• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is Kerry going to get away with ignoring a subpoena?

Faster horses

Well-known member
BREAKING: White House Defies Congress, John Kerry Will IGNORE Subpoena

Earlier this week, it was announced that John Kerry was being subpoenaed by the House. This is a legally binding demand that he show up, take questions, and help with the investigation into Benghazi. These demands happened after emails were leaked that show that the White House essentially lied about Benghazi for political reasons.

Fast forward to today: The State Department has announced that John Kerry will not obey the subpoena, meaning they’re basically telling the House to drop dead. They say they’ll look for alternative arrangements — but the implied meaning of this is that they think they don’t have to follow orders from congress.

This is fundamentally illegal, a rejection of federal law, and a radical dumping of the checks and balances that the constitution establishes for the different branches of government.




Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-ignores-subpoena/#XdJCRtshQkoOIxz3.99
 

Tam

Well-known member
Does any one find this a surprise. Everyone in this Corrupt Administration thinks they are above the law and they know they will get away with defying the Congress as the most corrupt of all is Obama and his AG Holder.

As long as any charges have to be filed through the Department of Justice there is no way anyone will be held accountable for a damn thing. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
BREAKING: White House Defies Congress, John Kerry Will IGNORE Subpoena

Earlier this week, it was announced that John Kerry was being subpoenaed by the House. This is a legally binding demand that he show up, take questions, and help with the investigation into Benghazi. These demands happened after emails were leaked that show that the White House essentially lied about Benghazi for political reasons.

Fast forward to today: The State Department has announced that John Kerry will not obey the subpoena, meaning they’re basically telling the House to drop dead. They say they’ll look for alternative arrangements — but the implied meaning of this is that they think they don’t have to follow orders from congress.

This is fundamentally illegal, a rejection of federal law, and a radical dumping of the checks and balances that the constitution establishes for the different branches of government.





Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-ignores-subpoena/#XdJCRtshQkoOIxz3.99


Bush defies Congress, refuses to let ex-aides testify on firings



David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis, New York Times

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Washington -- President Bush invoked a broad interpretation of executive privilege Monday in his confrontation with Congress over the dismissal of federal prosecutors, refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and blocking testimony from former White House aides.

Bush's counsel, Fred Fielding, in a combative letter to the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, said the White House and the two legislative panels had reached an impasse. The letter, which also said the White House would refuse to turn over materials explaining Bush's legal claims, appeared to place the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.

Fielding wrote that Bush would not turn over any records related to the dismissals and that he had instructed Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to refuse to testify in hearings this week.

With Democratic lawmakers comparing President Bush's stance to President Richard Nixon's refusal to turn over evidence during Watergate, congressional aides said they were going ahead with the hearings. Taylor has been summoned to appear on Wednesday before the Senate judiciary panel, and Miers is scheduled to appear on Thursday before the House judiciary panel.

The Bush administration had offered to allow Taylor, Miers and other aides, such as Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, to meet privately with the committees in informal sessions with no transcripts, but lawmakers refused that arrangement.

Neither side has shown any willingness to back down. But several separate steps would be needed before the House or Senate could vote on a contempt measure to compel compliance with its subpoenas. Such a contempt citation could send the constitutional conflict into court.

In the uproar over the prosecutor ousters, Bush first asserted executive privilege June 28 in response to a congressional demand for White House records related to the dismissals. Faced with a Monday deadline to turn over a log describing specific documents being withheld under the privilege doctrine, Fielding refused to produce it, saying he was speaking expressly on behalf of Bush.

In his letter, Fielding articulated an expansive definition of executive privilege.

"The assertion of executive privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the presidency: the necessity that a president receive candid advice from his advisers and that those advisers be able to communicate freely and openly with the president," Fielding wrote.


Democratic lawmakers contended that the White House was using executive privilege to avoid congressional scrutiny. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate judiciary panel, said, "It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the Senate and with Congress' responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was dismayed by the Fielding letter. "While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House," Conyers said, "they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has led the Senate investigation into the dismissals, said the White House assertion of privilege was "at best debatable" because Congress sought information that was narrowly focused. Schumer also said that privilege claims had been weakened because Justice Department officials had already testified about their dealings with the White House. "There is no other way to get this information," he said.

The doctrine of executive privilege is widely viewed by legal scholars as one of the most ambiguous concepts in constitutional law. Though the Constitution makes no explicit reference to it, the Supreme Court has recognized that a president and his advisers should be able to speak freely without fear that they will be compelled to divulge those conversations.

The last time the court directly addressed the issue was in 1974, when it first formally recognized the privilege but said Nixon could not claim it as a way of withholding his secret recordings from the Watergate prosecutor.

In that case, the justices said the importance of a president's ability to speak confidentially with his closest aides had to be balanced against other needs. They ruled 8-0 that the needs of a criminal investigation outweighed the value of uninhibited advice.

Remember how many times GW told Congress to Drop Dead!

FH- do you not remember when I said GW's setting more current precedent could come back and bite everyone in the arse-- well I Told You So.... Everything he did and got away with is now fair game for Obama/Dems to do.... :wink:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Firing some federal shysters is a FAR CRY from having knowledge of an attack on a US Diplomatic installation, refusing to send assistance, and over the course of a seven hour attack letting 4 American citizens die at the hands of Muslim extremists.

The shysters could find new jobs. The four Americans in Benghazi paid the ultimate price due to ineffective, bumbling leadership that lacks even a scintilla of testicular fortitude. They were more worried about getting your Dear Leader re-elected.

Allahu Akbar!
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Same thing as Lerner. Send the sergent in arms with some federal marshals and bring his butt to the floor and then send him to jail for a few days. Explain to Mr Kerrry that a supeona is not a request.
 

Mike

Well-known member
All this willful lawbreaking by the Buckwheat Admin is piling up so fast on him that he doesn't know whether to shine his shoes or wind his watch.

The legacy of the first black president going down the chitter will only cause racial divisions to become deeper.

They'll have a full deck of race cards now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If they are going to have Gowdy setting up a special committee for investigation of Benghazi- and being given an open checkbook- why are Issa and that committee still wasting time and spending taxpayers $ doing the same thing.. :???:
And then to top it- I heard the Senate now wants into the limelight and have their own special committee....No wonder the Congressional approval rating has been hovering around single digits... They are a dysfunctional do nothing Congress completely tied up with their political bickering...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
BREAKING: White House Defies Congress, John Kerry Will IGNORE Subpoena

Earlier this week, it was announced that John Kerry was being subpoenaed by the House. This is a legally binding demand that he show up, take questions, and help with the investigation into Benghazi. These demands happened after emails were leaked that show that the White House essentially lied about Benghazi for political reasons.

Fast forward to today: The State Department has announced that John Kerry will not obey the subpoena, meaning they’re basically telling the House to drop dead. They say they’ll look for alternative arrangements — but the implied meaning of this is that they think they don’t have to follow orders from congress.

This is fundamentally illegal, a rejection of federal law, and a radical dumping of the checks and balances that the constitution establishes for the different branches of government.





Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-ignores-subpoena/#XdJCRtshQkoOIxz3.99


Bush defies Congress, refuses to let ex-aides testify on firings



David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis, New York Times

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Washington -- President Bush invoked a broad interpretation of executive privilege Monday in his confrontation with Congress over the dismissal of federal prosecutors, refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and blocking testimony from former White House aides.

Bush's counsel, Fred Fielding, in a combative letter to the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, said the White House and the two legislative panels had reached an impasse. The letter, which also said the White House would refuse to turn over materials explaining Bush's legal claims, appeared to place the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.

Fielding wrote that Bush would not turn over any records related to the dismissals and that he had instructed Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to refuse to testify in hearings this week.

With Democratic lawmakers comparing President Bush's stance to President Richard Nixon's refusal to turn over evidence during Watergate, congressional aides said they were going ahead with the hearings. Taylor has been summoned to appear on Wednesday before the Senate judiciary panel, and Miers is scheduled to appear on Thursday before the House judiciary panel.

The Bush administration had offered to allow Taylor, Miers and other aides, such as Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, to meet privately with the committees in informal sessions with no transcripts, but lawmakers refused that arrangement.

Neither side has shown any willingness to back down. But several separate steps would be needed before the House or Senate could vote on a contempt measure to compel compliance with its subpoenas. Such a contempt citation could send the constitutional conflict into court.

In the uproar over the prosecutor ousters, Bush first asserted executive privilege June 28 in response to a congressional demand for White House records related to the dismissals. Faced with a Monday deadline to turn over a log describing specific documents being withheld under the privilege doctrine, Fielding refused to produce it, saying he was speaking expressly on behalf of Bush.

In his letter, Fielding articulated an expansive definition of executive privilege.

"The assertion of executive privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the presidency: the necessity that a president receive candid advice from his advisers and that those advisers be able to communicate freely and openly with the president," Fielding wrote.


Democratic lawmakers contended that the White House was using executive privilege to avoid congressional scrutiny. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate judiciary panel, said, "It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the Senate and with Congress' responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was dismayed by the Fielding letter. "While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House," Conyers said, "they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has led the Senate investigation into the dismissals, said the White House assertion of privilege was "at best debatable" because Congress sought information that was narrowly focused. Schumer also said that privilege claims had been weakened because Justice Department officials had already testified about their dealings with the White House. "There is no other way to get this information," he said.

The doctrine of executive privilege is widely viewed by legal scholars as one of the most ambiguous concepts in constitutional law. Though the Constitution makes no explicit reference to it, the Supreme Court has recognized that a president and his advisers should be able to speak freely without fear that they will be compelled to divulge those conversations.

The last time the court directly addressed the issue was in 1974, when it first formally recognized the privilege but said Nixon could not claim it as a way of withholding his secret recordings from the Watergate prosecutor.

In that case, the justices said the importance of a president's ability to speak confidentially with his closest aides had to be balanced against other needs. They ruled 8-0 that the needs of a criminal investigation outweighed the value of uninhibited advice.

Remember how many times GW told Congress to Drop Dead!

FH- do you not remember when I said GW's setting more current precedent could come back and bite everyone in the arse-- well I Told You So.... Everything he did and got away with is now fair game for Obama/Dems to do.... :wink:

Comical lthat you bring this up.
4 Americans were killed in Benghazi and NOTHING has been done about it
except some poor schmuck was jailed over making a video.

Obama LIED, Americans DIED!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
BREAKING: White House Defies Congress, John Kerry Will IGNORE Subpoena

Earlier this week, it was announced that John Kerry was being subpoenaed by the House. This is a legally binding demand that he show up, take questions, and help with the investigation into Benghazi. These demands happened after emails were leaked that show that the White House essentially lied about Benghazi for political reasons.

Fast forward to today: The State Department has announced that John Kerry will not obey the subpoena, meaning they’re basically telling the House to drop dead. They say they’ll look for alternative arrangements — but the implied meaning of this is that they think they don’t have to follow orders from congress.

This is fundamentally illegal, a rejection of federal law, and a radical dumping of the checks and balances that the constitution establishes for the different branches of government.





Read more at http://conservativetribune.com/kerry-ignores-subpoena/#XdJCRtshQkoOIxz3.99


Bush defies Congress, refuses to let ex-aides testify on firings



David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis, New York Times

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Washington -- President Bush invoked a broad interpretation of executive privilege Monday in his confrontation with Congress over the dismissal of federal prosecutors, refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and blocking testimony from former White House aides.

Bush's counsel, Fred Fielding, in a combative letter to the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, said the White House and the two legislative panels had reached an impasse. The letter, which also said the White House would refuse to turn over materials explaining Bush's legal claims, appeared to place the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.

Fielding wrote that Bush would not turn over any records related to the dismissals and that he had instructed Sara Taylor, the former White House political director, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, to refuse to testify in hearings this week.

With Democratic lawmakers comparing President Bush's stance to President Richard Nixon's refusal to turn over evidence during Watergate, congressional aides said they were going ahead with the hearings. Taylor has been summoned to appear on Wednesday before the Senate judiciary panel, and Miers is scheduled to appear on Thursday before the House judiciary panel.

The Bush administration had offered to allow Taylor, Miers and other aides, such as Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, to meet privately with the committees in informal sessions with no transcripts, but lawmakers refused that arrangement.

Neither side has shown any willingness to back down. But several separate steps would be needed before the House or Senate could vote on a contempt measure to compel compliance with its subpoenas. Such a contempt citation could send the constitutional conflict into court.

In the uproar over the prosecutor ousters, Bush first asserted executive privilege June 28 in response to a congressional demand for White House records related to the dismissals. Faced with a Monday deadline to turn over a log describing specific documents being withheld under the privilege doctrine, Fielding refused to produce it, saying he was speaking expressly on behalf of Bush.

In his letter, Fielding articulated an expansive definition of executive privilege.

"The assertion of executive privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the presidency: the necessity that a president receive candid advice from his advisers and that those advisers be able to communicate freely and openly with the president," Fielding wrote.


Democratic lawmakers contended that the White House was using executive privilege to avoid congressional scrutiny. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate judiciary panel, said, "It is unfortunate that the White House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the Senate and with Congress' responsibility to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. attorneys."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he was dismayed by the Fielding letter. "While we remain willing to negotiate with the White House," Conyers said, "they adhere to their unacceptable all-or-nothing position, and now will not even seek to properly justify their privilege claims."

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has led the Senate investigation into the dismissals, said the White House assertion of privilege was "at best debatable" because Congress sought information that was narrowly focused. Schumer also said that privilege claims had been weakened because Justice Department officials had already testified about their dealings with the White House. "There is no other way to get this information," he said.

The doctrine of executive privilege is widely viewed by legal scholars as one of the most ambiguous concepts in constitutional law. Though the Constitution makes no explicit reference to it, the Supreme Court has recognized that a president and his advisers should be able to speak freely without fear that they will be compelled to divulge those conversations.

The last time the court directly addressed the issue was in 1974, when it first formally recognized the privilege but said Nixon could not claim it as a way of withholding his secret recordings from the Watergate prosecutor.

In that case, the justices said the importance of a president's ability to speak confidentially with his closest aides had to be balanced against other needs. They ruled 8-0 that the needs of a criminal investigation outweighed the value of uninhibited advice.

Remember how many times GW told Congress to Drop Dead!

FH- do you not remember when I said GW's setting more current precedent could come back and bite everyone in the arse-- well I Told You So.... Everything he did and got away with is now fair game for Obama/Dems to do.... :wink:

Comical lthat you bring this up.
4 Americans were killed in Benghazi and NOTHING has been done about it
except some poor schmuck was jailed over making a video.

Obama LIED, Americans DIED!

If that's the criteria for charging a President or his subordinates than GW and his crew should be rotting in prison for the over 4,000 US military that died resulting from his and and his administrations lies to the US public, Congress, and the world that led to his invasion of Iraq...
How many poor schmucks died so little Bush could fulfill Daddy Bush and the oil folks desires ?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Oldtimer said:
Remember how many times GW told Congress to Drop Dead!

FH- do you not remember when I said GW's setting more current precedent could come back and bite everyone in the arse-- well I Told You So.... Everything he did and got away with is now fair game for Obama/Dems to do.... :wink:

Comical lthat you bring this up.
4 Americans were killed in Benghazi and NOTHING has been done about it
except some poor schmuck was jailed over making a video.

Obama LIED, Americans DIED!

If that's the criteria for charging a President or his subordinates than GW and his crew should be rotting in prison for the over 4,000 US military that died resulting from his and and his administrations lies to the US public, Congress, and the world that led to his invasion of Iraq...
How many poor schmucks died so little Bush could fulfill Daddy Bush and the oil folks desires ?

Iraq was fully blessed by Congress. Joe Biden even shut down debate early for the few naysayers. And this was Bush's war?

Are you REALLY as stupid as you seem?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Faster horses said:
Comical lthat you bring this up.
4 Americans were killed in Benghazi and NOTHING has been done about it
except some poor schmuck was jailed over making a video.

Obama LIED, Americans DIED!

If that's the criteria for charging a President or his subordinates than GW and his crew should be rotting in prison for the over 4,000 US military that died resulting from his and and his administrations lies to the US public, Congress, and the world that led to his invasion of Iraq...
How many poor schmucks died so little Bush could fulfill Daddy Bush and the oil folks desires ?

Iraq was fully blessed by Congress. Joe Biden even shut down debate early for the few naysayers. And this was Bush's war?

Are you REALLY as stupid as you seem?



CAKEWALK
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03




HOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

Besides the never found WMD's which Bush admitted later was a mistake- and the censored/doctored NSA report given to Congress which changed the status of Iraq from a no threat status - to all of the above, mostly from Bush boys--- are they mistakes or flat out lies... :???:

So when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld f***ed up big time (getting 4000+ killed)- and are shown to be liars- it was just a mistake and we all sing Kumbaya and we forget about it- but when Obama and Clinton f*** up (and get 4 killed) - and are accused of lying- we should hang them from the nearest tree :???:

Sounds like two sets of standards to me...
 

Latest posts

Top