Proof that Condi Rice is full of it!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Mar 26, 2004.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    Sorry, B2TM, but I couldn't resist the title of the thread. Seriously, the Washington Post has a very interesting article on the contradictions in Rice's statements and the rest of the administration in their attempt to discredit Clarke.

     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i think she's in way over her head. if she continues to provide this level of fodder for the press, i wonder if she'll be the sacrificial lamb. (i wonder if she'll take hadley w/ her)
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    She's doing the best she can. Remeber, it's very difficult to craft believable lies.
     
  4. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #4
    In a related story, the Center for American Progress has started a contest for all those who wish to prove just how much attention Bush, Cheney, and Rice paid to terrorism prior to 9/11.

    James Carville,from Crossfire, has added to the prize a copy of his own book.
     
  5. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #5
    we all know condi is a genius...a prodigy...and very well educated in the subject of russian politics.

    what she's not is a good liar.

    for me, she lost all credibilty on "meet the press" a while back. after stating she just didn't remember the CIA nixed the whole uranium/niger thing before she approved bush's SOTU speech...she then quoted portions of bush's "mission accomplished" speech verbatim. the worst case of selective retention i've seen since nixon.

    and she now insists it would be improper to testify publically under oath before the 9/11 commission...but it's just peachy to appear on a multitude of tv programs to talk about it.

    i feel sorry for her. she once was a brilliant person with an impressive list of accomplishments. now she's just a political mouthpiece who's told so many lies she doesn't completely know the truth...or how to stop spinning.

    i predict she'll keep at it until she's left swinging in the breeze by the people she trusted...becoming yet another disillusioned political tool relegated to lectures and television commentary.
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    isnt that the truth, this administration has spun and is spinning everything. What happen to Truth and Honesty? So now she wants to tesetify in private? whats that all about? I cant except a single word comming out of this admnistration. they have shown over and over to be nothing but a bunch of spin Dr's bending the Truth a million ways to suite the agenda they are on.
     
  7. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #7
    ps

    anyone else notice that rice has begun to have the demeaner of "pyle" from full metal jacket?
     

    Attached Files:

  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    i think i'd like to hear her say: "i am in a world of ****!"
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    A consensus seems to be building among the pundit corp that Rice isn't doing herself any good by playing the White House pit-bull on this issue instead of testifying before the committee.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rice26mar26,1,2288340.story
     
  11. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #11
    The Center for American Progress has compiled an excellent list of Rice's contradicted claims. Here are some excerpts:



    * RICE 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]


    * RICE 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]


    * RICE 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]


    * RICE 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"]


    * RICE 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]



    i see a big career for condi on HGTV after all of this....
     
  12. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #12
    Why aren't these people being prosecuted for this?
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    because they have restored honesty and integrity to the white house
     
  14. JamesDPS macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #14
    People are looking at this all wrong and narrowing the context too much: I think this administration is doing a top notch job, and everything they're doing right now will probably strengthen the country in the long term, and here's my defense:

    I hope they keep up this kind of obvious deception, political spinning, excuse-making, finger-pointing, xenophobia and general sliminess right up to the election! Sure, it might be unfair to blame EVERYTHING on Bush (let me get back to you when I think of something bad that's not his fault ;) -j/k), but they sure have failed in trying to get attention away from the issues where his administration has undeniably screwed up (even if you agree with their policy, no one can defend their total inconsistency, both recently and on a larger scale). At this rate, Kerry won't have to say a thing in his camplaign... but I hope he does! :D Sadly, I know that's a pipe dream -- he unfortunately WILL have to say a lot, because there's a huge portion of the country that will support Bush to the end, either through self-interest or ignorance.
     
  15. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #15
    Long time, no see. Thought you guys would find this interesting -- a co-worker's view of Clarke's credibility:

    L.A. Times

    COMMENTARY

    Voices in the Wilderness Are Turning Into a Chorus
    By Daniel Benjamin

    March 30, 2004

    In its effort to discredit Richard Clarke, the White House and its allies claim that what the former counterterrorism chief has said in his book and before the 9/11 commission is inconsistent with his past remarks. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice has said his book is "180 degrees from everything else that he said."

    Perhaps. I haven't seen everything Clarke said or wrote when he was in the administration. But I do know that the judgments Clarke has offered in "Against All Enemies" and his public testimony comport precisely with what he told me in early 2002.

    As director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff, I worked for Clarke in 1998 to 1999, and I stayed in touch with him after I left. In meetings in his Old Executive Office Building suite, at his home and over meals, he described for me his deep disappointment at the failure to stop the 9/11 attackers and his conviction that the Bush administration had not viewed the threat of jihadist terror with sufficient urgency. No amount of bureaucratic badgering, he felt, could get them to recognize Al Qaeda as the preeminent threat facing the U.S.

    In reporting for our book, "The Age of Sacred Terror," Steven Simon and I found that Clarke was not alone. Several top U.S. government officials agreed in interviews that the new administration had been unwilling to revise its understanding of America's security position and too slow to recognize the danger of Al Qaeda.

    Brian Sheridan, President Clinton's outgoing assistant secretary of Defense for special operations and low intensity conflict, was astonished when his offers during the transition to bring the new Pentagon leadership up to speed on terrorism were brushed aside. "I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic. Never took it up." . . .

    Daniel Benjamin, co-author of "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House, 2002), was on the National Security Council staff from 1994 to 1999.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page