Senate Doors Closed [Archive]

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 03:39 PM

Rule 21 Invoked by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid; Dems Seek to Investigate Pre-War Intelligence, Libby Indictment; Frist: 'The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership'...

Democrats Force Closed Meeting on Iraq

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that led to the Iraq war and deriding a lack of congressional inquiry.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over intelligence that President Bush cited in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons _ the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/01/D8DJSVUO0.html

dissention

11-01-2005, 04:04 PM

'The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership'...

It's about f*cking time.

Jyqm

11-01-2005, 04:09 PM

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Coincidentally, the Republican leadership doesn't have any convictions, either, but we're hoping to change that soon. First up: DeLay and Libby...

Seriously, though, the gall of this Republican party to deride others for not having principles. I'd love to know what exactly this party stands for besides deceit, corruption, and staying in power at any cost.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making "some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak."

Incredible the way they try to downplay the importance of this investigation.

"Who's that negro fella over there on the mall?"
"Oh, him? Oh, that's just Martin Luther King, making some sort of stink about civil rights..."

Nixxxed

11-01-2005, 04:13 PM

They just showed a Frist clip where he said it was nothing but a Dem "scare tactic". :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 04:18 PM

Coincidentally, the Republican leadership doesn't have any convictions, either, but we're hoping to change that soon. First up: DeLay and Libby...

Seriously, though, the gall of this Republican party to deride others for not having principles. I'd love to know what exactly this party stands for besides deceit, corruption, and staying in power at any cost.

Well I know I said I was going to stay away from politics for a while. But...This it will take some time...:lol:

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 04:21 PM

Well I know I said I was going to stay away from politics for a while. But...This it will take some time...:lol:

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

LOL - exactly which D's have been indicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.

"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54572-2004Nov16?language=printer

dissention

11-01-2005, 04:22 PM

dissention

11-01-2005, 04:23 PM

LOL - exactly which D's have been indicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01

Ack, you beat me to it.

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 04:24 PM

LOL - exactly which D's have been idicted lately and refused to step down?

On the other habd, the R's pushed to change the rules for Delay for that very purpose - to wit:

GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004; Page A01

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

House GOP leaders and aides said many rank-and-file Republicans are eager to change the rule to help DeLay, and will do so if given a chance at today's closed meeting. A handful of them have proposed language for changing the rule, and they will be free to offer amendments, officials said. Some aides said it was conceivable that DeLay and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) ultimately could decide the move would be politically damaging and ask their caucus not to do it. But Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), another member of the GOP leadership, said he did not think Hastert and DeLay would intervene.

House Republicans adopted the indictment rule in 1993, when they were trying to end four decades of Democratic control of the House, in part by highlighting Democrats' ethical lapses. They said at the time that they held themselves to higher standards than prominent Democrats such as then-Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.), who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to prison.

The GOP rule drew little notice until this fall, when DeLay's associates were indicted and Republican lawmakers began to worry that their majority leader might be forced to step aside if the grand jury targeted him next. Democrats and watchdog groups blasted the Republicans' proposal last night.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last night: "If they make this rules change, Republicans will confirm yet again that they simply do not care if their leaders are ethical. If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing."

House Republicans recognize that DeLay fought fiercely to widen their majority, and they are eager to protect him from an Austin-based investigation they view as baseless and partisan, said Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), the GOP's chief deputy whip.

"That's why this [proposed rule change] is going to pass, assuming it's submitted, because there is a tremendous recognition that Tom DeLay led on the issue to produce five more seats" for the Republicans, Cantor said after emerging from a meeting in which the Republican Conference welcomed new members and reelected Hastert and DeLay as its top leaders.

Other Republicans agreed the conference is likely to change the rule if given the chance. An indictment is simply an unproven allegation that should not require a party leader to step aside, said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), a former trial judge, said it makes sense to differentiate between federal and state indictments in shaping party rules because state grand juries often are led by partisan, elected prosecutors who may carry political grudges against lawmakers.

Republicans last night were tweaking the language of several proposals for changing the rule. The one drawing the most comment, by Rep. Henry Bonilla (Tex.), would allow leaders indicted by a state grand jury to stay on. However, a leader indicted by a federal court would have to step down at least temporarily.

"Congressman Bonilla's rule change is designed to prevent political manipulation of the process while preserving the original ethical principles of the rule," Bonilla spokeswoman Taryn Fritz Walpole said.

Hastert and DeLay, meanwhile, are publicly taking a hands-off posture. Hastert told reporters the decision was up to the conference, adding, "we'll see what happens." DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said his boss "believes we should allow members of the conference to come to their own conclusions and let the conference work its will without him exerting undue influence one way or the other."

A Texas grand jury in September indicted three of DeLay's political associates on charges of using a political action committee to illegally collect corporate donations and funnel them to Texas legislative races. The group, Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, is closely associated with DeLay. DeLay says he has not acted improperly and has no reason to believe he is a target of the grand jury, which continues to look into the TRMPAC matter.

The House ethics committee on Oct. 6 admonished DeLay for asking federal aviation officials to track an airplane involved in the highly contentious 2003 redistricting battle, and for conduct that suggested political donations might influence legislative action. The ethics panel deferred action on a complaint related to TRMPAC, noting that the grand jury has not finished its work.

The Texas investigation is headed by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat who has been bitterly criticized by DeLay supporters. Yesterday, Cantor called Earle's efforts "a witch hunt."

"It's a totally a partisan exercise," Cantor said. "It's coincidental with what's going on up here [in the Capitol], where they are trying every avenue to go after Tom DeLay because they can't beat him" on the House floor or in congressional elections. Changing the rule is not a sign that lawmakers think DeLay will be indicted, Cantor said, but rather a public rebuke of an investigation they feel is wholly unwarranted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54572-2004Nov16?language=printer

Yes he pushed to change it! BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!

He is being the victim of this political prosecution by Earle. Earle has the power to remove the Republican leadership by a phony political indictment. So, yes they considered it but they did not! The important point is the Democrats NEVER HAD THAT RULE!

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 04:28 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 04:29 PM

You mean Earle with the 94% conviction rate :laugh:

Also, you cannot seriously say that Delay did not use the RNC to skirt the Texas rules when it is so painfully obvious he did just that. But, when one'sa source is bias, as your's is, facts just get in the way.

BTW - the D's apparently did not need that rule now did they :wavey:

Why didn't the democrats have that rule?

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 04:32 PM

Ack, you beat me to it.

Yet, all our little neophyte can focus on is the totally irrelevance of the the 1993 change lead by the R's, which he does in a classic Fox News method of talking the fcous off of the R's changing their own rules when it suits them as they did with Delay.

Not to mention Delay wants all practicing homos in jail.

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Why didn't the democrats have that rule?

Who give a ****te - the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when they were in trouble, they tried to get rid of it.

Do you ever make a logical argument?

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 04:35 PM

Who give a ****te - the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when they were in trouble, they tried to get rid of it.

Do you ever make a logical argument?

Yes I'm asking you. Im trying to make a point here...if the D's care more about ethics then why didn't they ever have that rule? Why was that a Republican rule?

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 04:37 PM

Yes I'm asking you. Im trying to make a point here...if the D's care more about ethics then why didn't they ever have that rule? Why was that a Republican rule?

Again, the D's never had the rule. So what, the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when it appeared the rule was going to be used against the R's they scurried to rid themselves of it. Thus, they are FAR more sleazy and hypocritical then the D's in this instance because they refuse to be held to the standard they applied to others. This is not that complicated :laugh:

Also, why are your defending Delay who despite being guilty on the facts, wants you imprisoned for having gay sex?

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 04:40 PM

Again, the D's never had the rule. So what, the point is the R's made the rule to get the D's and then when it appeared the rule was going to be used against the R's they scurried to rid themselves of it. Thus, they are FAR more sleazy and hypocritical then the D's in this instance because they refuse to be held to the standard they applied to others. This is not that complicated :laugh:

Also, why are your defending Delay who despite being guilty on the facts, wants you imprisoned for having gay sex?

Will you stop with that already...

I'm staying out of this now! :lol: I'm already confused as it is...

stargazer99

11-01-2005, 04:58 PM

It's about f*cking time.

You literally took the words right out of my mouth! :nod:

stargazer99

11-01-2005, 05:20 PM

Yes he pushed to change it! BUT FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!

He is being the victim of this political prosecution by Earle. Earle has the power to remove the Republican leadership by a phony political indictment. So, yes they considered it but they did not! The important point is the Democrats NEVER HAD THAT RULE!

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml

[snippet]

"A good district attorney can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to, and Mr. Earle understands that," says Carter. "The accusations harm as much as the convictions. … Because all you have right now is accusations, and we're having an interview on a national television show about accusations. So they're obviously harmful or it wouldn't be news."

Is he saying that Earle is deliberately doing this? "I don't know whether he's doing – if he does it or not. I just know," says Carter. "I just know that you've seen a history that seems that way."

Carter is alluding to the charge made by DeLay and other Republicans that Earle’s motives are partisan, and he points to Earle’s unsuccessful attempt to prosecute Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on ethics charges.

Hutchinson said: "I know he prosecutes for political purposes. He did it to me."

"I'm not surprised that she would say that," says Earle. "That's pretty much what other politicians that I've prosecuted have said."

But does he believe that example casts a shadow over this case, and these indictments?

"That was one case. There have been somewhere around 15 cases involving elected officials, that my office has prosecuted," says Earle. "Of the 15, 12 were Democrats; three were Republican. But now, he’s dealing with one of the most powerful politicians in the country."

Nixxxed

11-01-2005, 05:28 PM

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678234.shtml

[snippet]
Even more comical is what they say when you remind them of this fact. They say the reason he's prosecuted more Ds than Rs is because TX used to be a D state, and "there was no such thing as an R in TX."

:laugh: So, his party was in power, and he could have had anything he wanted (politically, maybe even personally), yet he still prosecuted them when they were bad, and not just because it was his job. Yeah, that says something really negative about him. :laugh:

Jyqm

11-01-2005, 05:33 PM

I can give you one example of why the Republican party is more ethically sound that the democratic...

It is a Republican rule that you can not be in leadership once you have been indicted...the Democrats never had that rule.

So DeLay prances around doing the same things he's been doing for years, only now he doesn't "officially" have the title. Sorry. That's not terribly ethically sound.

Take even a cursory glance at the rampant deception and corruption and cronyism that has been the backbone of this Republican administration. Can you really say with a straight face that the Republican party today is more ethically sound than anyone?

Brwn_eyes0511

11-01-2005, 06:02 PM

I find it quite comical that the R's keep spinning this as a partisan witch hunt, when Earle has prosecuted many more D's than R's:

That doesn't mean anything! If anything it shows that Democrats are MORE corrupt!

We aren't saying that he doesn't prosecute D's...if you are a D who is guilty of the crime you will be prosecuted. But the fact that this guy had a docu. team following him around while he makes accusations about getting "Delay"...I mean COME ON! And the fact that this is the same man who stormed through Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office and turned up with NOTHING! I mean even the judge said basically that you can't go around making charges unless you have something to back it up with!

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 07:43 PM

. . .
We aren't saying that he doesn't prosecute D's...if you are a D who is guilty of the crime you will be prosecuted. But the fact that this guy had a docu. team following him around while he makes accusations about getting "Delay"...I mean COME ON! And the fact that this is the same man who stormed through Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office and turned up with NOTHING! I mean even the judge said basically that you can't go around making charges unless you have something to back it up with!

First you use "we" and include yourself with those who despise your very being and want you in jail - it time to move on before you look even more pathetic.

Second - the facts are very much agains Delay, which is why he took this to trial. The man did not earn a 94% conviction rate by being stupid.

Third, his case agains Kay B H was lost due to a bad ruling by a judge, which happens and sadly so because she was clearly guilty. BTW do you even know the facts of that case before you assert the incorrect statements you just did - here they are:

Shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September, 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. She was acquitted of all charges. Earle tried to withdraw the charges before the trial started due to concerns of what the judge would admit as evidence. However, the judge refused the withdrawal, swore in the jury and made the jury return a "not guilty" verdict so that Hutchison could not be tried again for the same charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Bailey_Hutchinson

gldstwmn

11-01-2005, 07:48 PM

It's about f*cking time.

Can I get an amen? :laugh: This is starting to get fun now.

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 07:49 PM

Can I get an amen? :laugh: This is starting to get fun now.

Watching the wolves kill the weakened fox always is - then comes the feast.

Nixxxed

11-01-2005, 07:51 PM

Was it just me or did Frist look like he was about to cry when he called the Senate back into session?

gldstwmn

11-01-2005, 07:57 PM

Merf

11-01-2005, 08:41 PM

Can I get an amen? :laugh: This is starting to get fun now.

I'll bring the smores! Whee! :blob2:

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 08:44 PM

The honorable thing to do is to step down before you are indicted.

Or - how about this, find out who in your administration did a criminal act and weed them out on your own instead of wasting everyone's time with an Ind. Counsel.

dissention

11-01-2005, 08:55 PM

Or - how about this, find out who in your administration did a criminal act and weed them out on your own instead of wasting everyone's time with an Ind. Counsel.

Who would want that when the heads of the administration are as deeply involved as the those on the lower rung of the ladder? Not me.

strandinthewind

11-01-2005, 08:57 PM

Who would want that when the heads of the administration are as deeply involved as the those on the lower rung of the ladder? Not me.

True - but I referred to them as well. In other words, if Cheney disclosed it - get rid of him, which of course would never happen despite these bozos touting themselves as the party restoring honor to the White House.

ShangriLaTroubl

11-01-2005, 09:09 PM

The Republicans were all about "moral values" and "ethics" in November, and now all of a sudden that's all out the window. I think everyone now realizes that the Republicans are the unethical, non moral value party...the Democrats are instead..

I know it's just TERRIBLE that someone should investigate this, and actually use a couple of hours of Senate time to do something useful rather than spending their time spending billions in Iraq, and cutting funding for student loans, etc.

Chris

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 08:50 AM

We aren't saying that he doesn't prosecute D's...if you are a D who is guilty of the crime you will be prosecuted.

So if you're a D being prosecuted, you're automatically guilty of a crime, and if you're a R, it's a partisan witch hunt? :confused:

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 09:21 AM

So if you're a D being prosecuted, you're automatically guilty of a crime, and if you're a R, it's a partisan witch hunt? :confused:

Now you're catching on!

Come on, everybody! Let's all play the Republican Double Standard Game! It's fun for the whole family!

I'll go next: "All judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote! ...Except her, we don't like her!"

Yaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!

That was way too fun, I'm going to take another turn, if nobody minds: "We should cut down on unnecessary government spending!... Except for this bridge to nowhere, I need $200 million for that baby!"

Yaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

Okay, somebody else go!

!!!!!

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 09:46 AM

^^^^

In Aug. of this year, I saw where that bridge was supposed to be :laugh:

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 10:50 AM

Now you're catching on!

Come on, everybody! Let's all play the Republican Double Standard Game! It's fun for the whole family!

I'll go next: "All judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote! ...Except her, we don't like her!"

Yaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!!!

That was way too fun, I'm going to take another turn, if nobody minds: "We should cut down on unnecessary government spending!... Except for this bridge to nowhere, I need $200 million for that baby!"

Yaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

Okay, somebody else go!

!!!!!

Yeah, I like the whole "The Democrats should just confirm anyone the President nominates for any position (Supreme Court, UN Ambassador, etc.) with no hard questions. And don't dare ask a Supreme Court nominee where they stand on the issues. And if you try to fillibuster them, we'll just go nuclear on you and pass a rule against fillibustering." But when Bush nominates Miers, who doesn't have a proven track record of being anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, the R's demand answers on her stance on these issues, and in essence, "fillibuster" her before she even makes it to the hearings. The extremists even screamed "impeach Bush" because this nominee may not vote the way they want on these issues. Of course, the fact that the Bush administration lied and fixed intellegence to justify a war, gave Halliburton no-bid contracts, outed a CIA agent, took a budget surplus and put us trillions of dollars in debt, regularly screwed the poor while making their corporate buddies richer (hence budget cuts for social programs to uphold tax cuts for the rich and corporations), put cronies in high-placed positions, bungled Katrina (due to the fact that they put cronies in high-placed positions), etc, etc, etc.... WASN'T enough for them to scream "impeachment". But god forbid he nominates someone who isn't a right-wing fanatic! (NOTE: I'm not saying that Miers was a good choice... I don't believe she was. But the fact that it took THIS to make the right-wingers want to impeach Bush, based on the fact that she might not be as conservative as them, is beyond hypocritcal.) And now that Bush has nominated someone with a proven neo-con track record, their response is "never mind, we're happy now... you can continue screwing up the country, as long as we got our way on a supreme court nominee." And I'm sure they'll go back to trying to squash any Democrats who criticize or question this nominee.

Here's another one. How about the fact that when they Clinton was charged with perjury, the R's were all screaming "high crimes & misdemeanors... tar & feather him!" But when one of their own was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it's "This is no big deal. It's just a technicality! They couldn't get him on anything else, so the partisan hacks charged him with this. How dare they!"

Gee, this game is fun! :blob2: :]

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 11:59 AM

You mean Earle with the 94% conviction rate :laugh:

Also, you cannot seriously say that Delay did not use the RNC to skirt the Texas rules when it is so painfully obvious he did just that. But, when one's source is bias, as your's is, facts just get in the way.I was waiting for Delay to call him a commie whit how he was going after him..:lol:

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 12:22 PM

Here's another one. How about the fact that when they Clinton was charged with perjury, the R's were all screaming "high crimes & misdemeanors... tar & feather him!" But when one of their own was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it's "This is no big deal. It's just a technicality! They couldn't get him on anything else, so the partisan hacks charged him with this. How dare they!"

Gee, this game is fun! :blob2: :]

Yaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!

That's a good one, I'm surprised I didn't of that one first.

Where's Brown Eyes, I want him to play.

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 12:24 PM

Yaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!

That's a good one, I'm surprised I didn't of that one first.

Where's Brown Eyes, I want him to play.

He is off reading Anne Coulter's site and Newsmax in an effort to find a reply, which will be shot down immediately by the facts :laugh:

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 12:31 PM

He is off reading Anne Coulter's site and Newsmax in an effort to find a reply, which will be shot down immediately by the facts :laugh:

I can't wait!

Okay, I've got another one!

"If you don't support the war, you're un-American! ...except when Clinton invaded Kosovo, that war was un-American!"

Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 12:33 PM

He is off reading Anne Coulter's site and Newsmax in an effort to find a reply, which will be shot down immediately by the facts :laugh:Youre fulla****!!!;) :lol: :cool:

dissention

11-02-2005, 12:36 PM

I can't wait!

Okay, I've got another one!

"If you don't support the war, you're un-American! ...except when Clinton invaded Kosovo, that war was un-American!"

Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!

How about this?

"It's perfectly fine for Republicans to call for six closed Senate sessions to discuss Clinton receiving a blow-job and lying about it, but when the Democrats move for a closed Senate session to discuss being lied to about the Iraq war, they lack conviction, principles, and have no ideas."

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 12:40 PM

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 12:40 PM

I can't wait!

Okay, I've got another one!

"If you don't support the war, you're un-American! ...except when Clinton invaded Kosovo, that war was un-American!"

Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!

LOL - how about this one:

"We should all support the Pres. during a time of war as any nonsupport aids the enemy - yet we should impeach W because he nominated a no name to the USSC who will not guarantee the theocracy we are trying to establish"

:rolleyes:

What a bunch of FU*KTARDS :mad:

BTW - I truly love watch the Scott M. SQUIRM these days.

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 12:41 PM

I can't wait!

Okay, I've got another one!

"If you don't support the war, you're un-American! ...except when Clinton invaded Kosovo, that war was un-American!"

Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!!

Man you guys are good at this game!

The truth is imperitive to the health of our judiciary. - when Clinton lies (about sex)

Perjury is not a real crime. - when Libby lies (about outing a CIA agent, destroying a career and getting people tortured and killed)

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 12:41 PM

How about this?

"It's perfectly fine for Republicans to call for six closed Senate sessions to discuss Clinton receiving a blow-job and lying about it, but when the Democrats move for a closed Senate session to discuss being lied to about the Iraq war, they lack conviction, principles, and have no ideas."

Yaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!

This is such a great game, I'm going to try and patent it and manufacture a bunch of board game versions in time for Christmas. Nobody steal my idea!

I've got another one:

"I have the right to own as many guns as I want so I can shoot criminals and buffalo!... but the government needs to shield my children from the Hollywood culture of violence!"

I get to draw a card! "Move your piece forward two spaces. Move civil liberties back fifty years."

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dissention

11-02-2005, 12:43 PM

BTW - I truly love watch the Scott M. SQUIRM these days.

"I already answered your question."

"I'm not at liberty to say."

"As I said before, the President has made his position very clear on this matter."

"I'm not going to answer that."

"You know how the President feels."

"I can't say, you'll have to wait and hear it from the President."

"The President values the culture of life."

"Once again, I already answered your question."

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 12:44 PM

...

"The President values the culture of life."

Yet he sends kids to war which allegedly interrupts the "life cycle". - Franken

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 12:46 PM

Yaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy!!!!!

This is such a great game, I'm going to try and patent it and manufacture a bunch of board game versions in time for Christmas. Nobody steal my idea!

I've got another one:

"I have the right to own as many guns as I want so I can shoot criminals and buffalo!... but the government needs to shield my children from the Hollywood culture of violence!"

I get to draw a card! "Move your piece forward two spaces. Move civil liberties back fifty years."

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Go fish:lol:

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 12:50 PM

"I already answered your question."

"I'm not at liberty to say."

"As I said before, the President has made his position very clear on this matter."

"I'm not going to answer that."

"You know how the President feels."

"I can't say, you'll have to wait and hear it from the President."

"The President values the culture of life."

"Once again, I already answered your question."

Did you see the other day when several of the Press Corps. told him they were not going to lie for him and he should not ask them to (or something like that) :eek:

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 12:51 PM

Yet he sends kids to war which allegedly interrupts the "life cycle". - Franken

When he went to a tea party instead of Vietnam :rolleyes:

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 12:51 PM

Go fish:lol:

Somebody sunk my battleship.

Must have been the terrorists.

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 12:52 PM

When he went to a tea party instead of Vietnam :rolleyes:

Hey, have you ever been to one of those tea parties? Because they are exhausting...

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd scene!

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 12:54 PM

Hey, have you ever been to one of those tea parties? Because they are exhausting...

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddd scene!

Not if they pay me $250,000 before everyones' cut :p :p

Sadly, in W's case, he mistook the sugar for coke and snorted so many lines he was nowhere to be found for that last 1/4 of the party :wavey:

dissention

11-02-2005, 12:57 PM

Somebody sunk my battleship.

Must have been the terrorists.

Let's go smoke 'em out.

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 12:59 PM

Let's go smoke 'em out.Let's play NUKE THE TERRORIST!!!

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 01:04 PM

Let's play NUKE THE TERRORIST!!!

I've got the pants to do it! :lol:

dissention

11-02-2005, 01:05 PM

Let's play NUKE THE TERRORIST!!!

Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and al Qaeda attacked us anyway.

strandinthewind

11-02-2005, 01:05 PM

I've got the pants to do it! :lol:

Are they Prada's new stretch nuclear proof viscose triple stiched nylon :wavey:

Oops - did I say Prada - maybe I should wash my elitist mouth out :laugh: :rolleyes:

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 01:07 PM

Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and al Qaeda attacked us anyway.Of course. I was being sarcastic with my comment there.

dissention

11-02-2005, 01:08 PM

Of course. I was being sarcastic with my comment there.

So was I. :laugh:

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 01:10 PM

So was I. :laugh:No problem:) It still REALLY gets me that we have all these CIA operatives running around over there, and we still can't find these people. Call me naive, but I don't get it?

Jyqm

11-02-2005, 01:13 PM

No problem:) It still REALLY gets me that we have all these CIA operatives running around over there, and we still can't find these people. Call me naive, but I don't get it?

"Look, it's really difficuly for these CIA operatives to work undercover when they keep getting outed all the time, that's illegal!... Except for that one, her husband is against the war, she should be exposed!"

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dissention

11-02-2005, 01:13 PM

No problem:) It still REALLY gets me that we have all these CIA operatives running around over there, and we still can't find these people. Call me naive, but I don't get it?

It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way.

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 01:15 PM

It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way.Well said.

dissention

11-02-2005, 01:19 PM

The United States and the U.S. stand together in support of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government, which will soon come into action!!

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 01:21 PM

The United States and the U.S. stand together in support of the Iraqi people and the new Iraqi government, which will soon come into action!!I ASSume George uttered that statement?

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 02:33 PM

It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way.

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 02:38 PM

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.interesting

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 02:39 PM

interesting

Google "Bushisms". There are some beauties out there. Including the now famous "nukyular power pants" below. :D

dissention

11-02-2005, 02:44 PM

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

:lol:

Someone got it!

DavidMn

11-02-2005, 02:45 PM

Google "Bushisms". There are some beauties out there. Including the now famous "nukyular power pants" below. :DThat sound funny.'m gonna check it out:laugh:

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 02:50 PM

:lol:

Someone got it!

Our children is learning! :laugh:

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 02:56 PM

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it." —George W. Bush, on the probe into how CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity was leaked, Washington D.C., July 18, 2005

From: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 03:02 PM

dissention

11-02-2005, 03:05 PM

Our children is learning! :laugh:

My all-time favorite:

"I did denounce it. I de- I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry."

:laugh:

SuzeQuze

11-02-2005, 03:12 PM

That is pretty bad, so is this:

"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 03:40 PM

One of my all-time favorites is: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

And one that I think is the R's motto, tying back into the hypocrisy game: "I think we agree, the past is over."

stargazer99

11-02-2005, 03:49 PM

Okay, I'm reading some other quotes now, and can't stop laughing!

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"We both use Colgate toothpaste." —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week — we will have an all-volunteer army!" —Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004

"Do you have blacks, too?" —to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

"It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001

"The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

And another one of my all-time favorites:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002