Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Condi Rice Speaks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Condi Rice Speaks

    National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned of the threat posed by al-Qaida kingpin Osama bin Laden a full year before Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke claimed she expressed ignorance of the term al-Qaida.

    In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke paints Rice as someone who cared little and knew less about the terrorist threat, saying that when he briefed her on al-Qaida in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before."

    During an interview on Detroit radio station WJR the year before the Clarke briefing, Rice mentioned bin Laden by name, then recommended: "You really have to get the intelligence agencies better organized to deal with the terrorist threat to the United States itself. One of the problems that we have is a kind of split responsibility, of course, between the CIA and foreign intelligence and the FBI and domestic intelligence."

    Then, in a chillingly prescient comment, Rice named bin Laden a second time, warning, "There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory."
    Not only did Rice know who Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were, but she correctly identified two problems (before even getting into office):
    1) Uncooperative splits in intelligence organizations.
    2) Bin Laden as a major threat.

    Again, Clarke takes a major hit to his credibility.

    Of course, if Clarke were a Bush supporter he would have been labeled a racist and a bigot by now for attacking the credibility of Rice. Fotunately, one can just let the facts speak for themselves and that is all that really needs to be said.
    "A gerbil is a rodent, wretched creature and quite possibly represents yourself there unclean vile obsolete weak and live happily in there and others filth, they have caused plague and death to humans and nearly wiped us out" - industrialism

  • #2
    Yeah, looks like Clarke got shot down. Of course, not like there's enough problems with the administration...

    Try searching for Bush, Iraq, and Lies on Google. I'm certainly having fun doing that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Heh, looks like Clark mebby shoulda kept his yap shut. They have apparently uncovered him contridicting himself before two different grand juries.

      Simple perjury, or federal offence ? Time will tell.
      Never let LaughingRat shave your testicles with a rusty serrated knife.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TED NUGENT

        Simple perjury, or federal offence ? Time will tell.
        lol
        Deftones

        Comment


        • #5
          Of course, when you have a man lieng, in order to gain support for a war, he is to be praised as a hero...

          Comment


          • #6
            Pffffft
            "He said he didn't trust me, so I killed him."--Hidden_Wolfe

            Comment


            • #7
              Swiss, leave Tony Blair out of this.
              Never let LaughingRat shave your testicles with a rusty serrated knife.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TED NUGENT
                Swiss, leave Tony Blair out of this.
                You can't criticise the dummy without criticising the ventriloquist, man.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by !MegaDude!
                  Originally posted by TED NUGENT
                  Swiss, leave Tony Blair out of this.
                  You can't criticise the dummy without criticising the ventriloquist, man.
                  I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Tony Blair a dummy.
                  It is an insult to all of Great Britian to let on that Blair is just Bush's toy.

                  The rest of Europe has no problem voicing their opinions, it isn't like the Brits have anything to fear from us if they think for themselves. Maybe intelligent well spoken men whose views differ from yours must be 'dummies' in your world view?
                  "A gerbil is a rodent, wretched creature and quite possibly represents yourself there unclean vile obsolete weak and live happily in there and others filth, they have caused plague and death to humans and nearly wiped us out" - industrialism

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Someone can be well spoken and still be an idiot, man.
                    To quote the headline from the Daily Mirror the day before the Hutton Enquiry

                    "Idiot or Liar."

                    Either he knew the claim that WMD's could be deployed 45 minutes (the main basis for us joining the war) only referred to battlefield weapons, not long-range missiles as he claimed at the time, making him a liar.........

                    or.....

                    he genuinely believed that the 45 minute claim was describing long-range missiles, which means he spent about ten seconds looking at intelligence before deciding we should go to war, making him an idiot.

                    Either way this man should not be in charge of our country.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by !MegaDude!
                      Someone can be well spoken and still be an idiot, man.
                      To quote the headline from the Daily Mirror the day before the Hutton Enquiry

                      "Idiot or Liar."

                      Either he knew the claim that WMD's could be deployed 45 minutes (the main basis for us joining the war) only referred to battlefield weapons, not long-range missiles as he claimed at the time, making him a liar.........

                      or.....

                      he genuinely believed that the 45 minute claim was describing long-range missiles, which means he spent about ten seconds looking at intelligence before deciding we should go to war, making him an idiot.

                      Either way this man should not be in charge of our country.
                      The entire international community felt that Saddam had WMD. At that time Bush and Blair made those claims neither the UN or any intelligence agency on the planet disagreed with the assessment. The disagreement was only over how to handle Saddam and his WMD. The entire international community felt he had them because:

                      1) Saddam had used WMD in the past.
                      2) Saddam was playing hide and seek with weapons inspectors. Why would he do this unless he had illegal items? Does he like sanctions?

                      Now if someone has a credible source for an intelligence agency that claims there were no WMD before the Iraqi war then please provide it. I'm open to seeing it but I've been told the entire international community felt he had these things, and until I see evidence to the contrary that is what I'm going to believe.

                      That leaves a third option, specifically that the entire world was wrong, or a fourth option, that weapons were hidden, or a fifth option, that they were moved. But since your agenda is to make out these leaders as idiots or liars I don't suppose these other possibilities are going to get in your way of reaching the conclusions you reached before this issue even surfaced.

                      Now let us step back from this for a moment.
                      Let's say Bush and Blair lied about it.

                      Can someone give me any reason whatsoever for lying about this? Dood, they ain't gonna find them if it is merely a lie so isn't that a set up for alotta egg on the old kisser? Surely lieing about it isn't very probable because nobody would want to take the popularity of the effort in Afghanistan and burn it all on a lie about WMD in Iraq, would they? Lying? I don't think so. Over-enthusiastic, preferential reading of data? Perhaps -- but then everyone was doing that as well.

                      Now if you want to make the 'Lie' or 'Idiot' case, then you best apply that to every leader in every foreign government and to the UN because they all were believing the same thing at the same time. (Again, open to data that says otherwise)

                      Your big problem Megadude, is that you must knock out the other 3 options before you can run off (credibly) about it being either an 'idiot' or 'liar' choice.

                      You might wish to start with answering:

                      1) "Why was the UN spending 10 years looking for something --- and passing 18 resolutions about --- something they thought didn't exist."

                      2) Who ya gonna vote for in the fall. Kerry is on record maintaining that at the time he thought Iraq had WMD as well. Is he an idiot, or a liar?
                      "A gerbil is a rodent, wretched creature and quite possibly represents yourself there unclean vile obsolete weak and live happily in there and others filth, they have caused plague and death to humans and nearly wiped us out" - industrialism

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil
                        Now if someone has a credible source for an intelligence agency that claims there were no WMD before the Iraqi war then please provide it. I'm open to seeing it but I've been told the entire international community felt he had these things, and until I see evidence to the contrary that is what I'm going to believe.
                        I believe the CIA had recanted their intelligence that Iraq had a working nuclear weapons program at a time prior to when Bush said to the entire country that Iraq had a working nuclear weapons program, and had attempted to acquire nuclear material, a bit of intelligence that the CIA also denied. Don't have a source for either off the top of my head, but I'll try and find one.

                        Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil
                        That leaves a third option, specifically that the entire world was wrong, or a fourth option, that weapons were hidden, or a fifth option, that they were moved.
                        Even the head of the US weapons inspection teams (can't remember his first name, last name Kay) is saying that it doesn't look like and alleged WMD's were moved, used, or destroyed anytime immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq. He's said it looks like there never were any.

                        Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil
                        Can someone give me any reason whatsoever for lying about this? Dood, they ain't gonna find them if it is merely a lie so isn't that a set up for alotta egg on the old kisser? Surely lieing about it isn't very probable because nobody would want to take the popularity of the effort in Afghanistan and burn it all on a lie about WMD in Iraq, would they? Lying? I don't think so. Over-enthusiastic, preferential reading of data? Perhaps -- but then everyone was doing that as well.
                        Bush had as a priority taking out Saddam from the time he took office. He even set up an office at the pentagon to suppress any intellignece that would undermine that goal, and to make sure any intellligence supporting it became known. I don't think it's beyond possibility that he let that personal goal blind him to what the political repercussions were, or perhaps he wouldn't care. As you've pointed out in another forum, Bush seems to be one for doing whatever he things is "right" (regardless of how misguided his idea of right or wrong might be), so perhaps the consequences simply weren't of any importance to him.

                        Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil
                        2) Who ya gonna vote for in the fall. Kerry is on record maintaining that at the time he thought Iraq had WMD as well. Is he an idiot, or a liar?
                        I don't think Megadude is going to be voting for either, or any 3rd party candidate, either. He's a citizen of the UK.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Gerbil, not for the first time I think you're deliberately misinterpreting me. I am not even attempting to dispute whether Saddam had WMD or not- I, unlike the brilliant politicians you so admire, am waiting for the evidence. And waiting. And waiting....

                          Regardless of whether he had them or not:
                          The "honest" Mr. Blair claimed that Saddam could launch WMD's against British bases in neighbouring countries within 45 minutes of deciding to do so. This was a major part of his argument for the war, as it meant our forces were under the direct threat of attack.
                          This turned out to be total bullshit, the (famous, in the Uk at least) 45 minute claim in fact reffering to battlefield deployable weapons (eg. weapons with a range of a few miles rather than the large distances required to attack any of our troops at the time).
                          He claims that at the time of deciding (against the majority opinion in our allegedly democratic country at the time) to go to war he honestly believed this related to long-range ballistic missiles rather than short range battlefield weapons.

                          This is not my opinion, this is what the man has said. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that either he

                          a) only very briefly thumbed through the intelligence available to him before deciding that we should go to war, making him an extremely incompetent person,

                          or

                          b) he knew this was a lie but hoped he wouldn't get caught.

                          These are simply the facts by his own admission. Maybe you could do a bit of research next time?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Megadude:

                            I thought you were an American quoting a British Newspapers view of the President of the USA.

                            My bad.
                            "A gerbil is a rodent, wretched creature and quite possibly represents yourself there unclean vile obsolete weak and live happily in there and others filth, they have caused plague and death to humans and nearly wiped us out" - industrialism

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Blair kinda hurt himself on that one. He really didn't use any other arguments for going to war.

                              Although, and here is something that is not commonly brought up...Clinton was very sure he had WMD's in the first place, because Saddam had used them before. Why isn't Clinton being called to testify?

                              Politics...on both sides.
                              Kiech

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X