In Response to Recent Drama

[Haflinger]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281671929' post='2413846']
Well talking to other alliances and actually conducting official FA business are two different things Haf. It's the second bit we are iffy on congress handling on their own. Usually if congress has direct questions they go to the alliance in question through the MoFA or AC.
[/quote]
They're not THAT different. Frankly if I see someone talking to a lot of other alliances, it's usually not too long before they're conducting official FA business.

In my experience it's best to have as many lines of communication as possible open between allies. If you rely on the MoFA to process all comms, you get two things: a very tired MoFA and screwed-up comms.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281672067' post='2413853']
Obviously there was a sense of urgency to get this cancellation out the door as quickly as possible. That sense of urgency did not come from NSO's end, as we had no intention of getting GATO involved in this mess.

Therefore, the one with the sense of urgency was Omni, with which he was able to convince Congress for the need of getting this cancellation done and made public as quickly as possible.
[/quote]

I believe you are right about the sense of urgency but let me correct you. The sense of urgency did not come from Omni. Omni didn't ask congress to start voting immediately. The speaker is in charge of all that stuff. When the voting started Omni wasn't even around. I think, I do not know, that the speaker believed with the info in front of him pointing to good cause for cancellation in Omni's eyes that we didn't need to be dragged to war over a broken treaty. He did not know you guys didn't ask for help. At that point all he had in front of him was the logs of Heft talking to Hoo and Omni asking why you didn't inform us immediately. He was the one who rushed it and I've yelled at him for it.

[quote]
It being done over half-baked "communication issues" isn't logical.
[/quote]

Whether the communication issues were half-baked or not is an opinion.

[quote]
Why would there be a sense of urgency if it was over something as minor as that? And once it became apparent just how ridiculous and mistaken that impression was, why go through with it?[/quote]

Whether the situation was minor or major is another opinion. I think most actions that leads to war are major. Heft's mistake in not seeing what was in front of him is [i]in my opinion[/i] major. It's cool if you feel different though.

[quote]

Therefore, there is a motive X which caused Omni to try and go and get that cancellation as quickly as possible. This motive X is of greater importance to Omni, and possibly GATO's congress, than your own PR, hence why this move hasn't been backtracked from.

I want to know what motive X is, I think that since our alliance was thrown under the bus to achieve it, we have some right to know.[/quote]

Omni wasn't out to get the cancellation as quickly as possible as I explained in your first bit. He never stated to congress that they needed top hurry. I think we can just discount this whole bit as speculation that is unwarranted under the facts.

[TehChron]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281673408' post='2413895']
I believe you are right about the sense of urgency but let me correct you. The sense of urgency did not come from Omni. Omni didn't ask congress to start voting immediately. The speaker is in charge of all that stuff. When the voting started Omni wasn't even around. I think, I do not know, that the speaker believed with the info in front of him pointing to good cause for cancellation in Omni's eyes that we didn't need to be dragged to war over a broken treaty. He did not know you guys didn't ask for help. At that point all he had in front of him was the logs of Heft talking to Hoo and Omni asking why you didn't inform us immediately. He was the one who rushed it and I've yelled at him for it.[/quote]Disproven here:

01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> I'm hoping this doesn't have to come to war.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> And if it does I really hope it doesn't affect any of our other allies.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> Honestly I wouldn't mind dropping everyone of our treaties right now.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> This is our mistake, and it should be on us.

This comment was made within less than five minutes of Omniscient1 engaging in conversation with Rebel Virginia:

01[17:20] <Rebel_Virginia> Hey.

As has been stated previously by Omniscient1, he was informed within an hour of speaking to Rebel Virginia about this. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, bringing up a vote to cancel the treaty within that timeperiod implies a sense of the greatest urgency on his part.

Moving on to the rest of your quoted comment:

Obviously Omniscient1 brought it up in terms which your Congress decided it would be best to get the cancellation done quickly, regardless of the PR risk, and caused them to act on it. It has been expressed by Omniscient1 and all other involved parties did not object to the haste with which the vote was brought up. Or else they simply would not have done so.

You yourself have asked that I not present my analysis of the "truth" in ways that are not opinion. I would think it only polite that you show a similar courtesy. These are the facts I am stating, after all.


[quote]Whether the communication issues were half-baked or not is an opinion.[/quote]As a thought, or even a motivation, it fits the commonly accepted colloquial term of "half baked" as the idea behind how we violated it was not fully formed, nor presented by Omniscient1 when he announced the cited "motivation" for this cancellation. Therefore, "Half-Baked" in it's truest sense applies here as an objective, though colloquial, description.


[quote]
Whether the situation was minor or major is another opinion. I think most actions that leads to war are major. Heft's mistake in not seeing what was in front of him is [i]in my opinion[/i] major. It's cool if you feel different though.[/quote]The "minor" reference is in regards to the cited communication issue, which has been largely agreed upon by most commenting parties as a minor issue, even trivial.

Whether or not the term "minor" applies to Heft's dialogue with Hoo that night is largely irrelevant at this point and time.

[quote]
Omni wasn't out to get the cancellation as quickly as possible as I explained in your first bit. He never stated to congress that they needed top hurry. I think we can just discount this whole bit as speculation that is unwarranted under the facts.
[/quote]Omniscient1 felt the need to present a highly negative, incomplete account of events to Congress. Why did it need to be negative, regardless of whether or not he intended to spur on an immediate response?

As far as whether or not Omniscient1 intended for the vote itself to be rushed, the announcement itself most certainly was. Why did he not simply wait until after the war to make this announcement? Surely someone in the positions of your government were aware of the potential PR ramifications. Therefore, it stands to reason that there was a motive which overrode the potential for losing face over this announcement.

Either way, with Motive X, all actions up to this point become logical.

[magicninja]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1281673141' post='2413885']
They're not THAT different. Frankly if I see someone talking to a lot of other alliances, it's usually not too long before they're conducting official FA business.

In my experience it's best to have as many lines of communication as possible open between allies. If you rely on the MoFA to process all comms, you get two things: a very tired MoFA and screwed-up comms.
[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree I think there is a major difference from every day chit chat and actual FA business.

Second bit is true. I believe our allies know they have a good few active people they can talk to. They know who to see.

[magicninja]

[quote]Disproven here:

01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> I'm hoping this doesn't have to come to war.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> And if it does I really hope it doesn't affect any of our other allies.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> Honestly I wouldn't mind dropping everyone of our treaties right now.
01[17:23] <Rebel_Virginia> This is our mistake, and it should be on us.

This comment was made within less than five minutes of Omniscient1 engaging in conversation with Rebel Virginia:

01[17:20] <Rebel_Virginia> Hey.

As has been stated previously by Omniscient1, he was informed within an hour of speaking to Rebel Virginia about this. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, bringing up a vote to cancel the treaty within that timeperiod implies a sense of the greatest urgency on his part.[/quote]

Ok, how do RV's comments have anything whatsoever to do with Omni not asking congress to rush to a vote? Omni did not tell our speaker to rush the vote at all, ever. He probably figured congress for a drawn out debate as has always happened in GATO. We're famous for it. RV's words have little effect on that.


[quote]Moving on to the rest of your quoted comment:

Obviously Omniscient1 brought it up in terms which your Congress decided it would be best to get the cancellation done quickly, regardless of the PR risk, and caused them to act on it. It has been expressed by Omniscient1 and all other involved parties did not object to the haste with which the vote was brought up. Or else they simply would not have done so.

You yourself have asked that I not present my analysis of the "truth" in ways that are not opinion. I would think it only polite that you show a similar courtesy. These are the facts I am stating, after all.[/quote]

That has been the [i]main[/i] objection to how the speaker handled the vote. It has certainly been my own and one of my most ardent arguments in getting congress to change their vote which a majority of them in fact did do.


[quote]As a thought, or even a motivation, it fits the commonly accepted colloquial term of "half baked" as the idea behind how we violated it was not fully formed, nor presented by Omniscient1 when he announced the cited "motivation" for this cancellation. Therefore, "Half-Baked" in it's truest sense applies here as an objective, though colloquial, description.[/quote]


In fact all of the [i]necessary[/i] information to show that communication was not up to Omni's standards was presented to congress. That is all Omni really needed to do. So, using the word "half baked" as you have is then simply untrue.


[quote]The "minor" reference is in regards to the cited communication issue, which has been largely agreed upon by most commenting parties as a minor issue, even trivial.

Whether or not the term "minor" applies to Heft's dialogue with Hoo that night is largely irrelevant at this point and time.[/quote]

Even referencing it to the communication issue still makes it opinion. Even if everyone's opinion was the same it still would make it opinion. The person's opinion that mattered in this instance would be Omni's. Did he consider the communication issue minor? I think we all know the answer is no or else he wouldn't have moved to cancel. After that the point moved to congress who then had ultimate authority and their opinion was what counted. If their opinion is different to your own and it makes you upset. You are entitled to it.


[quote]Omniscient1 felt the need to present a highly negative, incomplete account of events to Congress. Why did it need to be negative, regardless of whether or not he intended to spur on an immediate response?[/quote]


Most likely because Omni was the person most offended by his perceived lack of communication on the matter.



[quote]As far as whether or not Omniscient1 intended for the vote itself to be rushed, the announcement itself most certainly was. Why did he not simply wait until after the war to make this announcement? Surely someone in the positions of your government were aware of the potential PR ramifications. Therefore, it stands to reason that there was a motive which overrode the potential for losing face over this announcement.

Either way, with Motive X, all actions up to this point become logical.[/quote]


The timing has been roundly criticized within GATO and by our friends as well. I don't think anyone will disagree that the timing was awful. I certainly haven't but I don't see it pointing to another motive. I can't even think of a possible Motive X. Can you?

Edited August 13, 2010 by magicninja

[TehChron]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1281674572' post='2413938']
Ok, how do RV's comments have anything whatsoever to do with Omni not asking congress to rush to a vote? Omni did not tell our speaker to rush the vote at all, ever. He probably figured congress for a drawn out debate as has always happened in GATO. We're famous for it. RV's words have little effect on that.
[/quote] To emphasize that the sense of urgency was borne of Omnscient1 on a personal level, as the only way he could have been concerned with a possible war dragging in GATO, and told Congress this, by his own admission, was if it could have occurred within the one hour time period between when he was informed, and when he began speaking to Rebel Virginia. Nor, for that matter, does it explain Omniscient1's motivations in portraying us in a negative viewpoint with such short warning. In what can only be described as a complete about face from the attitude he showed to Rebel Virginia in his conversation with him.

[quote]
That has been the [i]main[/i] objection to how the speaker handled the vote. It has certainly been my own and one of my most ardent arguments in getting congress to change their vote which a majority of them in fact did do.
[/quote]
Your admission that the objective GATO had when revisiting the abandoning of it's treaty with my alliance had nothing to do with salvaging the relationship between the two is duly noted.


[quote]In fact all of the [i]necessary[/i] information to show that communication was not up to Omni's standards was presented to congress. That is all Omni really needed to do. So, using the word "half baked" as you have is then simply untrue. [/quote]"necessary information", "Omni's standards", "all [he] needed to do" are all highly subjective descriptions.

If you can, I would like you to define the above cited concepts, and then prove that in this situation, all were met so that I may adequately respond to this latest assertion.


[quote]Even referencing it to the communication issue still makes it opinion. Even if everyone's opinion was the same it still would make it opinion. The person's opinion that mattered in this instance would be Omni's. Did he consider the communication issue minor? I think we all know the answer is no or else he wouldn't have moved to cancel. After that the point moved to congress who then had ultimate authority and their opinion was what counted. If their opinion is different to your own and it makes you upset. You are entitled to it.
[/quote]
The main issue here is wondering what Omniscient1's opinion actually was, hence the desire to understand Motive X. All you have is your own speculation on the matter, which is all fine and good, but really does nothing to address the questions being posed.

Your concluding statement is flawed. This is not about my opinion versus the opinions of involved parties. This is about understanding the stance and motivations behind the individuals who committed this act of sudden betrayal. Moreover, I am entitled to my opinion. This is correct.

You are the one that challenged me to present the facts in a way that are not opinion. You have refused to follow your own standards for presenting your case here, and that is rather disappointing.

Subjectively speaking, it seems to me that you are fully capable of talking a big game, but are unable to pull it off yourself. Objectively speaking, that is a shame, since you and many others consider that a trait of my alliance, you would think that would indicate a possibility for reconciliation down the road. But that possibility has long since been denied on GATO's end.

[quote]Most likely because Omni was the person most offended by his perceived lack of communication on the matter.[/quote]
And therefore the question becomes "how was he offended"? That has only been stated in vague terms, and not to anyone's satisfaction.


[quote]
The timing has been roundly criticized within GATO and by our friends as well. I don't think anyone will disagree that the timing was awful. I certainly haven't but I don't see it pointing to another motive. I can't even think of a possible Motive X. Can you?
[/quote]
You have, once again, asked me to present my views in a manner that is not opinion. That you are unable to answer your own question is caused by your own lack of information.

However, just because you can not explain the existence of Motive X, does not itself mean that you can deny said existence. And logically speaking, Motive X is the most likely cause for this chain of events.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Chron

[magicninja]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1281678711' post='2414045']
To emphasize that the sense of urgency was borne of Omnscient1 on a personal level, as the only way he could have been concerned with a possible war dragging in GATO, and told Congress this, by his own admission, was if it could have occurred within the one hour time period between when he was informed, and when he began speaking to Rebel Virginia. Nor, for that matter, does it explain Omniscient1's motivations in portraying us in a negative viewpoint with such short warning. In what can only be described as a complete about face from the attitude he showed to Rebel Virginia in his conversation with him.[/quote]

Look you're going to have to clarify your point here. I really have no idea what you are trying to say or how it at all relates to the fact that Omni did not tell congress to rush to a vote. Omni made no comment to tell congress to push it through in any timeframe. He merely posted the evidence and left it to congress. If you can prove that he did tell congress to rush it through I would love to see that evidence.

[quote]
Your admission that the objective GATO had when revisiting the abandoning of it's treaty with my alliance had nothing to do with salvaging the relationship between the two is duly noted.
[/quote]

Just because pointing out that they rushed the vote as a mean to get them to reconsider does not change that my end was salvaging the relationship.

[quote]"necessary information", "Omni's standards", "all [he] needed to do" are all highly subjective descriptions.

If you can, I would like you to define the above cited concepts, and then prove that in this situation, all were met so that I may adequately respond to this latest assertion.
[/quote]

Well let's talk about necessary information. What is needed to show a lapse in communication? Well when was the threat shown to be known? In Omni's opinion it was when Hoo threatened Heft with retribution. When did the a government agent of NSO know of the threat? In Omni's opinion the threat was known immediately considering Heft is a government agent of NSO. So we have a point from where to start. Omni displayed logs of the Heft-Hoo convo to show when this information should have been known and thus conveyed. As everyone knows Heft said nothing to anyone that night about Hoo's threat. He showed that he nor anyone else in GATO was told until the following afternoon when war was already imminent. That is all the information he needed to show. Someone in NSO gov knew of the threat yet we did not find out until many hours later. Omni's standard of not being told when the problem first surfaced was breeched. Some may be of the opinion that Omni's standards are too high. However opinion at this point is irrelevant. All he needed to do was show the timeline of Heft's knowledge to when we informed and indicate it was not up to his standard.

[quote]
The main issue here is wondering what Omniscient1's opinion actually was, hence the desire to understand Motive X. All you have is your own speculation on the matter, which is all fine and good, but really does nothing to address the questions being posed.

Your concluding statement is flawed. This is not about my opinion versus the opinions of involved parties. This is about understanding the stance and motivations behind the individuals who committed this act of sudden betrayal. Moreover, I am entitled to my opinion. This is correct.[/quote]

If it is not about your opinion quit making it about your opinion. Whether or not the issue is minor is a matter of opinion and that is just the way it is.

Omni's opinion has been stated many times that he did not feel the communication was up to his standards as executor of GATO's treaty with NSO. That is not really a question at this point.

[quote]You are the one that challenged me to present the facts in a way that are not opinion. You have refused to follow your own standards for presenting your case here, and that is rather disappointing.[/quote]

I have only given my opinion when asked for it. I at least acknowledge my opinions have nothing to do with the facts.

[quote]
Subjectively speaking, it seems to me that you are fully capable of talking a big game, but are unable to pull it off yourself. Objectively speaking, that is a shame, since you and many others consider that a trait of my alliance, you would think that would indicate a possibility for reconciliation down the road. But that possibility has long since been denied on GATO's end.[/quote]

Whether I can talk a big game is neither here nor there.


[quote]And therefore the question becomes "how was he offended"? That has only been stated in vague terms, and not to anyone's satisfaction.[/quote]

That is not a question for me to answer. However we can conclude he was offended or none of this would have happened in the first place.


[quote]You have, once again, asked me to present my views in a manner that is not opinion. That you are unable to answer your own question is caused by your own lack of information.

However, just because you can not explain the existence of Motive X, does not itself mean that you can deny said existence. And logically speaking, Motive X is the most likely cause for this chain of events.
[/quote]

You have failed to provide any credible information for me to conclude that Motive X is even a possibility much less a probability.

Edited August 13, 2010 by magicninja

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1281904883' post='2416938']
RV what you're saying is a complete lie, and you all know the things I done for NSO. The only thing NSO ever tried to give in return was to whine about how we were never on their side or some crap like that. Since I only brought up the cancellation thing to try and greater inform D34th. I don't want to go over the same trite arguments again. It will only turn into a NO U argument over and over again.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Since this belongs here, I'd like to state that this is a complete lie. In all our dealings we never once complained about your choice of allies, and neither you about ours. It was something we ignored as our common goal was brown and we were working towards that. However, despite this we were willing to back you up against GOD and several other alliances on several occasions. We had no obligation nor no ties with any of the alliances you were asking us to defend, but we did this for you anyway. We gave you our word, and I tell you had it came to war we would have been there.

On the other hand, the NSO caused no issues in the last few months up to this. We had laid low and kept our heads down. You never really had to back us up before. So please, do yourself a favor and stop spewing rubbish. No one is buying it, and the only reason some alliances are defending you here is because of those few treaties you do have. Had you not had those I can safely say that even if the NSO was wrong in its dealings with RoK everyone, and I mean everyone, would be telling you that you were wrong to cancel the way you did, and even more wrong to make up lies in order to try and justify it.[/color]

[Stealthkill]

Glad to see that NSO is doing an absolutely splendid job of reestablishing good connections with GATO.

[D34th]

[quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1281992440' post='2418229']
Glad to see that NSO is doing an absolutely splendid job of reestablishing good connections with GATO.
[/quote]

Because NSO really wants to "reestablish good connections" with GATO

[Stealthkill]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1281995241' post='2418277']
Because NSO really wants to "reestablish good connections" with GATO
[/quote]
Touche haha

[TehChron]

[quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1281992440' post='2418229']
Glad to see that NSO is doing an absolutely splendid job of reestablishing good connections with GATO.
[/quote]
Really? Since when does an alliance obtain the privilege of not facing the consequences of their blunders?

I mean, clearly if we're improving chances of re-establishing anything with GATO, then we're not trying hard enough to call out their leadership on their base treachery.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1281995241' post='2418277']
Because NSO really wants to "reestablish good connections" with GATO
[/quote]
This guy has it right.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Chron

[Chris Pearson]

Its funny to see someone from NSO talk about what happened inside the Congress of GATO when he wasn't even there.
He says Omni put a rush on the vote for Congress, yet all I see is him saying that, no proof to back it up. Tell me, Chron Where is the proof that anything your saying is truth or not. I don't want no roundabout explanation, I'm sure we all would like cold hard facts.

[Lennox]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282048477' post='2419487']
Its funny to see someone from NSO talk about what happened inside the Congress of GATO when he wasn't even there.
He says Omni put a rush on the vote for Congress, yet all I see is him saying that, no proof to back it up. Tell me, Chron Where is the proof that anything your saying is truth or not. I don't want no roundabout explanation, I'm sure we all would like cold hard facts.
[/quote]

Would you like proof of it coming from the mouths of a few GATO government members? I am more than willing to oblige.

[Chris Pearson]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1282049359' post='2419501']
Would you like proof of it coming from the mouths of a few GATO government members? I am more than willing to oblige.
[/quote]

I just want proof.

[Lennox]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282052877' post='2419547']
I just want proof.
[/quote]


Here is a PM sent by Politician
[quote]

Politician wrote:
Heya Jrenster,

I know I've barely exchanged a few words with you, but for what it's worth, I hate to see the way things were handled.

I don't feel comfortable right now. Just letting you know, is that this happened all very fast on our end. Untypical of our infamous long debating times, there was practically no debate about this move. The little debate there had been, was with the wrong people.

As the treaty was voided and not canceled, the AC had the power to do things the way they were done, without much discussion on the matter.

I don't know the reasons for this move based on mere technicality, other than the offense that our AC seems to have taken over not being notified quicker. I can assure you it was however not because of a cowardly nature by part of the alliance.

I just wish we could have had the chance to sit down and talk this out.

Just letting you know, that this move is not a representation of the whole alliance. There are people that are disappointed/ashamed, others (most) haven't even realized what has been going on, and others would indeed have simply preferred to cancel it after the war.

Cheers,
Politician.[/quote]

And more
[quote]
[16:36] magicninja Well Omni screwed the pooch hard
[16:36] magicninja 1.
[16:36] magicninja he didn;t tell congress you guys wouldn;t request help
[b][16:37] magicninja 2. he posted that announcement before congress was done voting[/b]
[16:37] magicninja Officially
[16:37] magicninja the treaty is still active
[/quote]

I suppose I could provide you with more proof if you wanted, but this should suffice.

[Politician]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1282059658' post='2419666']
Here is a PM sent by Politician


[/quote]
Sent Aug 09.

[i]Just saying[/i]

[Lennox]

[quote name='Politician' timestamp='1282060853' post='2419705']
Sent Aug 09.

[i]Just saying[/i]
[/quote]

Whats your point.

[Politician]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1282061072' post='2419711']
Whats your point.
[/quote]
It's like a joke. Hard to explain, you either get it or you don't.

[TehChron]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282048477' post='2419487']
Its funny to see someone from NSO talk about what happened inside the Congress of GATO when he wasn't even there.
He says Omni put a rush on the vote for Congress, yet all I see is him saying that, no proof to back it up. Tell me, Chron Where is the proof that anything your saying is truth or not. I don't want no roundabout explanation, I'm sure we all would like cold hard facts.
[/quote]
Were you there in order to say it didnt?

I mean, at first it was only speculation, but in other announcements aside from this one I was able to present proof validating my initial deduction. The idea of a "railroaded" vote only existed as a justification for the suspicion of Omniscientone's deceit.

But then it turns out that actual proof exists. The conversation has moved on, feel free to look into it further.

[Chris Pearson]

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1282064990' post='2419841']
Were you there in order to say it didnt?

I mean, at first it was only speculation, but in other announcements aside from this one I was able to present proof validating my initial deduction. The idea of a "railroaded" vote only existed as a justification for the suspicion of Omniscientone's deceit.

But then it turns out that actual proof exists. The conversation has moved on, feel free to look into it further.
[/quote]

Were you there to say it did? How were you able to prove something happened if you don't have any proof?

[TehChron]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282066281' post='2419890']
Were you there to say it did? How were you able to prove something happened if you don't have any proof?
[/quote]
I actually have proof of Omni's duplicity on this subject, and presented it elsewhere. It's honestly not my responsibility to repeat myself when Ive already laid out my case. If you are content being simply wrong, that's your right, and I have no business denying you of it.

[magicninja]

[quote name='PearChris' timestamp='1282066281' post='2419890']
Were you there to say it did? How were you able to prove something happened if you don't have any proof?
[/quote]

He'll never have proof that Omni told congress to rush the vote. It doesn't exist. He knows it as well as anyone. It's why he has to try to spin something completely unrelated to that fact.

[quote name='Chron' timestamp='1282066457' post='2419897']
I actually have proof of Omni's duplicity on this subject, and presented it elsewhere. It's honestly not my responsibility to repeat myself when Ive already laid out my case. If you are content being simply wrong, that's your right, and I have no business denying you of it.
[/quote]

Like that. Omni's duplicity or whatever he is trying to spin has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the fact that Omni never told congress to rush the vote. He just wants everyone to believe it does.

Edited August 17, 2010 by magicninja

[magicninja]

[quote name='Lennox' timestamp='1282059658' post='2419666']
Here is a PM sent by Politician


And more


I suppose I could provide you with more proof if you wanted, but this should suffice.
[/quote]

Actually with the congressional rule that ruined the taking back of the votes. You know the one I discussed for pages? Well with that rule in place Omni didn't post early. So, I take back what I said in that bit.

[TehChron]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1282073550' post='2420063']
He'll never have proof that Omni told congress to rush the vote. It doesn't exist. He knows it as well as anyone. It's why he has to try to spin something completely unrelated to that fact.



Like that. Omni's duplicity or whatever he is trying to spin has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the fact that Omni never told congress to rush the vote. He just wants everyone to believe it does.
[/quote]
So what? He still lied. He still deceived Congress into believing that there was still an imminent threat to GATO so long as that treaty still existed between us. The railroading theory was just a suspicion to support the theory of Omni's deception. Which has now come to light as a proven fact.

I mean, thats pretty much all that matters here. The railroaded vote was just speculation, the fact that his duplicity has now come to light renders that irrelevant. So what if he didn't railroad the vote?

He still lied to your Congress, and he still lied to your alliance. And you're endorsing that.