/2004 5:28:27 AM PST
by
OXENinFLA
To: LavaDog
They already have 4 hours of her testimony plus several more hours of rebuttal against Clarke that's been published.
This is all about them tearing down our national security apparatus in the middle of a war!
To: LavaDog
Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts say the amendment to the bill will be a resolution urging Rice to tell the world what she knows. The world would be such a better place if these two useless idiots were tossed back to civilian life.
5
posted on
03/30/2004 5:30:42 AM PST
by
Glenn
(The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
To: LavaDog
""There is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress," she told "60 Minutes" on Sunday night."
Can anyone count the number of underhanded machinations the democrats have used the past four years to subvert this Administration? From the dubious "super majority" proclaimed by Daschle to block judicial appointments, to this breaking with longstanding tradition, the democrats have trampled over the executive branch.
What makes them think that if they win, the same tactics will not be used against them?
Paybacks are hell.
6
posted on
03/30/2004 5:31:15 AM PST
by
OpusatFR
(Sure they want to tone down the rhetoric. We are winning.)
To: LavaDog; Howlin; Miss Marple; jmstein7
"They talked to her, they talked to her for four hours. They know what she has to say, they know her answers," Barnes said. "So what do they need to have her come and testify in public for? Just so they can preen and look good." Absolutely she should NOT testify publicly. This is just a chance for the RATS on the commission to attempt to embarrass her, try to trip her up, and get her to inadvertently release classified information!
I have no doubt whatsoever that Senators like Rockefeller on the Senate Intel Committee are feeding classified information to selected members of the commission for use in these hearings. Does anyone else doubt it? The RATS are treasonous at heart, NOTHING would be beyond them.
7
posted on
03/30/2004 5:31:41 AM PST
by
Judith Anne
(Is life a paradox? Well, yes and no...)
To: LavaDog
So Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy is demanding that Condi Rice testify under oath? Well, based on Kennedy's own previous testimony under oath, he must be kidding.
8
posted on
03/30/2004 5:32:07 AM PST
by
TommyDale
To: LavaDog
Whoops, I thought the Toon was to testify also. Will they demand the same from him?
Probably not. Hypocrisy are Us.
Blessings, Bobo
9
posted on
03/30/2004 5:32:09 AM PST
by
bobo1
To: Semper Paratus
This is about politicizing 9/11. Something that the Rats accused Bush of doing.
10
posted on
03/30/2004 5:32:34 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: LavaDog
11
posted on
03/30/2004 5:32:54 AM PST
by
Redcoat LI
("help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
To: LavaDog
This is the biggest conern to senators Schumer and Teddie since the burning of a cross in Mississippi.
12
posted on
03/30/2004 5:33:08 AM PST
by
lonestar
(Me, too!--Weinie)
To: Semper Paratus
Ahh yes the the Democrats of the Senate...the "San Hedrin" wing, wish to granstand and to cast aspersions on a Black Christian woman...well maybe she should accomidate them and go Nuclear ala Thomas...revealing every last juicy detail...of how they spent years trying to clean up the Clinton mess!
13
posted on
03/30/2004 5:35:00 AM PST
by
mdmathis6
(The Democrats must be defeated in 2004...." MDMATHIS6, The Anti-Democrat")
To: LavaDog
Hope she spits in their face!!!!!
14
posted on
03/30/2004 5:35:26 AM PST
by
shiva
To: Glenn
Amend their amendment... make it a non-binding "Sense of the Senate" type action. Just words... which is all these two cretins are good for anyway... Yada, Yada, Yada
To: LavaDog
get back in the oldsmobile ted.
16
posted on
03/30/2004 5:35:58 AM PST
by
glock rocks
(hey, I bought the donuts last time.)
To: Semper Paratus
This is all about them tearing down our national security apparatus in the middle of a war! You mean like Novak not releasing his source about Valerie Plame?
To: LavaDog
Gee, I sure hope one of the rat senators walks to her and hands her a piece of paper. It met Hillary's definition of assault when Lazio did it. I wonder if the same standard applies to Rice?
18
posted on
03/30/2004 5:36:32 AM PST
by
blackdog
(I feed the sheep the coyotes eat)
To: TommyDale
You are very correct. The problem is, Fat Ted lied years ago and got away with it. It should have been a manslaughter charge at the least.
How this worthless pissant can stand in judgement of anyone or anything proves that he has no conscience or morals. He is the type of material that the Lib's idolize. They have no moral compass.
Blessings, Bobo
19
posted on
03/30/2004 5:37:49 AM PST
by
bobo1
To: Judith Anne
I have no doubt whatsoever that Senators like Rockefeller on the Senate Intel Committee are feeding classified information to selected members of the commission for use in these hearings. Does anyone else doubt it? The RATS are treasonous at heart, NOTHING would be beyond them. I can't help it. I'm repeating myself. I may do it again.
20
posted on
03/30/2004 5:38:30 AM PST
by
Judith Anne
(Is life a paradox? Well, yes and no...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson