Bush fought the formation of the committee,
Fought appearing before the committee,
fought to appear for a limited time only,
fought to appear before only ONE member of the committee
fought (and won) to have Cheney come with him when he testified,
fought (and won) not to be sworn in
fought (and won) to have a private session
fought (and won) not to have his meeting recorded (not even a stenographer)
His administration has said that if any of the members even DISCUSS his meeting, they are guilty of partisan politics...
and with ALL of this, his people with smiles on their faces tell us this should clear everything up, and satisfy the American public,
so we can get back to important things,
like questioning the differences between what a medal and what a ribbon is.
This is such bullshit. If his National Security advisor went public, there is no reason why he and Cheney shouldn't as well. What makes it worse is that no notes will be taken, so we'll never really get the chance to know what both of them knew before the 11th.
As for a medal and a ribbon, there is really no difference, because when certain medals are awarded, you don't always wear the medal with certain types of uniforms.
Really dressy uniforms require the medals to be worn. Slightly dressy uniforms require ribbons. Each medal has a ribbon equivalent. Example, the Congressional Medal of Honor is this huge medal worn around the neck and is to be worn with the really dressy uniform. When wearing the not so dressy uniform, there is a ribbon that looks like the blue field of stars on the American flag that signifies the MOH.
The Republicans are becoming shameless with the accusations they hurl,
and the media, if not "right wing" is certainly lazy for not requiring a higher standard. they simply report the accusation, without doing any research to look for merit, or counter point.
the whole medal issue is a joke. if anything it shows the reps are getting desperate. they'd be careful to tread in the area of who has sacrificed more for their country. kerry's record far surpasses bush's, which doesnt in itself mean that makes him a more qualified leader, it does mean that the rush and hannitys of the world should back the fuck up on kerry being a patriot.
I vote for whoever the Trinity Broadcasting Network supports.
Quote:As for a medal and a ribbon, there is really no difference, because when certain medals are awarded, you don't always wear the medal with certain types of uniforms.
Really dressy uniforms require the medals to be worn. Slightly dressy uniforms require ribbons. Each medal has a ribbon equivalent. Example, the Congressional Medal of Honor is this huge medal worn around the neck and is to be worn with the really dressy uniform. When wearing the not so dressy uniform, there is a ribbon that looks like the blue field of stars on the American flag that signifies the MOH.
I don't think the CMH is even worn around the neck except at the time of presentation. For my sources, I shall cite the movies Forrest Gump and Heartbreak Ridge. In Forrest Gump, Forrest only wears his medal around his neck because he had just received it, and then gives it to Jenny. In Heartbreak Ridge, Gunney Tom Highway was awarded the medal a decade before, and when in full military dress, his medal is a small medal pinned to his uniform.
In lieu of the medals, whether hung around the neck or pinned to the uniform, ribbons are worn. I was at a store in Ft. Bragg, where the military people go and get new uniforms and such, and you can buy as many ribbons as you want, assuming that you can provide a list of all the awards you have received. So, if he threw ribbons, it's no big deal, I'm sure he had a bunch ready to go on his other uniforms, and could always replace them. Whoop dee doo.
who gives a fuck. its a silly issue.
why would he be afraid to be sworn in unless he plans to lie?
why would he need cheney there other than to make sure they keep thier stories straight?
why wouldnt he just lie under oath anyway? its not like he's getting impeached anytime soon.
this fucking president is a disgrace.
Where did I see that article about lying....oh yeah, it was on
cnn.com.
Blah, blah, blah, it was a long article from a law professor at Rutgers about how some lies can be good, and some can be harmless, and how some are bad. I'll save you some reading, it ends with:
Quote:Suppose that -- as many suspect has already occurred with respect to the Iraq War -- our executive branch officials lie to the American people in order to motivate important votes, and those lies lead to unnecessary and unwanted death and injury.
In that case, such lies, whether under oath or not, should be treated as the crimes that they are and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I liked it. It was a nice little kick in the nuts.
Whats retarded is that he didnt even need to lie to get approval for the war, but he did anyway.
If we're getting all up on Bush and Cheney, why not get up on Clinton? They had Janet Reno and a bunch of other people from the former administrations. They knew that Osama was a problem. Put Clinton on the stand too.
Oh, we don't need to bother him now. We know he didn't do anything about terrorism, we just need to make sure that Bush and Cheney didn't do anything about it either.
Quote:We know he didn't do anything about terrorism, we just need to make sure that Bush and Cheney didn't do anything about it either.
Last time I made a long post about Clinton's fight against terrorism, you ignored it. Why do you continue to wave the "Clinton didn't do anything about terrorism" banner when all the evidence shows that he did? Are you being willfully ignorant?
BTW, Janet Reno has already testified under oath before the 9/11 Commission and Bill Clinton has agreed to do the same.
Quote:fought (and won) to have Cheney come with him when he testified,
fought (and won) not to be sworn in
fought (and won) to have a private session
fought (and won) not to have his meeting recorded (not even a stenographer)
I am baffled that he is able to do this. How is this even possible?
I was being facitious in that last part. Were you willfully ignorant on the first part? Didn't I already say that Janet Reno had testified? Now, If Clinton has this great track record on terror, let's see him on the stand. Show up the other side, make the Republicans eat their words.
Quote:I was being facitious in that last part. Were you willfully ignorant on the first part? Didn't I already say that Janet Reno had testified?
Here's what you said:
Quote:If we're getting all up on Bush and Cheney, why not get up on Clinton? They had Janet Reno and a bunch of other people from the former administrations. They knew that Osama was a problem. Put Clinton on the stand too.
I read that as you saying that they should question Clinton and Reno if they're going to question Bush. When you said "they", I interpred that as meaning "the Clinton administration." I figured, given the fact that you are seriously uninformed when it comes to current events and such, you didn't know that Reno had testified. Perhaps I underestimated you (though probably not by much, you are an admitted listener of a certain portly drug-addicted radio personality).
So sorry, I wasn't able to interpret your sarcasm. It was not willful ignorance on my part, at worst it was a false assumption based on prior knowledge.
In eight years, under Clinton, we had people stop Millenium bomb plots, got more money for intelligence, good things. Wasn't enough though. Had embassies and a ship attacked, had a bomb go off in the WTC, had Oklahoma City building blown up. Bush came into office. 9/11 happens. Bad thing. Congress wakes up, administration wakes up. Taliban is gone. Saddam is gone. Dealing with Saddam's insurgants. Lybia has seen the light. Pakistan's helped out with terrorists. Jordan just thwarted a plot to kill 20,000 people! All good things.
Bush and Clinton gotta appear before this panel and testify.
Sir O Wrote:Quote:I was being facitious in that last part. Were you willfully ignorant on the first part? Didn't I already say that Janet Reno had testified?
Here's what you said:
Quote:If we're getting all up on Bush and Cheney, why not get up on Clinton? They had Janet Reno and a bunch of other people from the former administrations. They knew that Osama was a problem. Put Clinton on the stand too.
I read that as you saying that they should question Clinton and Reno if they're going to question Bush. When you said "they", I interpred that as meaning "the Clinton administration." I figured, given the fact that you are seriously uninformed when it comes to current events and such, you didn't know that Reno had testified. Perhaps I underestimated you (though probably not by much, you are an admitted listener of a certain portly drug-addicted radio personality).
So sorry, I wasn't able to interpret your sarcasm. It was not willful ignorance on my part, at worst it was a false assumption based on prior knowledge.
I thought that the key word "too" sorta implied that Reno and others had testified.