Author Topic: Gary Condit Interview: To tell the [rehearsed] truth (Read 1845 times)

LePaul · « **on:** August 24, 2001, 11:16:00 AM »

Ok, who watched the interview with Connie Chung? Did you squirm and shake your head through it like the rest of us?

My girlfriend, who steers clear of politics, was besides herself watching this guy try and try to change the topic, chant rehearsed lines and generally be non-cooperative. I think the Democrat on the O'Reilly Show after said it best...roughly put, "An unmitigated PR disaster".

Do you think a lot of it was also that the interview was with a female? I kinda think had he been interviewed by a male, he might have come across a bit differently. But Chung was very good and very direct.

A very very bad for Mr Condit. I think we just witnessed political suicide.

mrfish · « **Reply #1 on:** August 24, 2001, 01:08:00 PM »

in it's day, 'little red riding hood' was a parable meant to teach girls to avoid avaricious men (through symbolism of course).

maybe this event and the clinton thing are good modern lessons for girls trying to take shortcuts to the top by bangin' their local politicians. if they'll cheat on their wives with you while holding the public trust, you have no idea what else they are capable of.

jihad · « **Reply #2 on:** August 24, 2001, 01:46:00 PM »

Yeah, I watched it. His nickname should be *Stonewall*, as far as political suicide goes you hammered that nail.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #3 on:** August 24, 2001, 01:50:00 PM »

Whats ironic is the libs out there demanding the truth, where were they when the big head hancho was doing the same thing as this guy?

Truth? What do libs know about truth? They didn't demand it with Clinton, but now, they do(Yeah, so what, the girl is missing, does that make 'wanting the truth' any more realistic? For crying out loud, CLinton LIED in a federal court, this guy has NOT lied in a federal court)

LePaul · « **Reply #4 on:** August 24, 2001, 02:40:00 PM »

I'm going to savor this brief brief moment in history...in that Jihad and I agree on something

Its nice to know that despite creed or political leanings, we can all clearly see that what Condit is doing is just plain lame. That's the nicest way I can put it.

Amazing how Mr Gephardt, who has as adamant supporter has now traded horses

No one wants to ride that sinking ship anymore.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #5 on:** August 24, 2001, 03:06:00 PM »

What amazes me is how many people are amazed when a politician acts like a politician.

AKDejaVu

Checkmate · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2001, 03:22:00 PM »

Checkmate: Raises his galss toward AKDejaVu

Thrawn · « **Reply #7 on:** August 24, 2001, 03:43:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Whats ironic is the libs out there demanding the truth, where were they when the big head hancho was doing the same thing as this guy?

Truth? What do libs know about truth? They didn't demand it with Clinton, but now, they do(Yeah, so what, the girl is missing, does that make 'wanting the truth' any more realistic? For crying out loud, CLinton LIED in a federal court, this guy has NOT lied in a federal court)

Wow, nice hijack attempt!

jihad · « **Reply #8 on:** August 24, 2001, 04:11:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul:
I'm going to savor this brief brief moment in history...in that Jihad and I agree on something

Its nice to know that despite creed or political leanings, we can all clearly see that what Condit is doing is just plain lame. That's the nicest way I can put it.

Amazing how Mr Gephardt, who has as adamant supporter has now traded horses No one wants to ride that sinking ship anymore.

We're probably closer on a lot more issues than you think - the biggest difference between us is I'm not blinded by any ideology, I try to look at issues realistically before I form my opinions.

One opinion we probably differ on is peoples sex lives are their OWN business, the only thing I find more distasteful than Clinton or Condit lying about their extramarital affairs is the medias and Republicans <mostly> vicarious obsession with other peoples sex lives.

I could go on about dubyas extramarital affairs in the past but whats the point in it?

Kieran · « **Reply #9 on:** August 24, 2001, 04:38:00 PM »

The point is you're gonna miss out on all the fun! j/k

Condit doesn't need to look at the screaming passengers next to him to know his political fortunes are going down in flames...

Gman · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2001, 05:47:00 PM »

I wonder if Condit used the same guys who the Clintons used to rub all their enemies out.

Nah. They're democrats, they wouldn't actually hurt anyone.

Cobra · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2001, 08:58:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by jihad:

I could go on about dubyas extramarital affairs in the past but whats the point in it?

Maybe because none of them have disappeared??

Cobra

fscott · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2001, 10:18:00 PM »

What *EXACTLY* was Condit supposed to have admitted to that he hasn't already?

Chung: Did you kill Levy?
Condit: No.

You folks need to *STOP AND THINK*, and quit jumping aboard the media bandwagon who crave anything that relates to sex.

Condit simply avoided answering questions about sexual relations with Levy because it is NOT RELEVANT to the CHUNG INTERVIEW.

Condit knows that admitting to sexual relations to Chung would DEGRADE into a media frenzy of reports about WHAT KIND OF SEXUAL RELATIONS.

Something like this:

Chung: Did you have sexual relations with Levy?

Condit: Yes..

Chung: what kind?

Condit: (giving in to what the media and the googly-eyed public wants to hear) Oh hell, we did the old 69, numerous times, no cigars though, pepperoni.. 18 inch pepperoni sticks. I F*CKED her at least 300 times within the span of 5 months. My 13-incher pounded that snatch like a meat tenderizer.

Now YOU ALL TELL ME what does this kind of nonsense have to do with the CHUNG INTERVIEW?

Condit answered the questions that the POLICE asked. Just because an investigator says he *FEELS* Condit is being evasive is NOT proveable. This man is only trying to protect his PERSONAL DIGNITY, of which hardly nothing is left due to our wonderful media.

Now before you media slobs cite examples from the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, please understand that the Clinton scandal WAS ABOUT SEX.

The Condit/Levy is NOT.

I cannot understand the public's fascination with hearing the details about one's sexual relations with another.

These are the only questions he did not answer directly. Because he has no obligation to, ONLY to the police, of which he DID answer.

Maverick · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2001, 10:54:00 PM »

Fscott,

yep yer right. Clintoon was about sex. Condit is about more than sex. It seems he may have taken a page from another great democrat. Perhaps he just drove her off a bridge. No, HE didn't kill her, that nasty old water killed her!

In all seriousness this is more about sex, It's likely to be about sex and murder.

Mav

This could be the start of a new democrat survey. Two out of three democratic politicians not only have affairs but remove the other half of the afair,,,, permanently!

Fatty · « **Reply #14 on:** August 24, 2001, 11:06:00 PM »

Quote

These are the only questions he did not answer directly. Because he has no obligation to, ONLY to the police, of which he DID answer.

Interestingly enough, the police chief today equated his cooperation with them as on par with his cooperation with Connie Chung.

Aside from calling every woman involved in this a liar, this is why people have a problem with his conduct. From the beginning, he could have helped find a missing girl. From the beginning he distanced himself from the situation as quickly and inexplicably as possible.

Is he legally bound to do more than he has done? Absolutely not, pending a possible grand jury on obstruction. It does, however, make him a coward and a selfish bellybutton of the utmost degree, and a politician is most definately accountable for that (though not as often as we might like).

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]