Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

New Source and new congressman
1 posted on 09/20/2005 9:08:32 PM PDT by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
To: bobsunshine
Let the sunshine,
Let the sunshine in.
The sun, shine in!
2 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:07 PM PDT by philman_36 (Remember Alberto Sepulveda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
YIKES!! Dr. Eileen sounds very interesting!!

I couldn't be more disappointed than I am at Rumsfeld....I can't figure this out.

3 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:12 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
I beginning this could get w's good billy boob in serious trouble if everybody is trying to piss on it.
4 posted on 09/20/2005 9:19:51 PM PDT by dts32041 ( Robin Hood, stealing from the government and giving back to tax payer. Where is he today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
I've covered this in more detail on another thread. It is both a criminal act and a civil wrong for anyone to interfere with a government employee's honest testimony before a congressional committee. The only exception is that the President is immune from the civil suit.

I know this for sure, because I represented Earnest Fitzgerald against Richard Nixon in the US Supreme Court on this precise issue.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Kathleen Blanco: Beyond Gross Public Dumb"

6 posted on 09/20/2005 9:45:50 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (This Freeper was linked for the 2nd time by Rush Limbaugh today (9/13/05). Hoohah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

Everyone up to Rumsfeld himself must be dragged in to answer for this. If Rummy won't permit their testimony, he should be removed from office.


7 posted on 09/20/2005 9:48:24 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

How far will Bush go to protect the Clintons? We are about to find out.


8 posted on 09/20/2005 9:50:51 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

After all the things Bill Clinton said about the President this past week, Bush's administration STILL is going to incredible lengths to protect Clinton's administration. Unbelievable. The worst part is that this is at the sacrifice of our national security.


13 posted on 09/20/2005 11:10:16 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

More information is great, but Hurricane Rita will dominate the news. If all of this drips out in a quieter time it is more likely to get the attention in deserves.


15 posted on 09/21/2005 12:31:32 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
My read of this is that Rumsfield is moving to force Specter to issue subpoenas and go behind closed doors. This is top secret stuff and needs to stay that way. More important than hanging Clintoon and Gore lick. Maybe there will surface a way to do all.
16 posted on 09/21/2005 12:39:45 AM PDT by mercy (THY Kingdom come. THY will be done. On earth .... as it is in heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
Members of the now disbanded commission and the Pentagon have dismissed Weldon's claim as bogus, saying that no confirmation could be found despite a massive search of Pentagon files and numerous interviews with military intelligence officials.

"Bluntly, it just did not happen," said commissioner Slade Gorton, a former senator from Washington State, at a press conference here last week.

Well then.... the 9/11 Commission says there's nothing to all this silly "Able Danger" stuff, nothing at all.
And after all, they should know. They investigated the terror attacks thoroughly and in an objective, non-partisan manner.
Jamie Gorelick and Company left no stone unturned.

17 posted on 09/21/2005 12:56:24 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
Mr. Specter said ... ....

"There are quite a few credible people who are prepared to testify that Mohamed Atta was identified long before 9/11," he said. "Now maybe there's more than one Mohamed Atta. Or maybe there's some mistake. But that's what we're trying to find out."

What a very curious thing to say "... more than one ..." -- by someone who always chooses his words and phrases so very carefully, especially when he lies. And no, I don't trust Domocrat/Republican Specter as far as I could throw him.

19 posted on 09/21/2005 4:02:15 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
Just speculation here, but if Rummy ordered them not to testify, I have to think he knew the media would be all over this story now, demanding answers.

Could this be the way he is getting the media to jump on the story???

38 posted on 09/21/2005 5:38:19 AM PDT by mware (Keeper of the I's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

bttt


43 posted on 09/21/2005 6:40:09 AM PDT by Guenevere (God bless our military!...and God bless the President of the United States!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

Shays ain't worth a pitcher of warm pee... he was one of the few Congressmen who went to the Ford Building to see the Broaddrick rape testimony on Bubba. After reading it, he cried... and promptly voted NOT to impeach.


44 posted on 09/21/2005 6:43:34 AM PDT by johnny7 (“I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean sh_t.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
Maybe it's stategery on Rumsfeld's part.

If the Bush Administration stops a witness then the media will be interested. Sucker them in, get plenty of coverage on the evil Bush plot and then have the Pentagon backtrack allowing the witness to testify.

I can dream. lol
47 posted on 09/21/2005 6:46:24 AM PDT by Republican Red (''Van der Sloot" is Dutch for ''Kennedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine
May - June 2000 data was deleted. The data was deleted based on the regulations that require all data be destroyed within 90 days. An Army regulation.

My experience is that this would apply to any program that has been terminated. Waivers are possible but not automatic. So the real destroyer of the data is the person who killed the program. That triggers the regulation that ends up destroying the data. The key here is not who ordered the destruction (some Army lawyer) but who ordered the program killed.

Do we know who killed the program?

145 posted on 09/21/2005 8:03:52 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

bttt


185 posted on 09/21/2005 8:17:36 AM PDT by TEXOKIE (Wear Red on Fridays to support the troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

FBI agent, Gary Bald, is basically saying: Don't look at what we did then, see what we are doing now.


195 posted on 09/21/2005 8:22:04 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bobsunshine

This is beginning to stink to high heaven.


222 posted on 09/21/2005 8:31:58 AM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

*


241 posted on 09/21/2005 8:35:47 AM PDT by The Mayor ( Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends on you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson