It looks like I get to keep my testicles.

[RapidCreek]

I posted the following on Wed Mar-24-04 at 06:13 PM in response to a thread which proclaimed "condi must testify"


42. don't fall for the friggin scam!!!


What's the matter with you people? ....Well we think it's a shame "Dr. Rice" won't be testifying...and it's really unfortunate...becuase her private testimony was powerful and eloquent......For Christs sake the media whores and "non-partisan" Rethuglicans have been pumping this grift for a week. Don't you wonder why? Ask yourself....Do you actually believe the slimy bitch won't "testify"? I'd just about bet my testicles that Rove is rubbing his little paws together as I write....his little whiskers twitching over a humorless smirk.

Just you wait. We'll be hearing soon that the Bush administration, in an effort to put to rest the doubts that may still exist..."in this time of change"....has graciously decided to break with precedent and put forward "Dr. Rices" testimony. At which point she will get up and recite the lies she and Karl have been polishing to a blinding gleam for the past month. Pull your heads out....the "commission" was put together by the very people it is investigating. If you believe for a second that "Dr. Rices" testimony won't be used as a velveteen hammer to squash the anger of the victims families...you are fools. Mark my words...it's gonna happen.

Why insist the silly bitch testify? She already has....in the media....and she quite obviously told a bunch of fucking lies. We should insist that she NOT testify...as the commission was designed to air the truth....NOT misdirection....NOT rationalization...and most particularly NOT lies. We should be pointing out that she is ignorant, ill equipped for her job and not the least bit interested in pursuing the greater good if that pursuit makes clear her short comings. We should be saying, in short, that we would prefer she not testify as her lies have already clouded the issue enough. Let's constrain her hydrocephalic chipmunk babble to cable "news" shows. She is IRRELAVENT....as the loss of 3000 lives makes quite clear....She was irrelevant before 9/11, during 9/11 and after 9/11. Why give her relevancy now. We should agree with her handlers...that yes indeed, she IS irrelevant and as such should have no place in a proceeding which is of course irrelevant itself but has been engineered to give the impression of gravity. Let's leave the testimony to the experts....the people who are and were, really calling the shots.
RC

Tonight after I witnessed AWOL saying exactly what I said he'd say a week ago, I listened to "our liberal friend" Chris Matthews slobbering all over himself about Condoleezza Rices Beauty, brilliance and eloquence. Before reality bit me in the ass I thought he was once again sharing his fancies about Howard Deans fore arms. Not once did our little tweeter pose to either of his blindly obsequious guests what either might ask Ms. Rice if he were on the commission. Nope...what we were treated to was platitude and vagaries. Nothing of consequence, nothing of weight. Nothing mentioned about specific times, specific dates, specific meetings which were pointed to by Condi's rebellious republican brother, Mr. Clarke. Chris asked his guests whether they "trusted Clarke". What he didn't ask was why either felt the way that they did. What testimony specifically made them feel the way they did. Neither did he follow this line in regards to Ms. Rice. No...nothing more than superficiality. Chris, forever the sycophantic patsy of the team who he believes currently holds power was doing his part to oil up the public for Condi's appearance before the Kangaroo Commission. He didn't want to address specifics but perception.

And that my friends is the point of this little harangue. I'll once again bet my testicles...and I don't do that lightly...that Ms. Rice will not be asked questions regarding specifics. No who, what, where or when questions....nope, not a one. The questions which have no doubt been agreed upon ahead of time....questions which were certainly supplied three weeks ago or longer, will be the sort which will allow Ms. Rice to evade any breaking of the oath she will take. They will be questions about her perceptions. The perceptions one holds, are ones own. They may be correct or incorrect......they may based upon lies or truth but they themselves cannot be lies or truths as they are relative to the holders state of mind.

Mark my words folks. We are about to be treated to some of Mr. Roves finest work. Patriotic platitudes, painted on a canvas of vagaries, hung in a gallery of inconsequence. When Condi finishes her "testimony" those of us who think will be scratching our heads...wondering what exactly it was she testified to. We'll feel something uncomfortably large, throbbing away in our backsides and we'll at last recognize that we asked to have it put there. Those of us who do not think will be feeling sorry for that eloquent, "beautiful", brilliant woman...the one with such glowing patriotic perceptions. We shall understand that Mr. Clarke, a man who focuses on uncomfortable specifics and welcomes introspection, makes us feel yucky...and we don't like to feel yucky, so we just won't listen to him anymore.

Pardon me for the less than eloquent post. I am so enraged by the grift job Dems have insisted upon that eloquence escapes me. I've just about had it. My Dem Senator called and asked me to campaign for him last week. I said I would....in fact I offered to run his office in my town. I'm thinking of giving his office a jingle and telling them to jam it. These people are stupid...or complicit. Either way I'm having a hard time supporting more of the same.

RC

[DemBones DemBones]

1. In a jar?

Remembering old Far Side cartoon involving a dog, the vet, a jar. . .

[RapidCreek]

2. hehehe

nah in the little bag they came in...not that they do me much good these days.

RC

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. I thought it was a yellow plastic tube

Kudos to whoever gets the reference.

[dawg]

15. Dr Dyper?

Is that you?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. At your service. Snip snip.

Avoid the Lamia. You have been warned.

[The Traveler]

3. I dunno ... I thought it was pretty elequent

And pretty much right on target. That's the strategy being played here. They're good at this kind of strategy.

Now if they were only as good at the strategy that matters to this country ... grrrrr.

It may or may not play out for them. I have this sense the pressure is building in the halls of government. Eventually, that pressure will find its release. Not everybody has come forward, yet.

[RapidCreek]

4. They certainly are...

they are very clever marketers. You can sell shit on a stick for 5 bucks a shot and have customers fighting each other for more, if you have talented marketers. Unfortunately this describes the current state of affairs in this country to a T.

RC

[The Traveler]

5. That's why we have to stay on target

I really think this is it, the critical moment, the turning point at which we will turn towards the idealistic roots of this nation's formation or we will turn towards the long downward spiral of decadence and empire. A question keeps hammering my brain: "If this nation falls into tyranny tommorrow, will you resist?"

I would rather resist today ... the mother is heavy enough now.

[RapidCreek]

18. I couldn't agree more

but lending validity to a Kangaroo Commission is not staying on target....it is falling victim to the old bait and switch...a Rethuglican technique which meets with continued success. One would thinkg that the Democrats might learn after a while.

RC

[FlemingsGhost]

6. As a betting man, surely you must know...

there's no such thing as a "sure thing."

Betting your testicles so early in the game? Last chance to hold onto them so you can inevitably give them over to a woman, like all the rest of us.

:evilgrin:

(on edit: typo)

[RapidCreek]

7. As a betting man...

I know it is always a sure thing in a rigged game.

Unfortunately holding on to ones testicles in Western South Dakota is a much more enjoyable experience than handing them over most of the woman that habitate the area. Ah, I miss the old days in Chicago. Women with brains...lot's of women with brains. I'll put them in a box and tie a ribbon around them....if only....ah well why torture myself. If practice makes purfect, I the worlds greatest lover...


RC

[LunaC]

8. Give the Dems a LITTLE credit

Wasn't it the Dems on the Commission who exposed the Bin Laden family's rapid/secret departure immediately after 911 and the failure of the military pilots to receive/execute shoot-down orders? I want to believe they're gonna' walk in with a list of Condi's quotes from her numerous recent interviews (and hopefully with some juicier whoppers from the past) and SLAM the bitch! They plugged and quoted Clarke's book to help open the doors for the message he wanted to get out so why do you think they'll wimp out and won't use Condi's quotes against her?

Sure, she can try to use Clarke's explanation about "spin" being part of her WH duties but in Clarke's case he just emphasized the positive whereas Condi told out-and-out lies. There's a distinction there I want to believe they'll use to their advantage.

And contrary to some people's opinion, I don't think she's THAT good of a liar....she flusters too easily.

So I'm still holding out hope that there will be some meaty tidbits to discuss after she testifies.

[RapidCreek]

9. They didn't even keep a transcript of her "secret" testimony...

They won't be keeping a transcript of Bush or Cheneys either....the only written record that will exist are notes which the administration will allow a staffer to take. How serious could such a proceeding be if no records are kept? Not very, I'd say. Smoke and mirrors. Democrats should refuse to validate such shit by participating in it...in any way shape or form.

RC

[LunaC]

10. She's babbled enough in public

that they'll have plenty of rope to hang her with and I'm assuming it will be televised so we can have the joy of watching them do it.

Now the deal they've made regarding the testimony of Bush/Cheney is something to be pissed about! Why won't it be public? Why can't the 'Merikun public hear what the "war president" has to say? And why are they testifying together? Witnesses giving testimony in a court of law don't get to hear the other witnesses' testimony to avoid being tainted. And no transcripts or recordings? Yes, that IS not only a bunch of bullshit, it's highly suspicious. Let's hope that the 2 million pages of documents the Commission is reviewing and the public/private testimony they already have will be enough to paint a somewhat cohesive picture to dump some dirt on the Dynamic Duo's doorstep that their testimony won't be that important. Still, I think we have a right to hear what they've got to say!

[emulatorloo]

11. I think you are on target - however did you see Ben-Veniste on Hardball?

Matthews asked for an update on what 911 commission found, Ben-Veniste articulately said they had much testimony that indicated that the gov knew a lot of info pre-911 that was never put together because the WH did not have daily meetings to shake out what was behind all the "chatter" about an attack the intel community was picking up.

Ben-Veniste was basically outlining the things that Clarke said in his testimony, and indicating that they had other testimony that backed it up.

In another sequence, Matthews played the video of Condi saying "No one could have imagined they'd use a plane as a missile" and then Clarke's testimony that they had imagined just such a thing. ( As an aside: While Chris appears to be hot for Condi, he also stated that is main goal in interviewing Clarke tonite is because he is a great source of information for what is really going on inside the Bush White House. He believes Clarke )

I do not believe that Ben-Veniste is going to be easy on her, for what it is worth. Will it amount to anything? Probably not.

However, none of this undercuts your theory, and please please keep your testicles!

[RapidCreek]

12. I did not see that segment.

None the less. The commission itself has no power to convict. It really has no power to do anything at all...other than to allow the administration to soft pedal it's failure to succeed in executing its primary task....to protect the security of America.

Sadly what Rice has stated on television is not admissible testimony. It's not testimony at all. It's marketing, pure and simple. In fact...Ms. Rices remark that "No one could have imagined they'd use a plane as a missile" is nothing more than a statement describing her perception. It is not a statement of fact but a description of what she perceived to be the case. She did not say....I was never told, I received no report or I was specifically instructed that they would NOT use planes as missiles. What she did state....her perception...was not stated under oath....and that inane statement that she has consistently repeated, while not under oath, was not even recorded in an official transcript...so in the eyes of any future legal proceeding, commission with prosecutorial powers or congressional inquiry...it does not exist. It like most of the BushCo lies exists only in the memories of those who are interested in remembering....and that sadly carries no water from a legal perspective. Anything these people say....particularily things they repeat with no deviation...have been intentionally crafted to evoke a reaction or an emotional response from the audience but from a structural standpoint bear very little basis in fact. They are appealing vagaries, vaporous, without concrete form and impossible to nail down. We now hear..."so and so never said"....it matters not what the what the obvious intended perception the statement was designed to elicit.

This is my point. The media and the commission are questioning people about their perceptions...Clarke offered perceptions...but he also offered dates, times and places. He was not asked for dates times and places, however. Nor will be Dr. Condi. As such, the vagaries of perception she will be invited to offer as testimony shall bear no weight. A democrat who asks pointed questions will be answered with non-answers. Since the Democrat has no power to subpoena on his own, real answers cannot be compelled nor is their any inspiration to give them. Since as a witness Dr. Condi's testimonial perceptions, shall preclude any further requests for testimony of Administration functionaries...the administration has effectively protected itself...while marketing the vary perceptual vagaries they have successfully implemented since they took office. The commission is nothing more than a bushco commercial...bought and paid for by you.

This simple fact should not be forgotten. In fact any discussion of the commission by any Democrat should be prefaced with a description of the intent of those who engineered the commission and the fact that it powerless to subpoena administration officials or to compel the testimony of those officials. As such, it is a paper tiger....nothing more than a tool by which to mollify public outrage....and quell further investigation.

RC

[calimary]

13. Well, dahlink - you CAN always call 'em TOLL FREE and enlighten them...

PLEASE NOTE - THE DETAILS FOR CONGRESSIONAL CONTACTS ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS - Last but CERTAINLY not least!

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: [phone]
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: [phone]

email: [e-mail]
AL FELZENBERG, DEPUTY FOR COMMUNICATIONS National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Office: 202-401-1725 Cell: 202-236-4878 Fax: [phone]"

[e-mail]

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

[RapidCreek]

17. I appreciate the addresses

What I fail to understand, however....is how I...a simple man living in Western South Dakota could possibly be more well informed than those for whom you have listed contact information. Certainly they know what I have known and know now. The question is...why do these folks not do something of consequence with the knowledge they must certainly possess?

Frankly I don't need to write my Senator. I have asked him questions and made points to his face...unfortunately he seems more interested in protecting his career as a politician than my interests as his employer. That said...my only other option is to vote Republican.

What it all boils down to is perception...Republicans skill at creating it and Democrats proclivity to allow themselves to be defined by that which has been created. Democrats do not...for some reason seek to confront the hollowness of perception based poloticing....nor do they adequately address it's fallacious construction... republicans consistently succeed in trapping, rendering moot and ineffective the Dems who seem so willing to be wrapped in the perception which have been been woven around them....they react...they are not proavtice...and being proactive is the secret to winning this game. They give the impression that they lack the intellect to recognize when a marketing campaing is afoot....to remark on it and point out what it is...the fallacy upon which it is based and the reaction it is intended to elicit before it takes on a life of its own. It appears that they lack the pride or conviction to stand strong, define themselves and hold accountable those on both side of the fence who are responsible for the predicament we are in. No, they stand quietly about, in front of a man who wears no cloths....a man who has proclaimed himself their king, a man who has created his own court, a man who suggests that he can investigate his own failings but refuses to acknowledge them. This sort of approach will never work. It reeks of complicity borne of cowardice and self interest.

Our Democratic representatives must use the kings weapons against him. One comes distinctly to mind. It's called the Patriot Act. Why do they not ask why the Patriot Act applies to the citizenry but not those entrusted with their protection. Particularly when these people have repeatedly sought to impede even half hearted, disingenuous investigation into their own failures to protect our nations security.....failures it appears could have been intentional. Failures those in the administration entrusted with our protection are clearly profiting from on a personal level.

RC