| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bombshell from Condoleezza Rice | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 8 2004, 08:33 AM (539 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 8 2004, 08:33 AM Post #1 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040408/D81QL3Q00.html The article is titled, "Rice: Nation Not on 'War Footing' on 9/11" The bombshell is at the end (which is typical of myway.com): She said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida." Bush, she said, "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she said. "He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies'," Rice told the commission. (For those who didn't know, she is currently testifying in front of the 9/11 finger-pointer... errr, commission) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Sgt. Jaggs | Apr 8 2004, 09:03 AM Post #2 |
|
How about a Voyager Movie
|
I feel this testimony should not be on display for our enemies to learn so much about our government. What is with the applause when Condi is beind grilled?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 8 2004, 09:07 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
So the flies turned into wasps ! That got his attention . Like I said elsewhere - the man is incompetent as are most if not all his executive. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Apr 8 2004, 09:30 AM Post #4 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Why is there a 9/11 commision anyway. Isn't it plainly obvious that even if the US government had pumped extra funding into homeland security before 9/11 , that funding would have gone to battle against worst case scenarios - nuclear bombs, chemical, biological weapons. No one really foresaw that a dozen idiots with packing knives could bring the country to a halt, and even if they had, a dirty nuclear bomb still sounds way more scary. I also dont understand those that single out Bush for world troubles, do they think the American government is only run by one person, most of Bush's role is as a figure head, greeting foriegn leaders, making speeches etc. Does any one expect the smartest guy in America to be president, no the smartest guy in America sits at his PC for 16 hrs a day at NASA, or pushes Operating System plug-ins to the Europeans - ie makes squiilions in private industry.Actually I read in the paper today that the personal wealth of IKEA's founder has surpassed Billgates so the richest man in the world is now Swedish, not American - 53 billion I think it was. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 8 2004, 10:10 AM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ It's been 2 1/2 years, there is enough distance to begin placing blame. Note (presently questioning Dr. Rice) former Senator Bob Kerrey's manner of questioning. When Dr. Rice tried, a few moments ago, to reply to a question he asked her not to "filibuster me". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 8 2004, 10:35 AM Post #6 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I heard that... I think he is smart enough to know that he (Bob Kerrey) is not in her league. This is going to backfire bigtime on the Dems. Note the scramblings of Richard ben-Veniste. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 8 2004, 10:40 AM Post #7 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Onthe other hand, she was very kind and complimentary in her priase of a speech that the senator gave wherein he referred to the threat posed by Iraq and its possible connection to 2001... Hmmm, how soon some forget their own words... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 8 2004, 10:51 AM Post #8 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I am watching the hearings now, and my initial impressions are: My overall impression of Rice is that she is a credible person (with a few reservations about how she has phrased certain answers, put a picture on certain Administration activities, etc.). Basically though, her testimony comes down to a he said/she said with regards to Clarke’s testimony (which I felt was also credible). The declassification of the August 6th memo will further clarify their points-of-view. Also, the NSPD that was completed on August 4th will also have to be declassified to give her statements further credibility. IMO, she paints too much of a rosy picture in her initial testimony (Administration actions performed during the heightened alert time leading up to the summer of 2001), I can’t help but be skeptical. Bob Kerrey, sort of called her on this a bit when he asked Rice about the statement, “tired of swatting flies.” Kerrey went after Rice and said there were no flies being swatted at all (not since 1998). Rice responded that she felt the President was referring to what the agencies were doing here and there…that it was a figure of speech. (I am paraphrasing.) Kerrey also kept calling Rice, “Dr. Clarke”... :lol: While I thought Ben-Veniste asked some very valid questions, the way he did so was extremely rude. In other words, he was an @ss. Ben-Veniste asked Rice point blank, “Did you tell the President that there were al-Qaeda Cells in the US?” She said she didn’t remember discussing the issue with the President. That was the only time I saw Rice get extremely ruffled in her testimony. I have also noticed that Rice hasn't tried to outright discredit Clarke, but did point out that there were other priorities on the table (WMD, North Korea). Slowly, the questions/answers have become more forceful/rambunctious. *** As a side note, I gained new insight (a new perspective) into two issues (Saddam/WMD/terrorism and a question I asked AB, “How is it our right, or our responsibility?”). Gaining this insight alone was worth my time to watch these hearings.
In your opinion only. I have heard all of her testimony today thus far, and I still come away with many questions/reservations about her testimony. I think both the Democrats and Republicans have significant degrees of validity in thier account of events leading up to 9/11. I don't think either side is totally right or wrong on all accounts. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 8 2004, 10:59 AM Post #9 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I think it was this one area that she failed in her reply. I think the answer she should have given was that going back over the several preceding administrations all we had done was swat flies, or, to use another term that was flying back and forth, go tit for tat. I always thought that was what the referrence "tired of swatting flies," meant. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Apr 8 2004, 11:11 AM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
I'm unable to watch.
I really must get my employers to put a TV in this office. :lol:
Anything that helps more truth come out can only be a win for everyone regardless of the content of the truth. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Apr 8 2004, 12:16 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
The President and his administration have been wrong time and time again - on the most crucial events that have taken place during this presidency. Everything from the President's supposed belief that al-Qaeda was important but not urgent (pre 9-11) to his delusion that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States - wrong, wrong, wrong. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| somerled | Apr 8 2004, 12:19 PM Post #12 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Not covered at all here. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 8 2004, 12:21 PM Post #13 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Yawn. You're an insipid and banal little man not worthy of a lengthly reply. Admiralbill_gomec, as for you initial post, I don't necessarily agree it's a bombshell, but it is one piece of evidence that paints an overall picture that refutes the charges from Dick Clarke. The Bush Administration cannot, at one time, ignore terrorism, while at the same time, devise a comprehensive plan to terrorism. And since it is fact that the Bush Administration was developing a comprehensive plan, then that means that Clarke wasn't aware of the development of this plan or he's not telling the truth about the matter. Either way, his words should be suspect. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 8 2004, 12:24 PM Post #14 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Pres. Bush never claimed that Saddam was an imminent threat, so you're doing your best to perpetuate a LIE! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 9 2004, 08:52 AM Post #15 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Benetil, Benetil, Benetil, when will you look past your hatred of George Bush and see the truth? First of all, the Bush Administration's National Security Presidential Directive, posted September 4th, was about terrorism, and it named the number one threat as al Quida. Let me repost this again: "She said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida." Please note that phrase, "the elimination of al-Quida." That sounds pretty damned urgent, doesn't it, no matter how you try to spin it? Secondly, George Bush has never said that Saddam or Iraq was an imminent threat. I have said this numerous times, and in discussions with YOU. It has been discussed on this board in the past few days as well. I really don't know if you forgot, or are being intentionally misleading. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




- ie makes squiilions in private industry.
I really must get my employers to put a TV in this office. :lol:

2:13 PM Jul 11