• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Meet The Press 8/8/2004 - Condi Rice - Now with VIDEO!

C

conjur

No Lifer
So far she's managed to dismiss the lack of WMDs and claimed the primary reason we invaded Iraq was that Saddam posed a threat (didn't mention an immediate threat...just a threat) and she has also attempted to link the 9/11 attacks with the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Amazing how desperately this administration is holding onto its lies.
 
Yup, fvcking liar.

I posted the text of the bill justifying the use of millitary force yesterday, it contradicts what she just said.
 
I have been critical of both Rice and Powell since this administration began. I feel that they both are mouthpieces, and have no real power. Whenever I discuss this with my friends, both liberals and conservatives, I am given that look that says, "what are you, a racist?"
 
Originally posted by: Zedtom
I have been critical of both Rice and Powell since this administration began. I feel that they both are mouthpieces, and have no real power. Whenever I discuss this with my friends, both liberals and conservatives, I am given that look that says, "what are you, a racist?"
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong about Powell. My understanding is that he does have sway with the President. But Bush is such a moron that after a session with Powell he's ready to go with reasonable policy until Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al whisper in his ear the exact opposite approach. It's like he cannot comprehend anything beyond what he's just been told.

I agree about Rice. 9/11 essentially torpedo'd any real power for Rice. When your country suffers a huge national security lapse . . . it's a tough time to hold the title "National Security Advisor." She's an educated woman so she can deliver the hardline from the Bush administration without sounding like Tom DeLay (or Margaret Thatcher for that manner). That's the sole reason she's still here. It's not like anyone is actually confident in her skills.

The US is enduring an unprecedented era of ill will towards our country. The public perception (pushed by the Bush Regime) is that everyone in the world: 1) is out to get us, 2) hopes someone gets us, and 3) our allies includes someone beyond the immediate family members of Blair, Berlusconi, Howard, Musharraf, and the nation of Israel. I really doubt there are many of #1 . . . but sadly there appears to be a lot of #2. The sole tall tale is #3. Technically those are all Powell's responsibility . . . even if he's been handed crappy foreign policy and is undermined at every turn by the legions of NeoCons that couldn't control Reagan (likely the Nancy influence) but have run roughshod over the our imbecile leader.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think you are wrong about Powell. My understanding is that he does have sway with the President.
Click to expand...

While that may have been true at one time, his little drama at the UN with the fake vial of anthrax and his presentation of the 'weapons laboratories' in Iraq removed all doubt, and lost him all the respect and integrity he had earned with the people. Many see him as just another puppet now.

Edit: That was off-topic, so here is on-topic. Condi was always a puppet and always will be.
 
Hey Hassert:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Pontifical Pon*tif"ic*al, a. L. pontificalis: cf. F.
pontifical. See Pontiff.
1. Of or pertaining to a pontiff, or high priest; as,
pontifical authority; hence, belonging to the pope; papal.

2. Of or pertaining to the building of bridges. R.

Now had they brought the work by wondrous art
Pontifical, a ridge of pendent rock Over the vexed
abyss. --Milton.

"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Pontifical Pon*tif"ic*al, n. F.
1. A book containing the offices, or formulas, used by a
pontiff. --South.

2. pl. The dress and ornaments of a pontiff. ``Dressed in
full pontificals.'' --Sir W. Scott.

dipshit
 
Originally posted by: conjur
So far she's managed to dismiss the lack of WMDs and claimed the primary reason we invaded Iraq was that Saddam posed a threat (didn't mention an immediate threat...just a threat) and she has also attempted to link the 9/11 attacks with the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Amazing how desperately this administration is holding onto its lies.
Click to expand...

What do you expect from POLITICIANS? POLITICIANS spin. Constantly repeating the aforementioned RNC talking points serves two purposes-- withholding ammo to DNC spin experts and to solidify support with swing voters and "weak" Bush supporters. They could care less about solid Democratic and other left-wing hardliners who are going to vote for Kerry anyway (like most of the posters in this thread I assume).

Originally posted by: arsbanned
This Whitehouse is a den of liars.
Click to expand...


All politicians are liars and/or spin artists, including John Kerry.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, but he's MY liar this election cycle. 😀
Click to expand...
If, by that, you mean you're voting for Bush, at the risk of posing the obvious question, WHY? Considering almost every word and action of this administration, what logic would allow that to be an intellectually defensible response? 😕

OTOH, if you mean he's "your liar," as in your pet rattlesnake, etc., I agree. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, but he's MY liar this election cycle. 😀
Click to expand...
If, by that, you mean you're voting for Bush, at the risk of posing the obvious question, WHY? Considering almost every word and action of this administration, what logic would allow that to be an intellectually defensible response? 😕

OTOH, if you mean he's "your liar," as in your pet rattlesnake, etc., I agree. 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually, he was responding to my post where I said ALL politicians lie and spin, including John Kerry. I think that if you agree that your candidate is guilty of lying, then you are being a hypocrite by accusing the other side of lying 😉

Oh, and I have heard the argument that Bush is master of all political lies because he took us into the Iraq war on false pretenses. I don't think GWB lied, he was misled by bad intel.
 
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, but he's MY liar this election cycle. 😀
Click to expand...
If, by that, you mean you're voting for Bush, at the risk of posing the obvious question, WHY? Considering almost every word and action of this administration, what logic would allow that to be an intellectually defensible response? 😕

OTOH, if you mean he's "your liar," as in your pet rattlesnake, etc., I agree. 🙂
Click to expand...

Actually, he was responding to my post where I said ALL politicians lie and spin, including John Kerry. I think that if you agree that your candidate is guilty of lying, then you are being a hypocrite by accusing the other side of lying 😉

Oh, and I have heard the argument that Bush is master of all political lies because he took us into the Iraq war on false pretenses. I don't think GWB lied, he was misled by bad intel.
Click to expand...


We'll never know most likely as politicians leave themselves plausible deniability.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Taggart
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: arsbanned
OK, but he's MY liar this election cycle. 😀
Click to expand...

We'll never know most likely as politicians leave themselves plausible deniability.
Click to expand...


Agreed. However, I don't understand how Bush detractors can use the "lied about WMD" argument since we will probably never know if he really lied or not. Michael Moore dedicated a whole movie to it and there isn't any actual valid smoking gun like there was for Watergate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Taggart
Actually, he was responding to my post where I said ALL politicians lie and spin, including John Kerry.
Click to expand...
😱 😱 😱 Mmm-m-m-m. I luvs the taste of shoe leather in the morning. 😛
I think that if you agree that your candidate is guilty of lying, then you are being a hypocrite by accusing the other side of lying 😉
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call Kerry a liar. He has equivocated (not prevaricated) on a number of issues, but I respect the fact that a rational person can waver on issues over time as a situation changes and/or as more facts are known. I try to evaluate each case on that basis.

Only a liar or a moron sticks to the same story once he's been proven wrong. 😎
Oh, and I have heard the argument that Bush is master of all political lies because he took us into the Iraq war on false pretenses. I don't think GWB lied, he was misled by bad intel.
Click to expand...
If, by bad intelligence, you mean the pathetic failure of what's between his ears, I agree. I believe he's more of a front man than the driving ideological force behind his administration. That's more the domain of Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Rove and others, but considering what they have said, what they have done, I can't see any way they haven't lied to the public.

Do I have to repeat the list, or is it enough to just suggest clicking half the other threads in P&N?
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
If he were my leader, I would rather have him be a liar.

Better that then grossly incompetent.
Click to expand...
unfortunately, but Bush is both. :frown:
 
viivo:

Amen to that. Powell has lost all credibility with me, I'm sorry to say. Two years ago I saw him as Presidential material I could vote for. Today he is little more than a whore for the Bush administration. He tossed a brilliant career in the toilet for a douche bag of a President. Sheezh...so sad.

-Robert
 
I kept wishing that Russet had asked her about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or North Korea... almost everything she said about Iraq could be easily applied to dozens of other countries -- why haven't we gone to war with them yet?
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
I kept wishing that Russet had asked her about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or North Korea... almost everything she said about Iraq could be easily applied to dozens of other countries -- why haven't we gone to war with them yet?
Click to expand...

Easy, Iraq was an easy target and these aren't for whatever reason (political, economic, etc) Especially NK who can kill 1000's of South Korean before they're stopped. Think 1000's of artillery pieces within 20 miles of Seoul.
 
Russert tries too hard to play the non-partisan act in his interviews, he lacks the drive to really ask the tough questions that we all want to hear.
 
John Stewart has more balls at interviews than 99% of these pus#$s. Our media is really sad sometimes. Makes you admire the BBC or Amy Goodman.
 
Sudheer:

Russert softballs the Republicans all the time. Give him a Dem and he grills him like he's a mass murderer with blood stains on his suit. Sheezh....

-Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top