Condi caught with her pants down...Figuratively speaking of course...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44887>Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>April 8, 2004

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie 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]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that 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." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]</blockquote>
 
Posted and ripped to shreds already. The witch hunters tried their best to corner Condi but all they accomplished was making themselves look foolish.
 
Bully, why is it that this crap hasn't been covered by the mainstream media? Why does it only get tossed around among websites that cater to those that can't stop drooling?

Did you enjoy watching Clinton's buddy, Ben-Veniste, get trampled on by Condi?
 
This is nothing more than a politically motivated show.

I thought Condi did very well up there, with the exception of when that befuddled liberal fool asked her (emmm... Dr. Clark?? LOL) why Bush did nothing about the USS Cole bombing - she didn't tell him that the incident in question was prior to Bush taking office. She could have hammered him there, and didn't. Ah well.

I especially enjoyed how he pulled a sidebar and commented on how he is displeased with the Iraq situation - and then later cut Condi off, citing a lack of time. Nice bit of work, that. [/sarcasm]

The totally disrespectful line of questioning clearly demonstrates what this whole commission is about in my mind - truth be damned, let's try and smear the Prez in an election year.
 
Originally posted by NightTrain
Bully : Americanprogress.org??? LOL

Damn, why didn't you follow that up with some moveon.org scripture??

At least when Psycho posted this article he was slick enough to 'forget' to post a link to his source. I'm ashamed to admit I assumed he actually wrote the article. I should have known this crap came from another tinfoil page.

Bully's just angry over the results. A few weeks back he whined like a bitch because Condi hadn't testified. Now that she has made his idols look like a grammar school debate team, he's looking in the deep dark corners of the internet for anything to save face.

There's nothing to save. The American public realizes now that this commission is nothing more than an election year witch hunt blinded by partisan politics. If anything, they secured Condi's place in government.
 
Bully wont even sick around and talk about his B-S post anymore. If he wont fight for what he hangs up he should hang it! waste of space and the more he does it the Littler he gets in terms of respect[lack of].
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Posted and ripped to shreds already. The witch hunters tried their best to corner Condi but all they accomplished was making themselves look foolish.

where? I wanna see :D
 
Why is it that Bully seems to be intent on posting already debunked claims that he found on some ultra left web site? I mean, it's one thing to post some fairly rediculous claims. It's something entirely different when you got them from a completely unreliable source *and* they've already been smacked down.
 
Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Where is the thread debunking this?

There are many...all equally specious. If they had looked at the references, they would have noted that these issues had already been covered by the mainstream media.

The truth hurts.
 
Every time Dr. Rice spoke, she was shaking her head in a manner that we commonly associate with the negative. Her testimony, far from simply relaying the facts was attempting to explain what happened. Both common traits of those who are, shall we say, prevaricating.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
There are many...all equally specious. If they had looked at the references, they would have noted that these issues had already been covered by the mainstream media.

The truth hurts.

No, previous comments by her were covered by the mainstream media - not accusations of lies.

Do you have mainstream sources accusing her of lying under oath? Well, do you, Bully?
 
C'mon, Bully, don't avoid the question - where are your sources for the mainstream coverage of lies? How long should I expect to wait?
 
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

So if there were 75 covert missions underway, and they didn't follow through with just one of them, that means Rice lied? Her claim was that they continued Clinton's covert action authorities. Absolutely nothing has been proven to be a lie or incorrect here.

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie 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]

What does Richard Armitage's words have to do with this? There has been more than sufficient proof that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were open to military options for many years prior to 9/11. Besides, her words were describing the Bush administration strategies for counter-terrorism, all of which has been documented and given to the 9/11 commission.

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

Math 101, Bully! Supply one initiative and forget the rest of the increase in funding for the initiative as a whole? And I don't think you dopes want to criticize the Bush administration on curtailing the money of Al Qaeda - BILLIONS have been held or confiscated worldwide.

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

And since the hijackers were already in the US, what would this have accomplished? You also failed to note that this initiative was deferred by the Clinton administration.

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

Obfuscation simply won't work here. She said the funding was increased, and it was. She stated it was across several agencies, and it was.

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

This explanation is a prime reason that you don't see this crap in the mainstream media.The proposals by Clarke she is speaking of are proposals he made while the Bush administration was already in office. Did you really think no one would notice?

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

More obfuscation! Were they or were they not raised to a higher state of alertness and activity? Yes, they were.

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that 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." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

And let's just leave out the rest, right? The document also stated that the hijackings would be to have prisoners in the US released. There was absolutely nothing about buildings, nothing about missiles, nothing about targets.

It's obvious these "facts" are nothing more than an attempt to cloud the context of the statements in a pathetic attempt to discredit Rice. There are no lies. There is nothing incorrect in her testimony. This is not covered in the mainstream media because it's just plain stupid and typical of the drooling liberals. Condoleezza Rice kicked ass in her testimony and made the commissioners look like a bunch of babbling idiots. Now she's doing the same thing to you guys without speaking another word!
 
...I don't argue with zealots, be they religious or political. You point out all the facts to them, you cite all the sources, and you still get this dumb, uncomprehending look on their faces. It just doesn't register with them, and they throw up stupid and innane arguments as to why it just can't be other than how they see it.

It's like teaching a pig to sing...You waste your time and annoy the pig.
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
...I don't argue with zealots, be they religious or political. You point out all the facts to them, you cite all the sources, and you still get this dumb, uncomprehending look on their faces. It just doesn't register with them, and they throw up stupid and innane arguments as to why it just can't be other than how they see it.

It's like teaching a pig to sing...You waste your time and annoy the pig.

Where are the mainstream media sources? Are you admitting that their aren't any? You tried to make a case that she lied and you have failed. You tried to make a case that her information was incorrect and you failed. You tried to say that the coverage of these 'discrepancies' is readily available from the mainstream media, but when pressed for sources you back out of the debate.

Seems to me like you just cried uncle.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
Where are the mainstream media sources? Are you admitting that their aren't any? You tried to make a case that she lied and you have failed. You tried to make a case that her information was incorrect and you failed. You tried to say that the coverage of these 'discrepancies' is readily available from the mainstream media, but when pressed for sources you back out of the debate.

Seems to me like you just cried uncle.

Look at the initial post...the sources are cited with each point...moron :D
 
Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Look at the initial post...the sources are cited with each point...moron :D

And you're the dickhead that claimed these supposed 'lies and incorrect testimony' were covered by the mainstream media, but then backpedal when asked for sources. What a putz.
 

Forum List

Back
Top