1 posted on
04/30/2004 12:45:43 AM PDT by
kattracks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: kattracks
2 posted on
04/30/2004 12:47:06 AM PDT by
kattracks
To: kattracks
It's reminiscent of the first behind the door meeting between 5 of the 10 members of the Commission and Condi Rice. I guess grilling the President and VP weren't all that high up on the priority list of Kerrey and Hamilton.
3 posted on
04/30/2004 12:49:05 AM PDT by
BigSkyFreeper
(<a href="http://www.johnkerry.com/">Waffles</a>)
To: kattracks
What did Bush expect from them??
4 posted on
04/30/2004 12:50:24 AM PDT by
GeronL
("We are beyond right and wrong" the scariest words from the radical left.)
To: kattracks
As Al Sharpton would say, "If the cameras ain't on.. we be LONG GONE.
To: kattracks
This commission is a joke and Hamilton's and Kerrey's behavior proves it beyond a doubt.
6 posted on
04/30/2004 12:52:57 AM PDT by
Dane
To: kattracks
The truth of 9/11 is the last thing the Democrats want to hear. If it doesn't serve their partisan agenda, they will drop it like a hot potato. As we can see from the news account, Bob Kerrey and Lee Hamilton's concerns are more parochial than is helping to find out how best to protect America from future attack. By their conduct, they're showing the American people that the Democratic Party could care less 9/11 happened. The interest of the Democratic Commissioners, er party hacks - on the panel is in finding political ammunition to help John F*ckin's candidacy. Never before in American history have we witnessed a case in which the opposition put party before the good of the nation like in these ill-omened proceedings.
7 posted on
04/30/2004 1:04:36 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: kattracks
You'd think that after all the complaining about getting the President and Vice-President to speak, the members of the commission would at least hang around to hear what they had to say.
I don't see how this commission can make any valid conclusions if they didn't even listen to parts of the testimony presented by the most important witnesses.
10 posted on
04/30/2004 1:19:41 AM PDT by
wai-ming
To: kattracks
Well, heaven forbid if their work should get in the way of their "personal" business and other obligations. If they don't have time for the 911 commission, or they don't take it seriously they can be removed...I'm sure no one would complain.
14 posted on
04/30/2004 1:48:09 AM PDT by
highlander_UW
("Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin)
To: kattracks
When I heard President Bush say he learned a lot, I got the impression that he was asking a few questions of his own. Sounds like this lightweight panel didn't like it.
15 posted on
04/30/2004 2:07:13 AM PDT by
zygoat
To: kattracks
President Bush (like all of us, as it should be) has a deep respect for the office of the President. It's obvious, from what's been fed us by the press, that the other main party does not have that same respect. It's past time for that lack of respect to be flaunted; it's time to get "dirty". Not "dirty" as in lies or half-truths but "dirty" as in fighting back with the truth.
19 posted on
04/30/2004 2:22:11 AM PDT by
hmmmmm
To: kattracks
So blowhard Bob Kerry, faced this choice:
1) National Security
2) Raising Cold Cash
And he chose the cash over national security. That speaks volumes!
To: kattracks
The session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., without any breaks or interruptions. Herein lies the truth. Kerrey had to make wee-wee and couldn't hold it any longer. Since he could not perform for the cameras during questioning, he simply continued on after his potty run. < /sarcasm>
22 posted on
04/30/2004 2:29:32 AM PDT by
Use It Or Lose It
(JohnFKerry: A Bad Bottle of French Whine topped with a $1,000 haircut)
To: kattracks
Looking back, I'm glad the Commmission held public hearings. We were able to see the partisan peacocks preen themselves before the cameras and, this public preening only served to show the American people that this bunch is not at all serious about the charge that has been given them. Had the proceedings been kept private, we would have been tempted to take their final recommendations seriously. We also would not have learned about the Gorelick hypocrisy. Now, we can take them and their recommendations as we should...with a grain of salt. They have been totally discredited.
To: kattracks
Yep, the whole idea was to diss (disrespect) the testimony of GWBush and Dick Cheney. To imply their testimony is worthless, untruthful. A fine show by these two "thick as a brick" DemocRATS.
24 posted on
04/30/2004 2:44:31 AM PDT by
dennisw
(GD is against Amalek for all generations)
To: kattracks
The general disrepect for our government and other people can be attributed to the conduct of Clinton.
We ask our sports figures and entertainment figures to be role models for our children, yet defend a president who had the morals of an alley cat. Now we have a president who is honorable and sets a good role model and the dims are doing everything they can to bring him and our country down.
If those on the commission are the best our country has to offer as statesmen, we are truly in trouble. They are not interested in what can be done to prevent another terrorist attack. It's clear they are trying to find a smoking gun to use against the re-election of President Bush. If they can't set the tone and posture on TV, they don't want to be there.
I'm glad the hearings were televised too. We were able to see the animosity and disdain they had for anyone in the Bush administration. The Gorelik smirk, Kerrey repeatedly calling Dr. Rice Dr.Clark, and the other actions of this panel should be a part of a Bush ad to dispute the "findings" of this panel when they put the blame on this administration.
The dims will only be happy when we are attacked again so they can say we told you so.
28 posted on
04/30/2004 3:18:46 AM PDT by
PROUDAMREP
(UNITE FOR BUSH IN '04)
To: kattracks
Stick a fork in it. This commission's done.
29 posted on
04/30/2004 3:23:00 AM PDT by
mewzilla
To: kattracks
"The White House said it would be over by 11:30 a.m.," Kerrey said, adding that the meeting was for an important school project, but he refused to disclose it. Does anyone doubt that if President Bush had abruptly called an end to the meeting at 11:30 a.m., Kerry would have had his spot on the evening news, crying "cover-up" and telling how he wasn't allowed to ask all of his questions?
30 posted on
04/30/2004 3:33:17 AM PDT by
ngc6656
(There is no greater peace than sitting with your dog on a hillside on a warm spring day.)
To: kattracks
Kerrey said he thought the White House meeting would only last until 11:30 a.m., and so he'd scheduled a meeting with Domenici for a half-hour later at the CapitolYeah, I know I'd schedule an appointment for a half-hour after I was meeting with the President.
Disgraceful, disgusting behavior.
39 posted on
04/30/2004 5:04:50 AM PDT by
mombonn
To: kattracks
From a cell phone (perhaps discretely in the butler's pantry just off the Oval Office).
"Pete, this is Bob. Listen, you know I'm doing that 9/11 commission thing. Yep, really important. Glad you agree.
I've run into a little delay. The President and VP are still at it and I need to push back our lunch an hour or so.
Does that work for you? Great. I'll treat to the wings and the pitchers."
But NO - the 9/11 stuff is a sideshow.
To: kattracks
I have a different theory. I think Bush unloaded a surprise like Ashcroft did. If correct, we should see very different commission actions from this point.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson