Sarge Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Slooooooooooooooooooooowly the Dems get around to impeachment. They just can't help themselves http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-25T173912Z_01_N25187282_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-CONGRESS-RICE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee directed Rice to appear before the panel next month. Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms. "There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat. "The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Who didn't think this crap wasn't going to happen if the Dems got control? Especially with Waxman involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 Who didn't think this crap wasn't going to happen if the Dems got control? Especially with Waxman involved? It's just so funny how they're trying to be all sneaky about it, taking the long way around. THey don't have the balls to just come out and do anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It's just so funny how they're trying to be all sneaky about it, taking the long way around. hehe it's cute how starting an investigation is now the "long way around" :laugh: Cannot wait till these defeatocrats get some balls and waterboard Rove for information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 So, the current administration should not be held accountable for apparently lying to everyone in this country? Should we all just forget that we were lied to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 25, 2007 Author Share Posted April 25, 2007 So, the current administration should not be held accountable for apparently lying to everyone in this country? Should we all just forget that we were lied to? I don't know. ASk all the Dmes that voted for it using the same intel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I don't know. ASk all the Dmes that voted for it using the same intel If the President doesn't have more detailed and better intell than hundreds of Dems on the Hill. Then why do we need him? Even the VP said they have more info than the Hill and 9/11 Commish. You can have it both ways, but somehow you're still always wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Hmm. We got into a stupid war that has cost us thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars. Everyone pretty much agrees that our stated basis for going in was wrong, due to mistaken or falsified intelligence (take your pick depending on your political persuasion). Yet somehow, Congress should not try to figure out exactly how this total f*ckup happened and how to try not to have it happen again, because ummm... the Democrats are bad? Sure, ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 They should investigate the angle of her dangle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 She should tell them to hold their breath and wait for her. Have they subpoened Sandy Berger to find out what he stole yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Mark it! It only took 10 posts for Kilmer to come in and try to sidetrack another thread. How many times have you used THIS exact thing to sidetrack others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 About as often as some lefty claims the Dems are only trying to "get to the bottom of things". This is nothing more than a politcal stunt. We all know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Mark it!It only took 10 posts for Kilmer to come in and try to sidetrack another thread. How many times have you used THIS exact thing to sidetrack others? No, no Bufford. You have it all wrong. Kilmer usually uses the "I'm still waiting for the Democrats to pass any legislation" angle. You see, the method is the same, but the means is slightly different. Capiche? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 About as often as some lefty claims the Dems are only trying to "get to the bottom of things".This is nothing more than a politcal stunt. We all know it. Exactly...she's already testified under oath and been asked these questions as well as in interviews. There is nothing new to learn here. This is a policitical stunt pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 No, no Bufford. You have it all wrong.Kilmer usually uses the "I'm still waiting for the Democrats to pass any legislation" angle. You see, the method is the same, but the means is slightly different. Capiche? It would be funny if it wasnt so absolutely true. On both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Exactly...she's already testified under oath and been asked these questions as well as in interviews. There is nothing new to learn here. This is a policitical stunt pure and simple. Maybe she'll tell the truth this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Maybe she'll tell the truth this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Exactly...she's already testified under oath and been asked these questions as well as in interviews. There is nothing new to learn here. This is a policitical stunt pure and simple. When was that? There has been a lot of new information lately coming out about how Doug Feith cooked (or at least filtered) the CIA and State intelligence after Cheney and Rummy made sure it all got passed through Feith's office in the DoD before going to the White House. I for one would like to hear more about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAgent Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 If that were Clinton would he be impeached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 When was that? There has been a lot of new information lately coming out about how Doug Feith cooked (or at least filtered) the CIA and State intelligence after Cheney and Rummy made sure it all got passed through Feith's office in the DoD before going to the White House. I for one would like to hear more about that. During her confirmation hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Maybe she'll tell the truth this time. You can't handle the truth Seriously though, are they after the truth?..If so I applaud them. But based on years of watching politicians I doubt the truth is the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Looks like they are giving immunity to the Aide to The A.G., so we'll see what happens 1st with that. The White House has been pretty loud in its support for the A.G.. But, will that change if somebody from that office gets up there again, and disputes everything that was said last week? Then with the Condi thing, will they make her relive the whole Mushroom Cloud talk? Meanwhile, as crazy as it sounds. That crazy ass Dept. Prime Minister of Iraq was saying in 02 that they didn't have the WMD, and Condi was on TV calling them liars. A few years later, the President is making funny little movies of himself looking for WMD under tables and desks......and a lot of people died because of all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 They need to go after the NSA wiretapping and mail-opening fiascos. I think they'd get a lot more bipartisan support there. Especially considering the fact that the president's #1 job is to protect and defend the Constitution, and he's blatantly circumvented it with two major programs. Going after Iraq just proves the dems care about scoring political points, and not protecting the American people. Iraq, whether you agree with it or not, is a non-starter, IMO. Bush got congressional approval for that action; unlike Clinton's skirting of congress for that 90-day mission to Bosnia that we're STILL on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.