The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html

9/11 - the big cover-up?
Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
Peter Tatchell


Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;
and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

It is only the OCT's that can defend the supposed veracity of the investigation and its "findings".

Lots of good info suggesting that there is likely much more behind the deficiencies of the report than mere CYA.

Go here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html

Scroll down to "The 911 Commission Comes to SF Bay Area: and gets confronted".
Philip Zelikow is 1:52 in.

Peace.

the 9/11 Commission report was complete.

What I take issue with is theories that the towers were felled by controlled demolition, mini-nukes, space beams, etc. I also take issue with claims that the Pentagon was hit by something other than Flight 77.

I believe that shortcomings in the Commission's charter, budget and scope were the result of attempts to cover up the Administration's failures in recognizing and dealing with the well documented threat posed by Al Qaeda.

If there is any conspiracy theory, it is around ass-covering.

stop at incompetence? What leads you to draw the line there?

Let's talk Iraq for a moment... I believe that the Iraq invasion was a foregone conclusion once Bush took office, with or without 9/11. In the buildup to the invasion, the administration trotted out every justification they could think of until they found one that got a little traction, namely WMDs.

At the time, I believed that Iraq did possess WMDs, but felt that it was a pretty lame excuse to justify invading a sovereign state. I felt that it established a dangerous precedent. What, should we invade the 155 countries that possess or can manufacture anthrax or nerve gas? Really bad justification. Plus, my libertarian leanings strongly support the no 'first-use' of force principle.

Once Baghdad fell, the hunt for WMDs began. But they never found any. I believe it would have been a relatively simple matter to plant some (certainly simpler than orchestrating the events of 9/11), yet they didn't. Sure, they tried to spin the finding of some 1990s era-chemical artillery shells into a major event, but it fell pretty flat. The adminitration now admits that they were flat out wrong about WMDs.

So they plainly admit that the main justification for invading another country was flawed when they could have easily manufactured, post facto, the justification.

Secondly, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there was a golden opportunity to leave Iraq. We had accomplished the three major (ostensible) goals of the invasion:

1. WMDs? None found. Check.
2. Elections? Check.
3. Saddam captured? Check.

If Bush had left at that point, I believe he could have salvaged a bad situation and left some kind of positive legacy. He didn't.

Those two defining events, for me, point to a remarkably incompetent administration.

Thirdly, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that would suggest to me that the towers fell by CD, or that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

In the absence of (what I consider to be) compelling evidence, there is no logical reason to suspect that the events of 9/11 involved government complicity.

Why would a decision to remain in Iraq once the three benchmarks you listed were achieved signal incompetence? More plausibly, it would signal lust for war and domination. It's not incompetence that leaves troops in place in a situaltion where it's obvious they should be removed.

The stated reason for leaving them there is even more absurd than the original justification: that reason was "fighting terror". But as everyone who has commented on the case will agree, it is the US presence in Iraq that is generating terror. There is no disputing that.

Further, it is amply demonstrable that the Bush administration did not have a reasonable claim that WMD's existed. Even if they did, that is not a warrant to invade another country. Period. Iraq had no capability of delivering the imaginary WMDs. The Niger documents were known to be forgeries months and months ahead of the attacks. The Downing Street Memo demonstrated the true motive was to go to war, not use diplomacy (although diplomacy wasn't even needed, since there was no real imminent threat).

There was simply no case for going to war, and they went anyway. They stayed for the same reason they went in the first place.

I believe that he is delusional. He sees the war of terror as the epic struggle of good vs evil.

Others believe him to be evil.

If he's delusional, then the incompetence argument holds water, in my opinion.

I'm no psychologist, so it's all conjecture on my part.

This whole thing has nothing to do with Bush, never has.

I just read Yurica's The Despoiling of America. It's three years old, so you may already be familiar with it. It helped me understand Bush's (and the PNACer's) ideology.

Link: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Tell me what you think. Is she way off the mark?

made the maneuver required to fly a plane into the Pentagon like that? I've just started investigating 9/11 theories and I've come across that several times already.

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Check out that list and see what you think.

I've spent more time on 911truth than I care to remember. For every one of their 'top 40' there is a well-reasoned rebuttal.

So it goes.

"In the absence of (what I consider to be) compelling evidence, there is no logical reason to suspect that the events of 9/11 involved government complicity."

I have already posted iron clad proof that the CIA and FBI HQ had intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place, see my Journal for all of this information.

All of this information comes right from the US government's own investigations of 9/11.

If you can disprove any of this information, let me know.

Very few espouse the idea of mini-nukes, space beams, etc. We raise question about CD because the collapse looked that way. By calling me a crackpot, you do injustice to my my need to gather information, keep an open mind, and consider ALL possibilities. When one considers the compendium of oddities, inconsistencies, contradictions, obstructions, and lack of information, one must consider that the story we are told is not straight.

When I see an administration lying to me over and over on x, y and z issues, why is it so crazy to believe they lied about 9/11 issues as well.

Ass-covering is one possibility, but ass-covering may be a cover for a more active role, which I cannot understand why you OCT'ers refuse to consider as a possibility.

lie immediately.

I was careless in my euphamisms.

But what about the content of my post? I don't speculate on theories. I just find the operating official theory unacceptable.

Very few espouse the idea of mini-nukes, space beams, etc. We raise question about CD because the collapse looked that way. By lumping me together with those whose theories you take issue with, you do injustice to my my need to gather information, keep an open mind, and consider ALL possibilities. When one considers the compendium of oddities, inconsistencies, contradictions, obstructions, and lack of information, one must consider that the story we are told is not straight.

When I see an administration lying to me over and over on x, y and z issues, why is it so crazy to believe they lied about 9/11 issues as well.

Ass-covering is one possibility, but ass-covering may be a cover for a more active role, which I cannot understand why you OCT'ers refuse to consider as a possibility.

"...why is it so crazy to believe they lied about 9/11 issues as well."

It isn't crazy to think that the administration is lying about 9/11 issues for that reason alone.

But that doesn't justify crazy questions about 9/11, like CD or plane denial. Everybody here is aware that the administration can and does lie.

I personally (can't speak for others) refuse to consider a more active role because there is no evidence that warrants this conclusion and no other. I am quite willing to go where all evidence rightly weighed goes, and that includes government complicity. In fact, I would go so far as to say if you can't get me with your conspiracy theories, you don't have anything worth chasing.

I am more than willing to believe that the government is lying about any matter whatsoever. Provide credible evidence.

versions that I mentioned. I did not call out any particular scheme as being more or less implausible than any of the others. I merely stated that none of them were plausible to me.

> Very few espouse the idea of mini-nukes, space beams

Point taken.

> When I see an administration lying to me over and over on x, y and z issues, why is it so crazy to believe
> they lied about 9/11 issues as well.

This is a point I see repeated all the time, but it makes no sense to me. The OCT is *not* GWB's private property. The 9/11 Comission was bi-partisan, and the NIST and FEMA reports were produced by hundreds of professionals with no connections to the administration. Hell, my graduate professor in advanced mechanics of materials at WPI was part of the investigation. Are hundreds of engineers and scientists lying? I think not.

I will humbly note that I am a degreed mechanical engineer, and I find it emminently plausible that a 100+ story building would fail given the extent of structural and thermal damage. I cannot for the life of me imagine it *not* falling as it did once the collapse sequence began.

it is about all the events pre, post and on 9/11 that add up to something very fishy. It is about the warnings (and the denial by the administration of such warnings), the change in hijacking protocol placing Rumsfeld & Cheney in more crucial positions for that day, the lack of findings in the put options investigation, the meeting with Goss, Graham and Ahmed (the man who ordered $100,000 to Mohammed Atta) for breakfast on 9/11, the amazing coincidence of multiple simultaneous wargames on 9/11 that resulted in confusion and paralysis of our defenses, the Atta passport, building 7, the whisking away of steel to China, the reluctance to form a 9/11 commission, the gagging of Sibel Edmonds, the anthrax attacks (Ames strain, white house on Cipro), the plans for attacks on afghanistan and iraq and for the patriot act that were on the table pre-89/11, just off the top of my head in about one minute, and the list goes on and on.

These pieces don't add up in a sensible way for me. I don't have a conspiracy theory. I just have a very strong sense of when I'm being bullshitted, and my meter has been on red since 9/11 whenever I hear Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld speak. My gut tells me they were involved in some way. Proof is difficult when one has no access to evidence- either destroyed, gagged, withheld because of national security, etc. You want irrefutable proof, but does the inability to get proof does not have bearing on whether a crime was committed; it may mean that tracks have been covered well enough to maintain an official story.

because I don't have answers to all of them. I do believe that if you do some digging you can find rebuttals or reasonable explanations for most of the points you raised.

I have been mainly interested in the actual attacks and building collapses, because I happen to be an engineer. I haven't followed money trails, murky connections, suspicious changes in plans etc.

This administration has certainly given people plenty of reasons to doubt their veracity. However there have been a few instances where they've told the truth when a subterfuge would have been simple. For example, they've admitted that they were wrong about WMDs in Iraq. I think they could have planted some evidence pretty easily.

For the limited amount of reading and research I've done, the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

In a cover-up, the bad guys get together to create a report that gives good-sounding answers to all possible questions. They don't fight with one another and produce a lame report with lots of holes in it.

Philip Zelikow directly oversaw the production of the Report. He had a team of writers who were part of the "front office", and they were responsible for drafting it.

See Ernest May's memoir of the 9/11 Commission for his account of the process.

"When Governmnt Writes History"
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050523&s=may052305

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

....but yet they never get banned?

Why is that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...anyone an asshole or a creep....yet she is gone whilst Bolo and SweetPea stay.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But thanks for linking to a post which explicitly restates that the rule against personal attacks applies regardless of whether Skinner happens to think that the person attacked is "deserving of disdain and ridicule."

but then, I guess it does depend on what perspective one has. There were a number of excellent, IMO, posts in that thread. And, the thread was significant because many of the posts were respectful and thought-provoking.

It asserts that the mods willfully favor one viewpoint in enforcement of the rules. (I won't even go into the Zimbardo analogy.)

which may or may not be true. And, he did it respectfully.

Your understanding of "respectfully" is sharply at variance with my own. If you were a mod, would you feel "respected" by that comment?

As for "may or may not be true," one only has to check some recent deleted messages to see that it isn't. I see no good purpose in equivocating on matters of fact.

"Alert" is no longer one-sided.

which was, of course, my point.

Respect has to do with matters other than those of fact. The passage quoted is a claim of fact. It is either true or not. If it is true, then there is not disrespect done to anyone by stating it. In fact, many would say that respect for persons REQUIRES calling their behavior by its proper name. Otherwise, you do them a disrespect by altering reality (Kant, for instance, would hold this kind of view).

You seem to be implying that saying something that reflects badly on the local authorities is disrespectful to them. That's not so. It is a question of whether the criticism is appropriate or not.

Having said all of this, Hamden's claim is false (strictly speaking). "(A)nything and everything" cannot literally be said. But Hamden was quite clearly exaggerating to make a salient point: namely, that there appears to be favoritism toward those who share the point of view held by the proprietor of this board. Whether the use of exaggeration is disrespectful can be debated (you may be right that it is).

I think you end up in about the right place at the end, but I just burned about ten minutes trying to figure out what you "seem(ed) to be implying" the proper definition of respect was.

"Exaggeration" may not be inherently disrespectful, but I think reasonably neutral observers could agree on how to score this case.

Respect should be a given. But Hamden's observation are on point. He's experienced first-hand (as many of us have) the deterioration of respect in this forum, and the consequent effects of the asymmetrical enforcement of respect.

It would be interesting to do some content analysis and try to sort that out. People's criteria of respect and civility tend to be pretty damn elastic.

Apparently your present position is that Hamden's observation is wrong but nonetheless "on point." OK, whatever. Even if I were somehow blessed with objectivity, I wouldn't have the time to begin to assign responsibility for any "deterioration of respect" on the board.

ETA: I may be overextrapolating from my experiences elsewhere, but my impression is that the violations of civility aren't entirely symmetrical in type. Some folks are more likely to call "stupid," others are more likely to call "shill." It isn't self-evident whether these are equivalent violations.

Furthermore, didn't you call a person or two an asshole before you achieved 25 posts DU?

This is one of the most baseless lines of bullshit being marketed here yet.

You guys are on a roll lately! I've tried to be helpful by reminding you OCTabots that when you use terms like this most people are going to think immediately, "self-reflexive projection"!

Surely someone who bases most of his "facts" on the writings of psychic spoon benders, magician fan clubs and imaginary talking gorillas should not throw around terms like "baseless lines of bullshit"!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You always manage to be unintentionally hilarious and entertaining! Have you ever made a sustained argument on this or any other forum that was not a "baseless line of bullshit"?

We realize your posts about yourself or others are made for some goofy self-serving effect and that being forthright isn't your top priority. If believing that people buy the falsehoods you post on a message board helps get you through the day, well, that's very sad.

Post #75 was factual, honest, and apparently got to you.

Is it because that is the highest level of analytic power and life experience you can bring to the table? Seriously, when have you ever written anything that was elevated above throwing around poop references or other stupid, childish insults? I wonder why? Seriously, I would like to understand how you approach geopolitical and social science questions, such as 9/11, such that your discussion always end up with an analysis that is little more than "that's bullshit." It's like you have some severe cognitive or analytic deficit. It's so strange, and obviously quite tragic for you. Maybe you'd like to share that with us.

On the other hand, I have heard that gorillas sometimes throw poop around their cages.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I think you're going ad hominem on a straw man again in attempt to attack my character. You're really making a lot out of nothing.

Chomsky has asked his audiences to try to imagine how our culture's behavior would look like through the eyes of an extraterrestrial being, and Quinn, as a self-described cultural critic, has compared his pov to a what a "Martian anthropologist's" might be. It's an attempt to free oneself from the unexamined assumptions of ones cultural myths in order to see them clearly.

When asked why he chose to make Ishmael a gorilla, Quinn says:


Furthermore, Ishmael(which received the Turner Tomorrow Fellowhip Award and is utilized in hundreds of classrooms around the planet) isn't the only book has Quinn written on these topics, but the gorilla does appear in the sequel My Ishmael, and is referred to in The Story of B whose central characters are all very human, though indeed fictional.

So, big deal.

I again remind you of the time you chastised me for criticizing Mel Gibson's Apocalypto even though I hadn't seen the movie, and again suggest you take your own advice.

Unless you mean to say "it is."

My guess is that her behavior crossed over from occasional to chronic.

your still here.

things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

and then try to justify it in the name of "free speech."

maybe the OP didn't know how forbidden that was. And I've linked to places I had no clue were unsavory to DU, just this past weekend. :shrug:

such a list.

I was told a long time ago not to link to anti-war.com (??), competing sites with disenfranchised DUers (I 'get' that), and was strongly encouraged to stay away from Paul Craig Roberts. I try to stay between the lines, but don't always do so through no conscious thought of my own.

on THAT list!

from her. I believe many have frayed nerves over what is going on with these nukes.

Here's what the rules say:


If you'd like to know how the far right wing interacts with the left via conspiracism I highly recommend Chip Berlet's work.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/DynamicsTOC.html

Some of the sites she linked to have been discussed many times here before as being very inappropriate. It wasn't some newbie mistake, and also she defended her decision to post them.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum

That is something you are not answering.

but I imagine that breaking some rules, and the manner in which one breaks certain rules can be deemed worse than others. I don't think that there is an equivalence between having a post deleted for an ad hom, and having a post deleted for posting links to hate sites. You may think so.

Now If I was to call anyone here on this forum the same...i am 100% sure i would get banned.

Aswell as having my posts deleted.

Getting banned? That would harsh for an ad hom, unless you were going to town with ad homs, then maybe. Ad homs are often dished out on DU in debate, although in most cases there isn't a ban. The meaning of an insult and what it implies can also provide context. Calling someone an "asshole" will likely lead to a deleted message, but calling someone e.g. "a Jew lover" will likely lead to a banning as well (I remember coming across such a case in LBN last year). As my main point was, it is difficult to obtain equivalence in how to deal with breaking the messageboard rules, and human judgment will distinguish the severity and disruption between different instances, and how to differ the appropriate course of action.

The question is whether there is an observable difference in the way those who support Skinner's point of view are treated when they violate policy, as opposed to the way those who disagree with Skinner are treated in similar circumstances.

You could always test that theory out. What's the worse that could happen? ;-)

:cry:

If I have broken any rules produce the said post and report me.

otherwise... :kick:

It doesn't exactly put yourself in the best light.

And that has got to be the lamest example of an insult I've seen in a while. Besides, your argument IMO was well within in the realm of nutty.

.... sub threads on that topic....but hey I ain't holding my breath.

Calling someone a nut violates these rules:

According to LITHOS himself:
Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

you of my viewpoint."

It's not even a minor insult.

15. hard nut to crack,
a. a problem difficult to solve; a formidable undertaking.
b. a person difficult to know, understand, or convince.
Also, tough nut to crack

ETA - citation from dictionary.com

You will find that he highlighted NUT....

A very clever way of insulting someone whilst masking the insult...so someone like you can say just what you have said:

"It's not even a minor insult"!!!!!!!!!!

Very smart, that SLAD. Don't know what the deleted message was about, don't care. But SLAD is a fount of very worthwhile info.

Posting to a prohibited website, for which she had been warned previously.

Not the death penalty, just a stint in the city klink.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.

A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once again, videotapes were not mentioned.

As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

...tenaciously trying to find out the truth, but obstructed by nasty officials :rofl:

That's probably how Kean, Hamilton & co like to see themselves; I don't think history will share this view.

These gentlemen were shown Potemkin villages, and they were fully aware of it.

:hi:

Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040525104145424

THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...


We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process--if you have useful links, please send them to janice911truthorg. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

More . . .
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646



In October last year, Cleland said the Bush administration was purposely stalling the investigation because of the 2004 election. Cleland said, “As each day goes by, we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted.”

In November, after the White House set conditions for the examination of documents Cleland said, “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

while the worst attack on American soil went down. Why wasn't Meyers prosecuted for dereliction of duty? Please don't tell me that the acting JCS is unavailable for duty because he's got that upcoming Senate confirmation to focus on.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Sid

The truthers missed a year though, I was hoping this would become like the zombie jeebus.

Wonder whatever happened to her. She had some serious issues.

Sid

... and it's still a shame.