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

[chess9]

Yup, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!

Time for Rice to exit stage left. She has become a huge liability for the President. If they don't defuse this little time bomb and quickly they will pay with votes.

Has everyone seen the CNN poll on this topic? Doesn't look good for Rice.

-Robert

 

[burnedout]

Many feel that Rice should actually testify. I do as well. She should lead off her testimony with the following:

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount ? and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush?s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack ? these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There?s a long answer to give folks like that ? and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

There's more:

"Some are willing to let bygones be bygones before September 11, despite the Clinton Administration's limp record on terror. (Cluelessly limp. Remember Clarke boasted in 1999 that our response to the 1993 WTC bombing was scaring Al Qaeda, which is proof of cluelessness beyond contradiction.) But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Many feel that Rice should actually testify. I do as well. She should lead off her testimony with the following:

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount ? and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush?s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack ? these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There?s a long answer to give folks like that ? and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

There's more:

"Some are willing to let bygones be bygones before September 11, despite the Clinton Administration's limp record on terror. (Cluelessly limp. Remember Clarke boasted in 1999 that our response to the 1993 WTC bombing was scaring Al Qaeda, which is proof of cluelessness beyond contradiction.) But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

The recount(s) had no bearing on it, it was still Clinton in charge during the process. Just keep repeating the rest, someday even you might believe it.

 

[conjur]

And just who was delayed being confirmed by the Senate? Federal Judges who have no bearing on the intelligence community?

Who was on a month-long vacation in August? Bush

Did Bush's vacation agenda include terrorism? NO.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/08/06/king.otsc/



And:

Franklin C. Miller, Special Asst. to the President & Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control
Appointed February 22, 2001

Robert G. Joseph, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
Appointed February 22, 2001

Stephen J. Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser
Appointed January 20, 2001

Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
Appointed January 20, 2001

 

[Gaard]

Who was on a month-long vacation in August? Bush

This is something I don't understand.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: burnedout
Many feel that Rice should actually testify. I do as well. She should lead off her testimony with the following:

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount ? and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush?s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack ? these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There?s a long answer to give folks like that ? and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

There's more:

"Some are willing to let bygones be bygones before September 11, despite the Clinton Administration's limp record on terror. (Cluelessly limp. Remember Clarke boasted in 1999 that our response to the 1993 WTC bombing was scaring Al Qaeda, which is proof of cluelessness beyond contradiction.) But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

The recount(s) had no bearing on it, it was still Clinton in charge during the process. Just keep repeating the rest, someday even you might believe it.

Agreed. This is more partisan spin and buck-passing. The Bushies are never at fault about anything, not even to the slightest extent. Clinton should have done more, especially in 20/20 hindsight, but it sounds like his administration did quite a lot. Bush did nothing of consequence. He was too obsessed with Hussein, with Clinton (as in undoing everything Clinton did), and with selling us out to his energy buddies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: burnedout
Many feel that Rice should actually testify. I do as well. She should lead off her testimony with the following:

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount ? and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush?s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack ? these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There?s a long answer to give folks like that ? and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

There's more:

"Some are willing to let bygones be bygones before September 11, despite the Clinton Administration's limp record on terror. (Cluelessly limp. Remember Clarke boasted in 1999 that our response to the 1993 WTC bombing was scaring Al Qaeda, which is proof of cluelessness beyond contradiction.) But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

The recount(s) had no bearing on it, it was still Clinton in charge during the process. Just keep repeating the rest, someday even you might believe it.

Agreed. This is more partisan spin and buck-passing. The Bushies are never at fault about anything, not even to the slightest extent. Clinton should have done more, especially in 20/20 hindsight, but it sounds like his administration did quite a lot. Bush did nothing of consequence. He was too obsessed with Hussein, with Clinton (as in undoing everything Clinton did), and with selling us out to his energy buddies.

You summed up your post in the first couple words..."This is more partisan spin..."

CkG

 

[conjur]

see my updated post, too.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Agreed. This is more partisan spin and buck-passing. The Bushies are never at fault about anything, not even to the slightest extent. Clinton should have done more, especially in 20/20 hindsight, but it sounds like his administration did quite a lot. Bush did nothing of consequence. He was too obsessed with Hussein, with Clinton (as in undoing everything Clinton did), and with selling us out to his energy buddies.

You summed up your post in the first couple words..."This is more partisan spin..."

CkG

I'll defer to your vast expertise in the subject.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Whatchu talkin' about Mr. Clarke??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Agreed. This is more partisan spin and buck-passing. The Bushies are never at fault about anything, not even to the slightest extent. Clinton should have done more, especially in 20/20 hindsight, but it sounds like his administration did quite a lot. Bush did nothing of consequence. He was too obsessed with Hussein, with Clinton (as in undoing everything Clinton did), and with selling us out to his energy buddies.

You summed up your post in the first couple words..."This is more partisan spin..."

CkG

I'll defer to your vast expertise in the subject.

You've taught me well, Master.

CkG

 

[digitalsm]

Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

Good. When?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

Good. When?

Breaking news on Drudge. Give the networks time to catch up
Oh, and I'm sure the schedule will be released when it becomes "real news"

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Whatchu talkin' about Mr. Clarke??

rofl

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

Good. When?

Major DC and Washington papers will be reporting it in their morning editions.

 

[conjur]

Uh...to me...this is going too far.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115569,00.html

"WASHINGTON ? Two Democratic senators plan to attach to the welfare reauthorization bill being debated Tuesday an amendment that would require National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) to testify publicly and under oath before the panel investing pre-Sept. 11, 2001, anti-terror efforts."

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...to me...this is going too far.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115569,00.html

"WASHINGTON ? Two Democratic senators plan to attach to the welfare reauthorization bill being debated Tuesday an amendment that would require National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) to testify publicly and under oath before the panel investing pre-Sept. 11, 2001, anti-terror efforts."

lol

WTF?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

Guess Drudge was correct again. Maybe the partisans should quit trying to smear the place that breaks alot of news.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Condi to testify under oath, in private meetings. Testimony will then immediately be released to the public.

Guess Drudge was correct again. Maybe the partisans should quit trying to smear the place that breaks alot of news.

CkG

I don't follow Drudge. What was he correct about? This article says Condi may testify more, but still NOT under oath. We knew that already. The only new part is they may release her earlier, NOT under oath testimony.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...to me...this is going too far.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115569,00.html

"WASHINGTON ? Two Democratic senators plan to attach to the welfare reauthorization bill being debated Tuesday an amendment that would require National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) to testify publicly and under oath before the panel investing pre-Sept. 11, 2001, anti-terror efforts."

If true, that's just stupid.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: burnedout . . . But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

Oh really? I guess it doesn't take a ton of bricks to fall on its head to realize that.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: burnedout
But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

No we do not. We were at war with Al Qaeda but Dubya attacked Iraq. Richard Clarke said "It's like we responded to Pearl Harbor by attacking Mexico." Dubya attacked the wrong target. His apologists keep trying to deny that fact.


-------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: burnedout
But the Bush Administration, to its credit, figured out that we were at war after September 11. Its critics keep trying to deny that fact."

No we do not. We were at war with Al Qaeda but Dubya attacked Iraq. Richard Clarke said "It's like we responded to Pearl Harbor by attacking Mexico." Dubya attacked the wrong target. His apologists keep trying to deny that fact.

Wrong - you bleaters keep forgetting Afghanistan. You know...where Bush sent troops after 9/11. So no - he did NOT attack the wrong target - you just seem to have forgotten about us hitting that target.

CkG

 

[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.