It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rice To Testify - Not Under Oath?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Condolezza Rice is being sent to the committee, however she wants to testify without taking the oath. What kind of crap is that? One might as well send Howdy Doody to testify.

How can a person testify without taking an oath, and what good would that testimony be? Absolutely worthless.

They also now want to use the ole "Executive Privilege" scam that Nixon kept using.

Apparently this administration has a lot to hide, and is now pulling out all stops to keep things hidden. It seems Mr. Clarke has hit quite a few nails on the head for a "disgruntled employee."




[Edited on 26-3-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
haha, why would you not take the oath, unless you are planning on lying and want to make sure you can save your ass later? If this is true, expect her to take a lot of # for it--and well deserved.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Heh, can you say, "Rice is a goddamn liar?"

Because that's exactly what she is if she cannot testify publicly and under oath. More proof of the corruption of the Bush administration...



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I know.



Talk about being disgruntled. Boy does she look pissed. One can only guess "why."

I don't like or her attitude. She need to testify before the committee in public and take the oath like everyone else did. What makes her so special?



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Is there a link to this news that someone could post? I just want to read up some more about it. I'll try lookin on my own two, I'll post what I find. But yes, this is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel's Queries

Not only that, but she is to re-testify because of possible "mischaracterizations' in her previous testimony. Whatever the hell that means. Don't you love these meaningless terms politicians use?

In other words, she needs to re-state what she previously said because it is probably incorrect and/or a lie...



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Thanks for the link Thorfinn. Here's something I found interesting in it.


In New Hampshire, Mr. Bush showed up at an event about the economy accompanied by the widow of a pilot of the plane that flew into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Only a day earlier, television news programs were filled with images of Mr. Clarke surrounded by thankful families of other Sept. 11 victims after he apologized to them for failing to head off the attack.


Wasn't Bush supposed to not use 9/11 to further his campaign? Well what's he doing showing off family members of those who died like some kind of trophy at an event? Screw this guy.



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
He's used 9/11 as a selling point all along. Why? Because in 4 years him and his buddies haven't really done anything but give a lot of money to a lot of rich people...



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I know.



Talk about being disgruntled. Boy does she look pissed. One can only guess "why."

I don't like or her attitude. She need to testify before the committee in public and take the oath like everyone else did. What makes her so special?


Because she is a repugnant demon. C'mon now, just LOOK at her!



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Because she is a repugnant demon. C'mon now, just LOOK at her!


So true.

Her hesitation to comply, especially under oath, speaks volumes. Come clean, Condi! Spit it out, honey!



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Ha!

That doesn't even surprise me. I never liked her, and always suspected her of being just as corrupted as the rest of the current administration.

Seriously...How can you accord credibility to a person who refuse to take an oath before speaking about serious topics like thoses concerned?

"Repugnant demon".. Hell yeah ! What a scary looking women.

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by m0rbid]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   


You're a mean one, Mrs. Grinch!



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Well, here's what alot of people think about Rice and testify in private.

www.cnn.com...

IMO this is a good thing that people actually think that.

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Most people think that 9-11 was purely Bin Laden and that the US is only trying to do the pure and noble thing.

They wouldn't even look to find out that she has blatently lied to their faces more than 8 times already.

With that kind of track record, this just speaks of further lying.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
There is a simple reason that she will not testify under oath.

P E R J U R Y


Lying under oath is an imprisonable offiense.



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by mrmulder
I know.



What makes her so special?


Because she is a repugnant demon. C'mon now, just LOOK at her!


______________________________

If you ask me, she looks a lot like your avatar, colonel!

john



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I predict that Ms. Rice will testify publicy in time, even given the fact that she has precedent for not doing having to do so: no standing NSA testifies before Congress.

When she does testify, it will only serve to further illustrate that Clarke is a mendacious fool. How anyone can believe his duplicitous testimony is beyond me. He has already been caught in several contradictory statements. Believe his book or believe his statements; you can't have it both ways.

john



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I predict that Ms. Rice will testify publicy in time, even given the fact that she has precedent for not doing having to do so: no standing NSA testifies before Congress.

When she does testify, it will only serve to further illustrate that Clarke is a mendacious fool. How anyone can believe his duplicitous testimony is beyond me. He has already been caught in several contradictory statements. Believe his book or believe his statements; you can't have it both ways.

john



The goods are out on this administration, and it seems Kerry was right with his "off mike" statement. Rice want testify under oath-why not? So she can tell more lies? She is supposed to be national security adviser-not a lacky for the administration.



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
What is your point?

I just gave you the reason why she does not have to testify.

Are you just stating that you want to be Kerry's beotch? It's obvious that you don't want to address Clarke's lying, do you?

john



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
He's already admitted while EMPLOYEED by Bush he had to SPIN things in the best possible light.

Now he's older, wiser, allowed to display morals and speak his mind.

He's not lying NOW skippy. He was lying then. Does theat mean we shouldn't take his now truthful testimony? No. It lends credibility IMO when you're willing to take blame, admit fault and responsibility.

But believe what you want. Defend Rice. Kiss Cheney butt. The truth is the truth and no friend to Bush.

[Edited on 29-3-2004 by RANT]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join