• 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.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Breaking NEWS!!!

3-30-2004 White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it get them in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about capitulation and dragged in kicking & screaming.
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Breaking NEWS!!!

3-30-2004 White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it get them in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about capitulation and dragged in kicking & screaming.
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Oh great, so when its Bush's turn to testify we're going to be doing this all over again. Bastards
 
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Breaking NEWS!!!

3-30-2004 White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it get them in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about capitulation and dragged in kicking & screaming.
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Oh great, so when its Bush's turn to testify we're going to be doing this all over again. Bastards
Click to expand...

Really, do you believe a Republican Controlled Congress will put Bush through what they did to Clinton over a BJ?

Ain't going to happen.


 
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Breaking NEWS!!!

3-30-2004 White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.

The official said the decision is conditioned on the Bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent, said the official speaking on condition of anonymity. It appeared the administration already had such assurances verbally in private and is confident it get them in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about capitulation and dragged in kicking & screaming.
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Oh great, so when its Bush's turn to testify we're going to be doing this all over again. Bastards
Click to expand...
I thought this only applied to her job?
is the president also immune to this?
 
I doubt the President knows more than Rice. 🙂

Let's wait and see what documents they declassify before we jump to any conclusions.

I'm wondering just what the American people will find out when this Commission's report is finally written. Probably not much.

Anyway, as I've been saying all along, this is the RIGHT thing to do and I think GW should get major props for agreeing that this is a special case for waiving EP.

-Robert
 
I'd also like to know how Clarke was so cocksure that we would be attacked domestically. Until 9/11 their MO was strictly American targets abroad. You can argue that is the next logical step to attack us here at home, but Clarke better start showing documents or find someone to back him up on that. Everyone knew Al-Qaida was a threat, but where exactly were they a threat?
Click to expand...
That's not accurate and thus there is no need to argue that it was the next logical step, because you are forgetting that they had previously attempted to blow-up the very same trade center using a truck full of explosives.
 
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I'd also like to know how Clarke was so cocksure that we would be attacked domestically. Until 9/11 their MO was strictly American targets abroad. You can argue that is the next logical step to attack us here at home, but Clarke better start showing documents or find someone to back him up on that. Everyone knew Al-Qaida was a threat, but where exactly were they a threat?
Click to expand...
That's not accurate and thus there is no need to argue that it was the next logical step, because you are forgetting that they had previously attempted to blow-up the very same trade center using a truck full of explosives.
Click to expand...

Well, there's his testimony to the 9-11 Commission re:setting up air defenses for the Olympics in Atlanta where he feared Al Qaeda may use planes.
 
Bush and Cheney to appear before all 10 commissioners in a joint, private meeting?

From FOX News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115618,00.html

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement -- Commission access to the President and Vice President. I am authorized to advise you that the President and Vice President have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 Commissioners, with one Commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though.

And Bush DID pull resources out of Afghanistan and moved them into Iraq.
Click to expand...

rolleye.gif
- And your point is?

Oh and what exactly do you mean by "It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though"? Do you have any facts to back up that statement - or just insinuation and rhetoric?

Bush went into Afghanistan after 9/11 with troops. Just repeating it incase people have forgotten - because there seems to be this attempt to attach Iraq's invasion to Bush's reaction to 9/11. Yes, he asked if there was a link with Saddam and the attacks - and then he went to Afghanistan...not Iraq. I'm not sure where the comprehension trip-up is occurring with people on this...

CkG
 
He's referring to Clarke's testimony/book where he accuses Bush of trying to figure some way, any way to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. What? That surprises you?
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though.

And Bush DID pull resources out of Afghanistan and moved them into Iraq.
Click to expand...

rolleye.gif
- And your point is?

Oh and what exactly do you mean by "It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though"? Do you have any facts to back up that statement - or just insinuation and rhetoric?

Bush went into Afghanistan after 9/11 with troops. Just repeating it incase people have forgotten - because there seems to be this attempt to attach Iraq's invasion to Bush's reaction to 9/11. Yes, he asked if there was a link with Saddam and the attacks - and then he went to Afghanistan...not Iraq. I'm not sure where the comprehension trip-up is occurring with people on this...

CkG
Click to expand...


Have you not been reading the news?

Paul O'Neill.

Richard Clarke.


Those names ring a bell?

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though.

And Bush DID pull resources out of Afghanistan and moved them into Iraq.
Click to expand...

rolleye.gif
- And your point is?

Oh and what exactly do you mean by "It's not like Bush didn't try to get us into war with Iraq first, though"? Do you have any facts to back up that statement - or just insinuation and rhetoric?

Bush went into Afghanistan after 9/11 with troops. Just repeating it incase people have forgotten - because there seems to be this attempt to attach Iraq's invasion to Bush's reaction to 9/11. Yes, he asked if there was a link with Saddam and the attacks - and then he went to Afghanistan...not Iraq. I'm not sure where the comprehension trip-up is occurring with people on this...

CkG
Click to expand...


Have you not been reading the news?

Paul O'Neill.

Richard Clarke.


Those names ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the news. Yes I recognise those names. You think maybe I need my tinfoil hat to understand your post?

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

DM - Yes - I know what he was implying but it's not based on FACT. It's based on insinuation and spin. Yes, Bush asked about Saddam, but what did he do - oh that's right....we went to Afghanistan. Silly me - and here I thought you guys are trying to say Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq....guess we went to Afghanistan in response though - no?

CkG
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
DM - Yes - I know what he was implying but it's not based on FACT. It's based on insinuation and spin. Yes, Bush asked about Saddam, but what did he do - oh that's right....we went to Afghanistan. Silly me - and here I thought you guys are trying to say Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq....guess we went to Afghanistan in response though - no?

CkG
Click to expand...
Actually Cad, it's based on sworn testimony by a 30-year veteran of 4 administrations and our former counter terrorism czar, but hey whatever qualifies for "spin" and "insinuation" in your mind. A story that's been corroborated by other former administration officials.

Yes, of course we went to Afghanistan, that's where the real terrorists actually are, not Iraq. Silly Cad, tricks are for kids. That sure didn't stop the administration from veering into Iraq afterwards and tying OIF to the WoT and 9/11.
 
Couple other pertinent facts being overlooked here:

1) al Queda operatives had been stopped at the Canadian border
moving explosives into the country that were to be used at LAX
in a bombing on U.S. soil - An alert Canadian Agent noticed the
uneasiness of the occupant of the car, serched, materials found.
Arrested operative - and the link was traced to his affiliation.

2) 'receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent'
Now go back to under Jimmy Carter where his 'National Security Advisor',- Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Rice's several terms past predecessor had testified - he had testified before congress and congressional panels,
as did Clinton's NSA - Sandy Berger.
Point is that in the past Democratic appointees had in fact testified, without invoking the 'Kings-X' of Executive Privledge.

Why is it that the Republicans think that they themselves are above the same ethics that they try to
make the Democrats dance too ? Time after time they pull this crap - and shouldn't get away with it.
I for one, remember the politics of Nixon - which I detested, the Bushies are much worse.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Couple other pertinent facts being overlooked here:

1) al Queda operatives had been stopped at the Canadian border
moving explosives into the country that were to be used at LAX
in a bombing on U.S. soil - An alert Canadian Agent noticed the
uneasiness of the occupant of the car, serched, materials found.
Arrested operative - and the link was traced to his affiliation.
Click to expand...

Of course...it's all so clear now! They were moving in bombs so we should have known they'd try to fly planes into our buildings. How could anybody miss that tie??!!
 
Her0 -

You know what ? I always thought that there was some connection between AIRPLANES and AIRPORTS,
But I guess that I must be wrong.Yeah, AIRPORTS are the place that TAXICABS with foriegn speaking
drivers hang out and ask people for money and offer them nasty things, Huh ?

And AIRPLANES, they just cruise around on Golf Courses, or hang out with thier buddies the SHIPS.

Good Lord ! - there has always been a fascination of Aircraft and their use in terrorist plots, from hijackings to
bombings, to destruction of the aircraft to make political statements. Only a politically insensative hack
would have overlooked the possibility of them being used AS THE WEAPON - The Japanese had used
aircraft as attack vehicles in the early 40's - The potential has been known for at least 60 years.
 
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur

Have you not been reading the news?

Paul O'Neill.

Richard Clarke.


Those names ring a bell?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the news. Yes I recognise those names. You think maybe I need my tinfoil hat to understand your post?
Click to expand...

No, it's fairly obvious. Add in several other top intelligence officials and Clarke's statements are perfectly credible.

Unless you think there's some big conspiracy afoot.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
DM - Yes - I know what he was implying but it's not based on FACT. It's based on insinuation and spin. Yes, Bush asked about Saddam, but what did he do - oh that's right....we went to Afghanistan. Silly me - and here I thought you guys are trying to say Bush's response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq....guess we went to Afghanistan in response though - no?

CkG
Click to expand...
Actually Cad, it's based on sworn testimony by a 30-year veteran of 4 administrations and our former counter terrorism czar, but hey whatever qualifies for "spin" and "insinuation" in your mind. A story that's been corroborated by other former administration officials.

Yes, of course we went to Afghanistan, that's where the real terrorists actually are, not Iraq. Silly Cad, tricks are for kids. That sure didn't stop the administration from veering into Iraq afterwards and tying OIF to the WoT and 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said - Bush asked about a possible connection between the attacks and Saddam. That does NOT mean Bush was looking to "try to get us into war with Iraq first" as conjur's spin suggests. I think you didn't understand what I said. That "spin" comment was addressed to conjur's post which insinuated that Bush was "trying to get us into a war with Iraq first" in response to 9/11. That "story" about Bush asking about a connection has been overspun and has now grown into something some people think they can draw wild conclusions from. Bush's response to 9/11 - period. He wanted every angle covered - so his questions about Saddam would be more than appropriate before a more detailed report as to who was responsible for the attacks.

Spin spin spin away though. Keep believing that Bush's response to 9/11 was attacking Iraq if you want. I've heard ignorance is bliss.😉

CkG
 
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I've heard ignorance is bliss.😉
Click to expand...

Often, I imagine.
Click to expand...

So you'd also like to acknowledge that your ignorance is blissful?
gotcha - I'll add you to the list of those that have informed me of their bliss. Thanks.

CkG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top