|
Post by Gorf on Apr 8, 2004 10:21:45 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687324/I liked the one "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God?" I wonder how many people in the list are of voting age - it seemed that the majority of the people posting their questions are suspicious of Rice, Bush and the administration in general.
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 10, 2004 13:14:07 GMT -5
There were a lot of harsh questions by emailers, but many were also tailored to elicit a certain negative response ("How do you sleep at night knowing that your lies helped send hundreds of Americans to their deaths (not to mention the untold thousands of Iraqis)?") or make some unnecessary digs ("Why, "Dr. Rice" do your facial expressions, trembling voice and contradictory head movements so often make it appear you are not being entirely truthful during interviews?").
How the hell did Condoleeza Rice get her job?
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Apr 10, 2004 13:51:55 GMT -5
"What are you doing Saturday night? I saw you in the video game 'Bush Shootout' and I think you've got it goin' on!" Oh... link for those who don't know what the 'Bush Shootout' is: www.miniclip.com/bushshootout.htm
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 11, 2004 0:16:48 GMT -5
I heard Condy Rice warned then-San Francisco mayor Willie Brown not to fly on September 11, several hours before the tragic Twin Towers disaster occurred. True or false?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 11, 2004 0:54:38 GMT -5
There has definitely been a rumour to that effect.
She denies it, the mayor denies it (he claims his warning came from "his" airport security people), others claim it to be true, I doubt we will ever really know if it is true. Whether it is true or not that she warned him, he supposedly actually did cancel his flight for 9/11.
There is also a rumour that a number of cabinet members and perhaps members of congress cancelled their flights for 9/11 as well.
I would have liked to have had the commission ask her why with the multiple hijacked airliners all being in the air for upwards of 2 hours and a significant part of that time being out of radio communication with towers were no air force intercept jets ever ordered off the ground to assist in locating and coralling the hijacked planes.
Supposedly it would have taken at most 15 - 20 minutes for the intercept planes to reach the hijacked planes. In theory leaving ample time to have to at least attempt diverting them away from their intended targets.
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 11, 2004 16:08:34 GMT -5
Did you see Janet Jackson's portrayal of Condy Rice on Saturday Night Live. Part hilarious, part mischievous, part below-the-belt. From the gap tooth to Janet's own self-deprecating right boobfest. She's a good sport, that Janet, even though I think she's a circus freak like her brother Michael.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2004 17:50:55 GMT -5
Gorf, do you remember when we flew back from San Diego on the 9th, before the incident on the plane, that the metal detectors at the San Diego gates appeared to be set at a lower tolerance than usual? They were going off like crazy. I remember thinking there must be something going on.
Two days later...boom.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 12, 2004 12:37:15 GMT -5
I do remember the heightened security for the trip back from San Diego.
Though, for some reason I hadn't until you mentioned it in your post connected it to the 9/11 attacks.
I guess I had been so caught off guard by the attacks on 9/11 and like so many others was glued to the TV and radio to try to learn as much as possible regarding what had and was happening that it never "sunk in" that we might have been around a potential warning sign that something was "going on".
|
|
|
Post by Noname on Apr 13, 2004 14:01:39 GMT -5
One question I would've asked Dr. Rice during the hearing, would be - Why is it that you can remember details of what you told the President on a specific date, yet, you cannot remember if you told him via phone, in person, or on a tele-cam?
How she was stating her testimony was like her saying "I know what I cooked for dinner, who was invited, who came to the dinner, and what they were all wearing, but, I don't recall if I used the microwave oven or the conventional oven to cook the 10 course meal.
|
|
|
Post by Noname on Apr 13, 2004 16:10:06 GMT -5
How the hell did Condoleeza Rice get her job? What probably convinced Bush to give her the job was Bush thinking ahead and thought by hiring a Black female to his administration, he could then get females and the Black community to vote for him for the '04 election.
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 17, 2004 9:45:03 GMT -5
On David Letterman:
Top Ten Questions You're Afraid To Ask Condoleezza Rice
10. "Did Bush ever hurt himself trying to pronounce your name?"
9. "At cabinet meetings, who besides you and Cheney wear lipstick?"
8. "Do you know Leeza Gibbons?"
7. "Do you own a condo?"
6. "Did you ever try the 'Condoleezza Rice' at Chi-Chi's?"
5. "As a souvenir, did you keep any of Saddam's beard lice?"
4. "Hey, where'd you get that cool Halliburton sweatshirt?"
3. "Who told CNN that Letterman faked the footage of the bored kid next to Bush?"
2. "About those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- did you check Baghdad Mini-Storage?"
1. "What kind of job will you and Bush be looking for in January 2005?"
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 17, 2004 10:05:33 GMT -5
3. "Who told CNN that Letterman faked the footage of the bored kid next to Bush?" Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by future on Apr 17, 2004 15:00:22 GMT -5
Take a look at this one. Printed from NOW Magazine Online Edition www.nowtoronto.comCondi's fabulous fibs National Security Advisor appears before 9/11 Commission – and wreaks havoc with the truth The U.S.'s National Security Advisor appeared before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks last week. Here's how she scored. "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network." In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called Catcher's Mitt to monitor al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. (Newsweek). (And) 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, terminating the reconnaissance missions started under Clinton (Associated Press). "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets." The Bush administration opposed Clinton-backed efforts by the G7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with loose banking regulations being abused by terrorist financiers (Age Of Sacred Terror, by Daniel Benjamin, Steven Simon, former director and former senior director for counterterrorism, National Security Council). "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al Qaeda." 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 aircraft, and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11 (Associated Press). "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies." Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars from funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, Bush did not endorse FBI 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 (New York Times). The administration also vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defence into counterterrorism (Newsweek). "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke (counterterrorism coordinator for Clinton)." Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed in March that "no al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration" (Washington Post). "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." Documents indicate that before 9/11, the Bush administration did not give terrorism top billing in its strategic plans for the Justice Department. General Henry H. Shelton, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 1, 2001, has said that 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 (Washington Post). "The threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to... manner of attack." 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 U.S. and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane. Rice herself actually admitted this, saying the August 6 briefing said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft" (ABC, NBC). NOW Magazine Online Edition, VOL. 23 NO. 33 Apr 15 - 21, 2004 Copyright © 2004 NOW Communications Inc. story link: news_story2.php
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on Apr 21, 2004 23:26:43 GMT -5
WOW, I do not think that this is part of this forum for me. People are ***ching and complaining about the added security at airposts after the fact....can you imagine trying to pull off extra security before that happened. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no way in the world that I am going to believe that they ignored information. Yes, they had the info and it gave some information, but was it going to be tomorrow, next year, when? Stop blaming Bush for 9-11. It wasn't his fault, it wasn't Rice's fault, it wasn't even Clinton's fault, (which I wish I could blame it on him, but you can't) Now, I'm only in my mid 30's, but terrorism has been around for a while. This is not the first time we've been hit. It was only a matter of time. What **sses me off is how much money is all this crap taking. AND no matter if we find Osama and lock Sadam up forever, there will be another nutjob to bomb us or someone else. You want to make a point, talk about how many other attackes have been prevented because now we are paying attention. As long as we have freedom, we will have terrorist. AND the NOW the national organization of women should not be saying anything. Don't they understand that because of our freedoms that American women have makes us a target for these types of attacks. Have they not seen or watched any of the programs of the AFgan or Iraqi women? The NOW just wants to see their names in the headlines.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 22, 2004 4:20:13 GMT -5
WOW, I do not think that this is part of this forum for me. People are ***ching and complaining about the added security at airposts after the fact....can you imagine trying to pull off extra security before that happened. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no way in the world that I am going to believe that they ignored information. Yes, they had the info and it gave some information, but was it going to be tomorrow, next year, when? Stop blaming Bush for 9-11. It wasn't his fault, it wasn't Rice's fault, it wasn't even Clinton's fault, (which I wish I could blame it on him, but you can't) Now, I'm only in my mid 30's, but terrorism has been around for a while. This is not the first time we've been hit. It was only a matter of time. What **sses me off is how much money is all this crap taking. AND no matter if we find Osama and lock Sadam up forever, there will be another nutjob to bomb us or someone else. You want to make a point, talk about how many other attackes have been prevented because now we are paying attention. As long as we have freedom, we will have terrorist. AND the NOW the national organization of women should not be saying anything. Don't they understand that because of our freedoms that American women have makes us a target for these types of attacks. Have they not seen or watched any of the programs of the AFgan or Iraqi women? The NOW just wants to see their names in the headlines. Bravo, Bravo!
|
|