Why Condi Rice had to lie, to evade, to avoid testifying under oath in the 9/11 hearings.

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
The democrats are turning 9/11 into a political circus. Who will be the next to throw out some unfounded charges. Who will Kerry say should testify next? The commission is about finding out what went wrong and democrats are turning all into just a political ploy.

It's a shame.

Your post should come with a warning label: Danger - Industrial-strength hypocrisy. You're like a little boy who killed his parents, whining about being an orphan and criticizing the investigation as exploiting the tragedy. The real shame is Bush toadies who don't care if the Bush administration screwed up or not. King George can do no wrong, and anyone who hints otherwise must be attacked.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
The democrats are turning 9/11 into a political circus. Who will be the next to throw out some unfounded charges. Who will Kerry say should testify next? The commission is about finding out what went wrong and democrats are turning all into just a political ploy.

It's a shame.

Your post should come with a warning label: Danger - Industrial-strength hypocrisy. You're like a little boy who killed his parents, whining about being an orphan and criticizing the investigation as exploiting the tragedy. The real shame is Bush toadies who don't care if the Bush administration screwed up or not. King George can do no wrong, and anyone who hints otherwise must be attacked.

Been drinking again Bow?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
The democrats are turning 9/11 into a political circus. Who will be the next to throw out some unfounded charges. Who will Kerry say should testify next? The commission is about finding out what went wrong and democrats are turning all into just a political ploy.

It's a shame.

Your post should come with a warning label: Danger - Industrial-strength hypocrisy. You're like a little boy who killed his parents, whining about being an orphan and criticizing the investigation as exploiting the tragedy. The real shame is Bush toadies who don't care if the Bush administration screwed up or not. King George can do no wrong, and anyone who hints otherwise must be attacked.

Been drinking again Bow?

Been dodging and diverting again etech?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
The democrats are turning 9/11 into a political circus. Who will be the next to throw out some unfounded charges. Who will Kerry say should testify next? The commission is about finding out what went wrong and democrats are turning all into just a political ploy.

It's a shame.

Your post should come with a warning label: Danger - Industrial-strength hypocrisy. You're like a little boy who killed his parents, whining about being an orphan and criticizing the investigation as exploiting the tragedy. The real shame is Bush toadies who don't care if the Bush administration screwed up or not. King George can do no wrong, and anyone who hints otherwise must be attacked.

Been drinking again Bow?

Been dodging and diverting again etech?

No, just giving your post the answer it deserves.

Do you really believe that crap you post? ie, " You're like a little boy who killed his parents"

Let me know when you are over that phase.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
The democrats are turning 9/11 into a political circus. Who will be the next to throw out some unfounded charges. Who will Kerry say should testify next? The commission is about finding out what went wrong and democrats are turning all into just a political ploy.

It's a shame.

Your post should come with a warning label: Danger - Industrial-strength hypocrisy. You're like a little boy who killed his parents, whining about being an orphan and criticizing the investigation as exploiting the tragedy. The real shame is Bush toadies who don't care if the Bush administration screwed up or not. King George can do no wrong, and anyone who hints otherwise must be attacked.

Been drinking again Bow?

Been dodging and diverting again etech?

No, just giving your post the answer it deserves.

Do you really believe that crap you post? ie, " You're like a little boy who killed his parents"

Let me know when you are over that phase.

Doesn't grok humor or analogies. Got it.

The point is that the Bush administration brought this on themselves, by their steadfast efforts to first prevent, then obstruct the 9/11 Commission. Their dishonesty and lack of accountability is coming back to bite them, and all they can do is blame anyone and everyone except themselves. Industrial-strength hypocrisy.

 

[etech]

I would assume that the reason the Bush administration didn't want to have a 9/11 commission is that they knew the democrats would politicize it and turn it into a joke.

So far, it seems my assumption is coming true as you proved in your post.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
I would assume that the reason the Bush administration didn't want to have a 9/11 commission is that they knew the democrats would politicize it and turn it into a joke.

So far, it seems my assumption is coming true as you proved in your post.

That might be an effective diversion ... until one realizes that the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission has frequently criticized Bush, et al, for their lack of cooperation, and that members from both parties are calling for Rice to testify under oath. The Democrats didn't politicize this, Bush did. Industrial-strength hypocrisy, just like I said before.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: etech
Yes, the democrats are doing a wonderful job of politicizing the tragedy of 9/11.

I hope they are proud of themselves.

Not agreeing that it's political now, but if it is it was made political by Bush referring to it in his campaign ads, and the GOP holding it's convention in New York city. Face it, the Bush campaign expected to stake a lot of their political capital on 9/11 and it's aftermath, and it's not playing out how they expected.

If you live by the sword, you can certainly die by it.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: etech
I would assume that the reason the Bush administration didn't want to have a 9/11 commission is that they knew the democrats would politicize it and turn it into a joke.

So far, it seems my assumption is coming true as you proved in your post.

it was the republicans who used it shamelessly after 9/11, in the 02 elections. republicans ran on the lie that they were protectors of america, that democrats where unamerican, when it was the republicans who had completely ignored terrorism. yet they ran on it as their campaign platform, that to disagree with them was unpatriotic

 

[heartsurgeon]

Why Condi Rice had to lie, to evade, to avoid testifying under oath in the 9/11 hearings.

You are an obvious partisan hack..a "Bush-Hater"

your topic title is a blatant lie.
Condi Rice has testified to the 9/11 commission..in private.

the "public" testimony is a poltical dog and pony show...the REAL testimony was in private..under oath.

Clarke didn't give Rice a "plan" he gave her a list of "options"..responses to actions.

She did nothing

How can you possibly know or believe this...you are posturing withjout ANY knowledge.

That part is obviously true, but of course it neatly sidesteps the real issues. For its full first eight months in office, the Bush administration never took seriously the threat of any kind of al-Qaida terrorist attack, let alone a mega one within the continental United States.

Gosh...you conviently seem to negelect that Clinton passed up three different offers from the Sudan to turn over Bin Laden, and numerous other situations where they might have eliminated him. You seem to forget that Clinton treated the bombing of the World Trade Center, the embassies, and the Cole as problems for the FBI to figure out...you conviently forget to mention Madeline Albright's disgrace full testimony where she bleated over and over again that "we did all that we could" when ever asked a questions....pathetic explanations..

you try to make the point that Iraq was not related to 9/11 or to Al-Qaeda...well if you actually listening to the testimony of the 9/11 commission, guess what! there was a CLEAR connection between Bin Laden and Iraq and WMD's
Tenet (appointed by Clinton) testified that Clinton bombed the "aspirin factory" because the CIA had evidence that Bin Laden lived next door to the plant, the plant was built with Bin Laden's money, that the site was protected by armed forces, that the "head" of the "aspirin factory" had recently visited the head of the IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM (a VX nerve gas expert) in Bagdad, and that precursors (?EMPTA) of VX gas had been identgified in soil samples obtained from the "aspirin factory" site. He stated that he would have bombed the factory again if he had it to do over again.

gee....what would Bin Laden want to use VX gas for? fumigating his house?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Why Condi Rice had to lie, to evade, to avoid testifying under oath in the 9/11 hearings.

You are an obvious partisan hack..a "Bush-Hater"

You say Bush hater like it's something bad

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: etech
I would assume that the reason the Bush administration didn't want to have a 9/11 commission is that they knew the democrats would politicize it and turn it into a joke.

So far, it seems my assumption is coming true as you proved in your post.

it was the republicans who used it shamelessly after 9/11, in the 02 elections. republicans ran on the lie that they were protectors of america, that democrats where unamerican, when it was the republicans who had completely ignored terrorism. yet they ran on it as their campaign platform, that to disagree with them was unpatriotic

"when it was the republicans who had completely ignored terrorism."

When you post such stupid idiotic lies such as that, well, I see no reason to pay any attention to you.

 

[0roo0roo]

its a fact, just remember during all the foiled terrorist attacks of clinton, the escalating anti terrorist buildup of clinton, the republicans could do nothing more then persecute him and accuse him of wagging the dog everytime he tried to attack osama. frankly, when bush got into office all he cared about was tax cuts and taking vacations...

 

[Gaard]

Rice

 

[Jhhnn]

ts a fact, just remember during all the foiled terrorist attacks of clinton, the escalating anti terrorist buildup of clinton, the republicans could do nothing more then persecute him and accuse him of wagging the dog everytime he tried to attack osama. frankly, when bush got into office all he cared about was tax cuts and taking vacations...

You forgot to mention invading Iraq, apparently the #1 foreign policy goal from the get-go. And 9/11 served as the perfect pretext, properly manipulated thru fearmongering and misdirection. But it backfired- the fact that no wmd's have been found called the whole thing into question. Saddam's last laugh, actually obeying the UN demands to destroy them... Dubya&Co. have overplayed the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor. Properly exploited, his re-election could have been a shoo-in, but he'd have had to compromise, give up on Iraq (or wait for the second term), moderate looting the treasury, forget extra-legal detentions and a few other utterly partisan goals, like loading the appeals courts with theocrats and reactionaries. I guess he put his partisanship ahead of everything else, and will hopefully pay for that come November...

With any luck at all, the epitaph of this Admin will remind us all that "A man's got to know his limitations."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

ts a fact, just remember during all the foiled terrorist attacks of clinton, the escalating anti terrorist buildup of clinton, the republicans could do nothing more then persecute him and accuse him of wagging the dog everytime he tried to attack osama. frankly, when bush got into office all he cared about was tax cuts and taking vacations...

You forgot to mention invading Iraq, apparently the #1 foreign policy goal from the get-go. And 9/11 served as the perfect pretext, properly manipulated thru fearmongering and misdirection. But it backfired- the fact that no wmd's have been found called the whole thing into question. Saddam's last laugh, actually obeying the UN demands to destroy them... Dubya&Co. have overplayed the greatest political windfall since Pearl Harbor. Properly exploited, his re-election could have been a shoo-in, but he'd have had to compromise, give up on Iraq (or wait for the second term), moderate looting the treasury, forget extra-legal detentions and a few other utterly partisan goals, like loading the appeals courts with theocrats and reactionaries. I guess he put his partisanship ahead of everything else, and will hopefully pay for that come November...

With any luck at all, the epitaph of this Admin will remind us all that "A man's got to know his limitations."

I think a better epitaph would be
There's an old saying in Tennessee?I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee?that says, fool me once, shame on?shame on you. Fool me?you can't get fooled again

 

[conjur]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/

[Republican John] Lehman countered that Rice would not be sacrificing that principle, known as executive privilege, because the panel, which was appointed by the president, is "not an arm of the Congress."

"Lawyers are driving this train," he said, creating an issue when the Bush administration has "nothing to hide."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: etech
I would assume that the reason the Bush administration didn't want to have a 9/11 commission is that they knew the democrats would politicize it and turn it into a joke.

So far, it seems my assumption is coming true as you proved in your post.

I see you can only whine and b!tch about the dems politicizing 9/11, yet we have the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign running on 9/11 and Nat'l Security and pretty much nothing else. If that's not politicizing, I don't know what is. Your scorn should be more equally distributed.

After Pearl Harbor Roosevelt formed a commission to investigate how the attack happened and how we could prevent a similar surprise attack in the future. The 9/11 commission is no different. The point is to gather all of the relevant data and listen to testimony (under oath) from all of the relevant persons. Condi Rice, as our National Security Adviser is one of the main people I'd want up there testifying under oath.

Having them testify under oath is important considering the overwhelming urge by administration officials (not just this administration) and politicians in general to want to cover their ass and make things appear as they are not. Get 'em all on the record -- and that goes for Clinton officials too -- that way at least we have a fighting chance at getting to the truth.

 

[conjur]

And now, Rush Limbaugh is jumping onto the race card bandwagon. Claiming if the parties were reversed in this situation, that the Democrats would be calling foul that Clarke (and others) were criticizing a black woman.

Then he went on a tirade whining like little 3rd-grader who can't get candy in the checkout lane that Clarke's publishers are intentionally keeping stocks low to drive up demand for the book. He neglected to mention that the White House held up the book's release for several months.

He also whined that Clarke stated the other day on Meet The Press that he won't be able to donate as much money to various charitable organizations. Rush failed to acknowledge, though, that it's due to the White House bashing of Clarke and statements from in the White House such as "he'll never make another dime in Washington again." He then digressed into Clarke teaching with Beers and accusing Clarke of lying under oath that he wouldn't take a position in Kerry's campaign.

 

[conjur]

W.House Looks for Rice Compromise with 9/11 Panel


They are spending so much time AVOIDING having her testify that they are really committing political suicide.

 

[chess9]

I don't care if she testifies in a water closet in Djibouti, as long as it's under oath.

If it isn't under oath, what good is it? She's just another administration "Press Secretary" mouthing the party lines.

-Robert

 

[SuperTool]

Why Condie looking so sad?

 

[chess9]

Looks like a gall bladder attack to me....

-Robert

 

[Gaard]

So why won't she testify before the September 11 commission? Because she would have had only two choices: contradict everything she's been saying up to this point ? and admit to lying ? or stick to her story, and commit perjury.

Time and again, Condoleezza Rice has stood up in front of the cameras and lied. Think I'm being too harsh? Let's run through a few of her whoppers.

* Rice said, "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."

In fact, not only had the French government foiled a 1994 plan to hijack an airplane and fly it into the Eiffel Tower, an incident Rice must have been aware of, but at the G-8 summit Bush attended just months before September 11, the Italian government received information that Al Qaeda was planning to fly an airplane into the summit, so anti-aircraft batteries were placed at the Genoa airport.

Richard Clarke himself led a team evaluating terrorist threats at the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta that prepared for the possibility of a hijacked plane being flown into the Olympic stadium; Clarke told Tim Russert that he tried to get funding to put a similar protection plan in place on a permanent basis to protect Congress and the White House, but was unable to.

* Rice said the aluminum tubes Iraq had purchased were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

In fact, the experts who looked at the aluminum tubes ? the ones who actually knew something about making nuclear weapons ? concluded that the tubes were virtually useless in enriching uranium. They were meant for conventional rockets.

* When it was revealed that one month before September 11 President Bush had received a briefing discussing Al Qaeda plans to attack the United States, Rice said the briefing only discussed events overseas. More recently, she said the briefing happened at Bush's request, because he was so concerned about Al Qaeda.

The title of the briefing was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The CIA says it occurred not because Bush requested it, but at their initiative.

* In trying to downplay the urgency with which the Bush administration had made the case for invading Iraq, Rice said, "It was a case that said [Saddam] is trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year."

President Bush said on more than one occasion, "Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

* "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."

On January 24, 2001, Clarke sent a memo to Rice urging her to call a cabinet-level meeting to discuss attacking Al Qaeda. Instead, the President assigned Dick Cheney to head a task force on the subject. Cheney's task force never met.

 

[fjord]

Clarke challenges Rice to reveal secret emails

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Monday March 29, 2004
The Guardian

Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser whose revelations threaten to torpedo George Bush's re-election strategy, launched a counterattack yesterday at a White House that he said was determined to destroy him.

In a riveting television performance, Mr Clarke called on his principal critic and former employer, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to release the entire record of their emails in the months up to the September 11 terror attacks to prove his contention that the White House did not then take the threat of al-Qaida seriously.

He also agreed to Republican demands to declassify testimony he gave to the Senate two years ago - to "prove" there were no inconsistencies. "Let's take all of my emails and all the memos I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of them," Mr Clarke told NBC television.

Mr Clarke's bravura presentation surprised the Bush administration. The decision to stand his ground could also be destructive to Ms Rice. She has been under intense scrutiny for a week - largely for being the focus of Mr Clarke's charges that the Bush government did not see al-Qaida as a priority before September 11, but also because she refused to testify before the commission.

Yesterday, the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, called for Ms Rice to testify in public. "We recognise there are arguments having to do with separation of powers. We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," he said. But he said he would not force the issue with a court order.

Even leading Republican figures are criticising Ms Rice's refusal to appear, saying it looked as if she had something to hide. "I think she'd be wise to testify," said Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser.

Further damage was inflicted yesterday in a Los Angeles Times report discrediting a prewar claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had trucks capable of dispersing dangerous substances such as anthrax. The report claimed the information came from a single discredited source and reached US intelligence agents third-hand.

In Israel, meanwhile, a parliamentary committee investigating exaggerated prewar claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction concluded that western agencies had dealt in speculation not facts.

The committee said claims that Saddam was expanding his armoury were based on evaluations shared among intelligence agencies in Israel, the US, Britain and elsewhere, that reinforced "dubious interpretations" of the few facts available.

But the report released yesterday by the foreign affairs and defence committee said that while there was a "serious intelligence failure" there was no evidence of deliberate deception to build a false case. Fair Use.