Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The Unflappable Condi Rice

L

Longhorn85

New member
The more this woman is exposed, the more America will see how Bush made a great decision to appoint her as his NSA. She is extremely intelligent, articulate and conscientious. Not only will she come out of this standing tall, I am sure many potential voters, including many black Americans and democrats, will want to support her and Bush in November.

One interesting thing is that it seems that Clarke had a problem with working for her. I wonder if he has ever had a female or minority boss before? He seems to really dislike her.

Clarke came across as a pompous beauracrat on Meet the Press yesterday.
 
ttlpkg said:
The more this woman is exposed, the more America will see how Bush made a great decision to appoint her as his NSA. She is extremely intelligent, articulate and conscientious. Not only will she come out of this standing tall, I am sure many potential voters, including many black Americans and democrats, will want to support her and Bush in November.

One interesting thing is that it seems that Clarke had a problem with working for her. I wonder if he has ever had a female or minority boss before? He seems to really dislike her.

Clarke came across as a pompous beauracrat on Meet the Press yesterday.
Click to expand...

Yeah, she's great. Here's one of her recent quotes that undoubtedly proves it:

'the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq'

She's more of an idiot than I thought
 
bluepeter said:
Yeah, she's great. Here's one of her recent quotes that undoubtedly proves it:

'the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq'

She's more of an idiot than I thought
Click to expand...


:FRlol:
 
bluepeter said:
Yeah, she's great. Here's one of her recent quotes that undoubtedly proves it:

'the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq'

She's more of an idiot than I thought
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank to encourage their acts? That there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Sounds like you're the idiot to me.
 
ttlpkg said:
The more this woman is exposed, the more America will see how Bush made a great decision to appoint her as his NSA. She is extremely intelligent, articulate and conscientious. Not only will she come out of this standing tall, I am sure many potential voters, including many black Americans and democrats, will want to support her and Bush in November.

One interesting thing is that it seems that Clarke had a problem with working for her. I wonder if he has ever had a female or minority boss before? He seems to really dislike her.

Clarke came across as a pompous beauracrat on Meet the Press yesterday.
Click to expand...


Did you wake up this week with more Republican/Bush cock in your mouth again?
 
ttlpkg said:
Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank to encourage their acts? That there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Sounds like you're the idiot to me.
Click to expand...

Wow, you got me there little package
 
ttlpkg said:
Just stay in Canada making good beer and you won't get hurt. The US will continue to keep you safe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bush trying to create a modern day Crusades is definitely keeping us out of the line of fire. Thanks
 
ttlpkg said:
Just stay in Canada making good beer and you won't get hurt. The US will continue to keep you scared shitless by repeating 'terrorist' over and over again until your skin actually turns the same color as that weeks alert level.... fushia this week, or is it mauve?
Click to expand...
 
ttlpkg said:
Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank to encourage their acts? That there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Sounds like you're the idiot to me.
Click to expand...


Are you a citizen of israel? Move there if you care about them so much. Besides we give Israel money and weapons to blow people up, how is that any different?
 
The Nature Boy said:
Are you a citizen of israel? Move there if you care about them so much. Besides we give Israel money and weapons to blow people up, how is that any different?
Click to expand...

People like little package never see the other side....
 
The Nature Boy said:
Are you a citizen of israel? Move there if you care about them so much. Besides we give Israel money and weapons to blow people up, how is that any different?
Click to expand...

Israel is our number one ally in the middle east. Yes, Israel's self-defense against terrorists is quite different than killing innocent women and children. I'm appalled that I have to explain that to you.

The Global war vs terrorism is just that.
 
XBiker said:
TTLREPUB has got to be the most brainwashed A/A in the whole wide world.
Click to expand...

Another mindless liberal who has zero to add to the discussion, yet accuses anyone who disagrees as being brainwashed. Go read a little and come back when you're capable of making a significant contribution.
 
ttlpkg said:
Israel is our number one ally in the middle east. Yes, Israel's self-defense against terrorists is quite different than killing innocent women and children. I'm appalled that I have to explain that to you.

The Global war vs terrorism is just that.
Click to expand...

There your number one ally in the Middle East because your government is the only one stupid enough to blindly support them no matter what.

Israel's self defense against terrorists? That's a joke. Israel is occupying their land and is brutally suppressing the Palestinians as a people. They murder innocent Palestinians every day but your kowtowing media only reports it when there is a suicide bombing by the Palestinians. Don't get me wrong, the Palestinians are completely in the wrong here as well but Israel is just as culpable.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Israel also fits quite nicely into the dictionary definition of terrorists don't they?
 
TTLKPKG MUST HAVE MISSED THIS.

She states that terrorism was an urgent priority then Bradley list

1. General Hugh Shelton
2. Richard Clarke
3. Paul O'niel and for the coup-de-gras
4. THE President himself.

All stating that terrorism wasn't and urgent or top priority.

LMAO!!!

(Let the games begin!)

BRADLEY: Let's move on. Clarke has alleged that the Bush administration underestimated the threat from al Qaeda, didn't act as if terrorism was an imminent and urgent problem. Was it?

RICE: Of course it was an urgent problem. I would like very much to know what more could have been done, given that it was an urgent problem. We were every day talking with George Tenet and with the CIA about disruption activities, particularly in that period between June and July. The DCI and I met practically every couple of weeks to review where we were on getting various elements done. We had a list of ideas that Dick Clarke and his team gave us: accelerate the efforts to arm the Predator. We did that -- the Predator being the spy drone that could also fire. We put additional funding into counterterrorism for the intelligence activities that we were pursuing. We increased counterterrorism assistance to the Uzbeks, one of our key allies in the war on terrorism. We worked to get more people involved in countering terrorist financing.

We were looking for a more comprehensive plan to eliminate al Qaeda, but we weren't sitting still while that plan was developing. We were continuing to pursue the policies that the Clinton administration had pursued.

BRADLEY: But even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism -- and I'm quoting here -- "farther to the back burner."

RICE: I just don't agree. We did have a lot of -- a lot of priorities. We did have to build a new relationship with Russia and a new relationship with China. It's a good thing that we did with Russia, because, after all, our ability to function in Central Asia was very much dependent on that good relationship with Russia. Yes, we had issues -- you may remember in the early days -- with the Chinese having forced down one of our planes. Yes, there were other issues. But terrorism was considered important enough and urgent enough that the President had sessions with George Tenet 46 times on that issue; that George Tenet and the rest of us were told to develop a strategy that would not just swat flies.

I don't know, Ed, how, after coming into office, inheriting policies that had been in place for at least three of the eight years of the Clinton administration, we could have done more than to continue those policies while we developed more robust policies.

BRADLEY: After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book, in which he had incredible access and interviewed the President of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that "bin Laden was not the President's focus or that of his national security team." You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.

RICE: I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat -- let's talk about what we did, which demonstrates...

BRADLEY: I understand, but you've listed...

RICE: -- which demonstrates that we took this as a priority.

BRADLEY: You've listed the things that you've done, but here is the perception: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time says you've pushed it to the back burner; the former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority; Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And, at least according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the President, he is saying that for the President it wasn't urgent, he didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.

RICE: Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency, any greater than the one we had, would have caused us to do differently. We weren't going to invade Afghanistan in the first months of the Bush administration. Dick Clarke, himself, said that if the strategy that we were pursuing, that we were developing, had been completed on January 27th, it would not have stopped 9/11. What we were trying to do was to put together a strategy that might finally, over a period of time, actually eliminate al Qaeda.

Now, the Clinton administration, for a period of eight years, very intensively after the bombing attacks of 1998, worked on this problem and they were not able to eliminate al Qaeda or even to hurt al Qaeda enough that they didn't continue to launch attacks. The fact is that what we needed to do was to get a more comprehensive way to deal with this threat.

In the meantime, we continued to work under all of the authorities that were there during the Clinton administration, we continued to work under the policy that they had been pursuing, we continued to pursue al Qaeda under the old strategy. But we felt that the priority should be given to getting a new, more comprehensive way to address this threat.
 
ttlpkg said:
Another mindless liberal who has zero to add to the discussion, yet accuses anyone who disagrees as being brainwashed. Go read a little and come back when you're capable of making a significant contribution.
Click to expand...

I ask a simple ? and you go off the deep end?

I know this has been run in to the ground but why are we at war again?

WMD? Yeah right.

Also, please explain to me why Dubba and your pal Dick "Oilslick" Cheney are now in control of the worlds second largest oil resevere and we are paying close to $2 / gallon at the pump?

You put the cross hairs on yourself with all your conservative hooey.

Why don't you come back when you aren't so defensive.
 
ttlpkg said:
Israel is our number one ally in the middle east. Yes, Israel's self-defense against terrorists is quite different than killing innocent women and children. I'm appalled that I have to explain that to you.

The Global war vs terrorism is just that.
Click to expand...

Britan is our #1 ally in the world. Lets go after the IRA then.
 
Like you said, the UK is our #1 ally. They are also our strongest ally. They can handle the IRA. Our resources are needed elsewhere.
 
XBiker said:
I ask a simple ? and you go off the deep end?

I know this has been run in to the ground but why are we at war again?

WMD? Yeah right.

Also, please explain to me why Dubba and your pal Dick "Oilslick" Cheney are now in control of the worlds second largest oil resevere and we are paying close to $2 / gallon at the pump?

You put the cross hairs on yourself with all your conservative hooey.

Why don't you come back when you aren't so defensive.
Click to expand...

You throw down the gauntlet by calling me brainwashed, and then when I ream you back all of a sudden you're Mr. Sensitive? Give me a break. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Put those cross hairs on me all you want, you have no ammuntion, you've proven that.

As far as why are we paying $2 while sitting on Oil reserves? Because we are not taking shit from Iraq. We are liberating them.
 
The dems screwed up by asking for Condi to testify. The world will see that she is intelligent, articulate, loyal, extremely knowledgeable and very likable. Bush was smart to make her his National Security Advisor.

Many black americans and women will no-doubt feel a sense of pride in
her performance and position. This could result in some additional
votes for the GOP from democrats.

The democrats have miscalculated again. When the topic is national security, Advantage: Bush.
 
WODIN said:
not gonna quote the whole interview
Click to expand...

I don't really see where she got owned. She has a point when she says that, according to her main accuser, invading Afghanistan on January 27th would not have stopped the attacks.

Hindsight is 20/20.

I think Bush is an asstard, but I don't think his record on terrorism is the way to attack him. On the flip side, I don't think his record on terrorism is anything to brag about. You can't prove that the Bush administration is any better or worse at dealing with terrorism than previous administrations.
 
ttlpkg said:
The dems screwed up by asking for Condi to testify. The world will see that she is intelligent, articulate, loyal, extremely knowledgeable and very likable. Bush was smart to make her his National Security Advisor.

Many black americans and women will no-doubt feel a sense of pride in
her performance and position. This could result in some additional
votes for the GOP from democrats.

The democrats have miscalculated again. When the topic is national security, Advantage: Bush.
Click to expand...

How many times you gonna cut and paste the same comments in your pathetic attempt to cull votes for the Ayatollah?
 
Yeah, I see I am being repetitious. I am motivated today by the fact that it was announced she will testify.

"If you have already received this conservative message, please disregard."
 
ttlpkg said:
The dems screwed up by asking for Condi to testify. The world will see that she is intelligent, articulate, loyal, extremely knowledgeable and very likable. Bush was smart to make her his National Security Advisor. .
Click to expand...


Let's get this straight. She will testify in private. She will tell her story on 60 minutes. But she refuses to testify publically under penalty of perjury. What is wrong with that picture? If she has nothing to hide, why so scared of the perjury penalty?

Maybe that is why Bush picked her. Being a racial deviant, she is already accustomed to lying through her (bad) teeth.
 
AAP said:
Maybe that is why Bush picked her. Being a racial deviant, she is already accustomed to lying through her (bad) teeth.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that but I would say he picked her for the same reasons that the plantation owners picked certain slaves to work in the 'house'. Cause all she'll ever say is 'yes suh' when the Ayatollah speaks
 
You can't expect the director of national security to testify in an open hearing. And BTW ttlpkg is right, Bush has some extremely intelligent and composed advisers that come across VERY well in the public eye. Colin Powell and Condi Rice being the best examples I can think of right now. Too bad they are loyal to someone who is not fit to lead our country.
 
Lumberg said:
You can't expect the director of national security to testify in an open hearing. And BTW ttlpkg is right, Bush has some extremely intelligent and composed advisers that come across VERY well in the public eye. Colin Powell and Condi Rice being the best examples I can think of right now. Too bad they are loyal to someone who is not fit to lead our country.
Click to expand...

They actually have now agreed to let her testify
 
ttlpkg said:
Like you said, the UK is our #1 ally. They are also our strongest ally. They can handle the IRA. Our resources are needed elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Isreali's can handle themselves obviously. I don't think it's fair to tell families of dead soldeirs that we went to war in iraq because of Isreal's terrorist problems. Besides, back to your main point, the only terrorism mentioned by the administration as a reason to go to war in Iraq was the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I challege you to find any administration official saying we went to war because Saddam gave money to the families of Palistinian terrorists.
 
Lumberg said:
I think it is the other way around, she agreed to testify. Also it won't be an open hearing.
Click to expand...

I meant her superiors have agreed to let her testify. I read that the hearing would be public?
 
The point is, so far she has YET to testify under oath. She has YET to testify under the penalty of perjury. If she has done such a great job and is such a honest person, why has she avoided it?

Clarke testified under oath, even when he didn't have to. Rice has something to hide (besides bad teeth) by keeping her mouth shut.
 
I watched her 60 minutes interview with great amusement. You could tell when she was "spinning" because her eyelids started flitting like she was trying to take off!
 
ttlpkg said:
As far as why are we paying $2 while sitting on Oil reserves? Because we are not taking shit from Iraq. We are liberating them.
Click to expand...

:lmao:

:lmao:

We should be taking pleanty from them to "liberate" their dumbasses.

You just proved you are brainwashed by the Repub's.
 
The only liberating taking place in Iraq is done by the Iraqis liberating the U.S. taxpayers of our dollars. Way to blow a surplus bush.
 
Lumberg said:
Bush has some extremely intelligent and composed advisers that come across VERY well in the public eye... Condi Rice being the best examples I can think of right now. Too bad they are loyal to someone who is not fit to lead our country.
Click to expand...
laud, laud, laud.......if she is the BEST of the bunch.............. :worried:
 
What I thought was funny was when Richard Clarke was slandered by the Bush clan, Cheney goes, "Yeah, Clarke wasn't even in the loop!"

Rice goes, "Uhhh... actually 'not in the loop' isn't exactly correct; Clarke was at every high-level anti-terror meeting we've had."

I love it how she tries to cover up the fact that Cheney JUST LIED.
 
obviously this brown rice is overcooked....

***********************************************

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap
A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]



Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
Richard Clarke's Concerns

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
Response to 9/11

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]


9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]


Iraq and WMD

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04
FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]


9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

Published
on Friday, March 26, 2004 by the Center for American Progress
 
britt.gif
 
rnch said:
laud, laud, laud.......if she is the BEST of the bunch.............. :worried:
Click to expand...

Actually I think Colin Powell is probably the best of the bunch. Armitage is also awesome (did you know he lifts everyday? I think he benches around 400)
 
Check back to this thread after Condi testifies. It will be a positive for Bush. All folks who don't like her politics will be able to say about her will be childish comments about her looks.

I think she is f-f-f-fine.
 
AAP said:
Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by the Center for American Progress
Click to expand...

Another radical left-wing mouthpiece organization that publishes fragmented quotes out of entire context to satisfy a political agenda.
 
AAP said:
The point is, so far she has YET to testify under oath. She has YET to testify under the penalty of perjury. If she has done such a great job and is such a honest person, why has she avoided it?

Clarke testified under oath, even when he didn't have to. Rice has something to hide (besides bad teeth) by keeping her mouth shut.
Click to expand...

Uhh....the reason for Rice not giving tstimony under oath has to do with something called confidentiality. Obviously, she has access to classified information that is not for public consumption. You know this; you're just trying to be provocative. What do you think she'll say? Bush knew ahead of time that the terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC because his administration arranged it so that he could have a pretext to wage war in Iraq so that his buddies in Big Oil could reap the profits. It makes perfect sense.

Clarke couldn't WAIT to get in front of the cameras. He is a self-serving jackass with no credibility whatsoever.
 
Hangfire said:
Uhh....the reason for Rice not giving tstimony under oath has to do with something called confidentiality. Obviously, she has access to classified information that is not for public consumption. You know this; you're just trying to be provocative. What do you think she'll say? Bush knew ahead of time that the terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC because his administration arranged it so that he could have a pretext to wage war in Iraq so that his buddies in Big Oil could reap the profits. It makes perfect sense.

Clarke couldn't WAIT to get in front of the cameras. He is a self-serving jackass with no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

:evilking:

k for you. never thought of it this way.
 
The real nut is that were just talking about impressions of policy and opinion which in fact are not truths or lies they are conjecture based on ones accumulated knowledge.

This is fun!
 
Hangfire said:
Uhh....the reason for Rice not giving tstimony under oath has to do with something called confidentiality. Obviously, she has access to classified information that is not for public consumption. You know this; you're just trying to be provocative. What do you think she'll say? Bush knew ahead of time that the terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC because his administration arranged it so that he could have a pretext to wage war in Iraq so that his buddies in Big Oil could reap the profits. It makes perfect sense.

Clarke couldn't WAIT to get in front of the cameras. He is a self-serving jackass with no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Would you want to be the one to admit you made the biggest blunder on nat'l security since Pearl Harbor?

She's in the hot seat, she will be under oath and could be charged with perjury (I see a preemptive pardon in the works...) and she can easily make the whole administration look like a bunch of morons.

I don't buy in to the conspiracy theory that we did this to ourselves. I didn't buy that shit when the OKC bombing went down. I felt the blast in OKC, I saw the lives it took and it affected me directly (OKC).

IMO, it was the lack of cooperation and communication between our various law inforcement and intelligence gathering agencies that allowed this to happen.
 
Point blank, she didn't publically testify simply because she is wrong and has something to hide.

Hell, even Clarke simply said to make all all the emails they exchanged public and then everyone will know. Those aren't classified, he used some in his book. Rice is just a sod in the big scheme of things about to be thrown to the dogs for the "good" of the Bush administration.
 
AAP said:
Point blank, she didn't publically testify simply because she is wrong and has something to hide.
Click to expand...

If that were the case she wouldn't have agreed to testify under oath. She would have declined, which is her right.
 
The Nature Boy said:
I challege you to find any administration official saying we went to war because Saddam gave money to the families of Palistinian terrorists.
Click to expand...
I won't find this, nor will I expect to. This was never a pretext for the war. Violation of UN resolutions, refusal to come clean on WMD is the main reason. Everyone knows that. There is, and has been, however, a link to terror in Iraq.

Bush doctrine: If you clothe, house, train or feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist and we're liable to get off in that ass. (paraphrasing)

Saddam Hussein was on our shit list anyway, and he made the mistake of testing the doctrine.

He flunked.
 
ttlpkg said:
If that were the case she wouldn't have agreed to testify under oath. She would have declined, which is her right.
Click to expand...


WRONG! She had no intentions of testifying under oath. Which is what she did to start with as she is going to be a complete jackass out of herself. It is only because the White House reversed itself due to catching more negative publicity that Bush "allowed" (i.e. "told") her to testify.

And look at the condition attached... that no one else would be called. They were setting her up to be the scapegoat and fall taker. Of course, that little condition was over-ruled.
 
ttlpkg said:
Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank to encourage their acts.
Sounds like you're the idiot to me.
Click to expand...

Well stopping that was sure worth 600 American deaths ....I'm sure the Israelis said thanks..........
 
ttlpkg said:
I won't find this, nor will I expect to. This was never a pretext for the war. Violation of UN resolutions, refusal to come clean on WMD is the main reason. Everyone knows that. .
Click to expand...


UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992


1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"


2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"


3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"


4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"


5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"


6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"


7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"


8. Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"


9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in

Jerusalem"


10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"


11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"


12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"


13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"


14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"


15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"


16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"


17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern

Lebanon"


18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on

Jerusalem"


19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"


20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"


21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"


22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"


23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"


24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"


25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in

Lebanon"


26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"


27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"


28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"


29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"


30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'


31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"


32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"


33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"


34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"


35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"


36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"


37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"


38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"


40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'


41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'


42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"


43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"


44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"


45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"


46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"


47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and

unconditionally from Lebanon"


48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"


49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and

demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"


50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in

Lebanon"


51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"


52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters


53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"


54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians


56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly

requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention


57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"


58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians


59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians


60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount


61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United

Nations


62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of

Palestinians


63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return


64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians


65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
 
Maybe ttlpkg can provide us with a link to these known terrorist training camps.
 
hooch said:
ttlpkg said:
I won't find this, nor will I expect to. This was never a pretext for the war. Violation of UN resolutions, refusal to come clean on WMD is the main reason. Everyone knows that.
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992


1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"


2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"


3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"


4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"


5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"


6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"


7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"


8. Resolution 248: "...'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"


9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in

Jerusalem"


10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"


11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"


12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"


13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"


14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"


15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"


16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"


17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern

Lebanon"


18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on

Jerusalem"


19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"


20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"


21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"


22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"


23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"


24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"


25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in

Lebanon"


26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"


27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"


28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"


29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"


30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'


31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"


32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"


33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"


34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"


35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"


36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"


37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"


38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"


40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'


41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'


42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"


43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"


44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"


45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"


46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"


47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and

unconditionally from Lebanon"


48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"


49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and

demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"


50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in

Lebanon"


51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"


52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters


53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"


54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians


56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly

requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention


57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"


58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians


59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians


60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount


61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United

Nations


62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of

Palestinians


63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return


64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians


65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Click to expand...

Thats it, time to invade israel.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Man it sure is fashionable to be hatin' on israel.

Were there any UN resolutions against the surrounding Arab nations when they attacked it all those times?
 
Richard Clarke said the other night on MSNBC that Osama Bin Ladin had been saying that the us wouldn't come after Al-Queda hard but would invade a oil rich arab country. And that this has galvinized the true believers and created splinter cells throughout the group that has formed a multi-headed hydra.

Well here we are now in DUH ville and everyone is spewing shit over a dufos from Texas instead of concentrating on what should be done to further hinder terrorist groups and their activities.

The real problem with US is we have forgotten how to be American's first then party members.

Sad place this country has become. Sort of Like Russia under the USSR but with 2 parties.
 
casualbb said:
Man it sure is fashionable to be hatin' on israel.

Were there any UN resolutions against the surrounding Arab nations when they attacked it all those times?
Click to expand...

Of course there are and deservedly so. I believe the point being made is that the U.S. does not blindly support the countries you are referring to when they have committed such acts. Only Israel can behave like terrorists and still be butt buddies with the American government.
 
bluepeter said:
Of course there are and deservedly so. I believe the point being made is that the U.S. does not blindly support the countries you are referring to when they have committed such acts. Only Israel can behave like terrorists and still be butt buddies with the American government.
Click to expand...


uh... HORSESHIT.

Only Israel? You have got to be kidding.

Let's see, a short list of countries allowed to do all sorts of nefarious shit while the U.S. turns a blind eye because its in our 'national interest': How about...

Any handful of central american dictorships
Any handful of african dictatorships
Any banana republic on the 'War on Drugs' Bandwagon
Any muslim country not calling for our deaths
Any member of NATO
Any country that lets our corporations employ child labor, rape their resources, etc.
Any country that claims to be a member of the Coalition of the Week Club

Remember, 'If you are not with us, then you can't do all that illegal and immoral shit that you could do if you were with us.'


"...only Israel..." :lmao:


.
 
ChefWide said:
uh... HORSESHIT.

Only Israel? You have got to be kidding.

Let's see, a short list of countries allowed to do all sorts of nefarious shit while the U.S. turns a blind eye because its in our 'national interest': How about...

Any handful of central american dictorships
Any handful of african dictatorships
Any banana republic on the 'War on Drugs' Bandwagon
Any muslim country not calling for our deaths
Any member of NATO
Any country that lets our corporations employ child labor, rape their resources, etc.
Any country that claims to be a member of the Coalition of the Week Club

Remember, 'If you are not with us, then you can't do all that illegal and immoral shit that you could do if you were with us.'


"...only Israel..." :lmao:


.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chef, we were talking about the MIddle East so I was specifying that area. You are totally correct that the U.S. jumps into bed with whomever can further their interests but most of them are passing 'fads' until said country/administration displeases the U.S. in some way or are no longer useful. Only Israel is on the administrations bum chum list year after year after year......

P.S. - where you been dude?
 
The Nature Boy said:
what are you talking about? The US ordered the UN inspectors to LEAVE iraq while they were looking for the WMD that did not exist. Get your facts straight.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2833565.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2853295.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2856647.stm
Click to expand...
Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. He had been screwing around with this for too long. The jury is still out on WMD. This IS the reason we went to war, so you are the one who needs to review the facts. Stop trying to use 9-11 to bring down the Bush administration. It won't work.
 
AAP said:
It is only because the White House reversed itself due to catching more negative publicity that Bush "allowed" (i.e. "told") her to testify.
Click to expand...

She works for the President. He is the one who decided whether or not she would testify. At first he said no, then he acquiesed. I think it was a good political decision that will help get Bush reelected as I stated in my first post on this thread.

Stay tuned.
 
ttlpkg said:
Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. He had been screwing around with this for too long. The jury is still out on WMD. This IS the reason we went to war, so you are the one who needs to review the facts.
Click to expand...

:)

Stop trying to use 9-11 to bring down the Bush administration. It won't work.
Click to expand...

hey, what exactly are your takes on the evidence against how we acted on 9-11? im interested to know.
 
juicedpigtails said:
:)
hey, what exactly are your takes on the evidence against how we acted on 9-11? im interested to know.
Click to expand...

The evidence on how we ACTED? We confirmed who did it, and went after them. Warned the Taliban first, when they didn't cooperate, eliminated them. The Bush doctrine was born out of 9-11, and now we consider terrorism to be an act of war. What happened to that Hamas "spiritual leader" last week was a direct result.

I think Bush handled it well. It has defined his presidency, which is why the democrats and press are trying to discredit him on this issue (it's not working). I'm sure no one is surprised by my take on this. :)
 
ttlpkg said:
Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. He had been screwing around with this for too long. The jury is still out on WMD. This IS the reason we went to war, so you are the one who needs to review the facts. Stop trying to use 9-11 to bring down the Bush administration. It won't work.
Click to expand...

lol, I wasn't using 9-11 to bring down bush. you must be thinking of someone else. All Im saying is that you said that iraq was violating the UN resolutions, and I'm saying there were UN inspectors on the ground just days before the war started. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. Besides, the UN resolutions did not say anything about invasion, regime change, or occupation.
 
Cuntalesa Rice is the anti-christ and the title of this thread should be "the unfuckable Condi Rice"!! Better start taping her interviews on CNN to have something to remember because she will be gone by the end of the year as will G.W.B...... :chomp:
 
strongsmartsexy said:
I'm just purely speculating here. However, I think Rice is going to be the sacrificial lamb for Bush's re-election.
Click to expand...

actually I think she's going to quit by the end of the year.. one way or another. anyway, there will be no bombshells with her testimony, just a hunch.
 
avenirup said:
Cuntalesa Rice is the anti-christ and the title of this thread should be "the unfuckable Condi Rice"!! Better start taping her interviews on CNN to have something to remember because she will be gone by the end of the year as will G.W.B...... :chomp:
Click to expand...


Of course, this will only be a testiment of her "character".
 
I thought I just saw a post that said Rice may end up being a sacrificial lamb. I was thinking more like scapegoat. I don't think Bush will become disloyal to her, but I can see eventually someone on the left dropping the "r" word. Resignation.

I hope not. I also hope what happens next week doesn't hurt her political future. That would be a shame.
 
ttlpkg said:
I thought I just saw a post that said Rice may end up being a sacrificial lamb. I was thinking more like scapegoat. I don't think Bush will become disloyal to her, but I can see eventually someone on the left dropping the "r" word. Resignation.

I hope not. I also hope what happens next week doesn't hurt her political future. That would be a shame.
Click to expand...


Wow. Where were you 3 pages ago? You just now saw this post?

Actually, I hope she gets fired, publically humiliated, and knocked the fuck out. And then she tells the truth and points the finger at Bush. Bush is disloyal to everyone not in the oil business.
 
ttlpkg said:
Are you aware that Saddam Hussein was paying rewards to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank to encourage their acts? That there were terrorist camps in Iraq?

Sounds like you're the idiot to me.
Click to expand...

Hey jackoff.... learn to express your opinions without the Name-Calling.

MMMkay? You friggin hypocritical assnozzle...
 
ttlpkg said:
Bush doctrine: If you clothe, house, train or feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist and we're liable to get off in that ass. (paraphrasing)
Click to expand...

Interesting. Because America has certainly done PLENTY of this themselves.
 
ttlpkg said:
I thought I just saw a post that said Rice may end up being a sacrificial lamb. I was thinking more like scapegoat. I don't think Bush will become disloyal to her, but I can see eventually someone on the left dropping the "r" word. Resignation.

I hope not. I also hope what happens next week doesn't hurt her political future. That would be a shame.
Click to expand...

It is no secret in Washington that the Bush's are loyal to no one. If they even think you're a drag on their bandwagon, you're gone.

If you don't believe me, ask James Baker.
 
FreeballinDC said:
It is no secret in Washington that the Bush's are loyal to no one. If they even think you're a drag on their bandwagon, you're gone.

If you don't believe me, ask James Baker.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. Baker was Bush the Elder's Sec of State, Came to W's side during Florida, and most recently toured Europe getting loan forgiveness for Iraq. Sounds like a go-to guy to me.
 
ttlpkg said:
I don't get it. Baker was Bush the Elder's Sec of State, Came to W's side during Florida, and most recently toured Europe getting loan forgiveness for Iraq. Sounds like a go-to guy to me.
Click to expand...

Um, are those regular sunglasses you're wearing in your avatar or rose colored glasses?
 
AAP said:
obviously this brown rice is overcooked....

***********************************************

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap
A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]



Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
Richard Clarke's Concerns

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
Response to 9/11

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]


9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]


Iraq and WMD

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04
FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]


9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]

Published
on Friday, March 26, 2004 by the Center for American Progress
Click to expand...


sooo ttlpkg care to comment on this post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

javaguru
I Am Adam Lanza’s Therapist
Replies
13
Views
3K
WoodyO
WoodyO
hanselthecaretaker
Would Obama's second term be any different?
Replies
22
Views
4K
wootoom
wootoom
hanselthecaretaker
What would you make of this (Israeli agent predicted several terrorist attacks)?
Replies
2
Views
1K
jeremyng25
jeremyng25
shirlene29
the internet is a strange place
Replies
52
Views
9K
nangiggles
nangiggles
javaguru
The Riddle of the Gun
Replies
19
Views
4K
wootoom
wootoom
Top Bottom