|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
spanone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:25 PM Original message |
CNN Reported that Robert Gates Was Not Under Oath Today. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rusty charly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:26 PM Response to Original message |
1. "no one could have imagine he'd lie" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grmamo (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:30 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. that is basically what Warner said ...and... he had too much respect for Gates |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:34 PM Response to Reply #5 |
13. I'm glad someone else heard it. My cynicism runs too deep to trust any of these MoFo's. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SammyWinstonJack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:30 PM Response to Reply #1 |
6. !!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:27 PM Response to Original message |
2. What?!? That's absurd. How is that even legal? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AngryAmish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:30 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Executive branch folks are usually not under oath |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AlamoDemoc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:32 PM Response to Reply #4 |
10. He's not part of the executive branch yet...so exec. privilege doesn't apply here, IMO |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AngryAmish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:36 PM Response to Reply #10 |
14. True, but this was a courtesy/old boys club thingy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 07:51 PM Response to Reply #14 |
20. This is the thing that gets me riled up. This man is testifying in a confirmation hearing for a |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occulus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:53 PM Response to Reply #20 |
25. It's not just a red flag that they MIGHT lie; it's a flashing red light and siren that they WILL n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:38 PM Response to Reply #10 |
15. He's not even part of the gov't. He works for a college. He has NO privilege. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hieronymus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:42 PM Response to Reply #4 |
18. Hopefully, lots of republicans will be under oath .. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Karenca (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:29 PM Response to Original message |
3. Wow---unbelievable. .Kick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AlamoDemoc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:30 PM Response to Original message |
7. What? is there a link, b/c that's important news? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
spanone (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:32 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. Lou Dobbs reported it was a 'courtesy'. Will post link when found. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KoKo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:15 PM Response to Reply #9 |
21. huh? .......a COURTESY? WHOA! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Az (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:31 PM Response to Original message |
8. Yes, we rubberstamped him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bjorn Against (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:52 PM Response to Reply #8 |
24. Gates is no ally... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
marmar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:33 PM Response to Original message |
11. I am soooo sick of this "not under oath" bullshit.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JudyM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 10:48 AM Response to Reply #11 |
39. It sets up a different standard, so when they *do* swear someone it's implying s/he might lie!? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tomp (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 12:49 PM Response to Reply #39 |
42. excellent point. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Uncle Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:34 PM Response to Original message |
12. Did they ask him to cross his heart? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
originalpckelly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:39 PM Response to Original message |
16. It really doesn't matter, if he was caught lying he could still... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bjorn Against (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:02 PM Response to Reply #16 |
29. You are right that he could still be punished, but it still matters that he was not under oath |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SmellsLikeDeanSpirit (471 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:40 PM Response to Original message |
17. That's a bunch of bushshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AlamoDemoc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:44 PM Response to Original message |
19. from Democracy Now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
w4rma (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:46 PM Response to Original message |
22. Ahahahaha, flipping liars. Congress is still run by the GOP, obviously. (nt) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:50 PM Response to Original message |
23. Gates is a PROVEN liar |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftchick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:54 PM Response to Original message |
26. So his Iran War comment can not be held against him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Duer 157099 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:59 PM Response to Original message |
27. So this must mean that anyone put under oath is considered a liar? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Perky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 08:59 PM Response to Original message |
28. Ther was no reason to put him under oath |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:09 PM Response to Original message |
30. You-have got-to-be-kidding-me!!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
David Zephyr (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:11 PM Response to Original message |
31. Put a teenager under oath about hot wiring a car, but not this guy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Doctor_J (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:14 PM Response to Original message |
32. Does anyone in this criminal administration ever promise to tell the truth? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Solly Mack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:17 PM Response to Original message |
33. I presumed he would lie - sworn in or not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rateyes (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 09:35 PM Response to Original message |
34. WTF? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Scout1071 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 10:08 PM Response to Original message |
35. Absolute, utter bullshit. The Dems should be kicking. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zodiak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 11:25 PM Response to Original message |
36. So we have a new Defense Secretary |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mopinko (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 12:10 AM Response to Reply #36 |
37. he was only voted on in committee |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zodiak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 12:14 AM Response to Reply #37 |
38. I didn't specifiy one way or another |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 11:04 AM Response to Original message |
40. So oaths are only relevant these days if we presume someone won't tell the truth?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
progressoid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-06-06 12:25 PM Response to Original message |
41. Well of course not. Why would he be? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue May 14th 2024, 10:52 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC