madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-28-06 09:46 AM
Original message |
so now they are going to swear in the witnesses at the nsa spying |
|
hearing. but not the Attorney General, what a crock.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-28-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message |
1. failure to swear in is admitting to being an accomplice to perjury. |
|
the corruption of the banana republicans knows no bounds.
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-28-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I believe us here were thinking and typing that this would be the way |
|
Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 09:55 AM by madokie
they were going to do it. No swearing in of the most important witness of all, the torture king, water board boy, flushing koran mo' foker:mad: edited to add :mad:
|
InternalDialogue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-28-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message |
3. For the purposes of rhetoric |
|
there is a small upside to this situation: When the testimony of NSA insiders or former employees contradicts the nonchalance and false assurances of the attorney general, I'll tell friends that I'm putting my money on the witnesses who were honorable enough to swear an oath to speak the truth.
It doesn't fix anything, it doesn't change anything, but it's a small point of logic you can hang a very tiny hat on.
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Feb-28-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. I agree a hundred percent. It was, so i thought at the time of not |
|
swearing in the one who needed it the most was a done deal straight out of the kkkarl workbook. Waterboard boy needs to be hanging on that hook. Maybe, maybe they'll have him back and swear his sorry ass in then. I'm not holding my breath though.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 05:10 PM
Response to Original message |