Rice either lied today, or on 9-12-2001

[jokerswild]

Her most famous statement to the press, and the world, was that no one ever expected terrorists to hijack planes
and use them as bombs. Now it's clear that she, and the man that stole the Presidency knew on 8-12-01. I guess kamikaze is a term she never heard of besides Al Queda before 9-11. I've been stating this for about two years, only to be cast as a conspiracy theorist by the fascists on this board.

She better hope that she lied on 9-12-01. If it's proven she lied yesterday, she'll be the first to fall in this second Nixon administration.

[jokerswild]

.

[GWB]

You say there is a psycho on this board who is impersonating me. I have put the Secret Service on the job to get to the bottom of this.

So far, we know there is a poster called George W of Poker. Has he been impersonating me?

I will let you know what the investigation reveals.


http://www.flagw.com/Merchandise_Images/w4usa_b.jpg

[GWB]

Wasn't that Richard Ben-Veniste character just awful? Here we have a commission to investigate the tragedy of 9/11 and he is playing blatant political games. He wouldn't even let Condi Rice talk! How can you get information, if you won't even let someone tell you what they know?

It is a crime against the victims of 9/11 that Ben-Veniste would turn this into a political show. Has he no shame?

Condi was courageous in testifying about all the efforts my administration made with the limited information we inherited from the Clinton administration. WOW - she made me proud.

If you watched the hearings you know that my people did right by this country. You also know that the Democrats are bringing shame onto themselves and to this country by making this solemn investigation into a political circus.



W
(with a profound sadness in my heart)

[MMMMMM]

It has indeed turned into a political circus.

I haven't yet caught up on what Rice said, but at least it is reassuring that Clarke was caught in his own contradictions and largely discredited.

[jokerswild]

Please take your alzheimer's medication. It might help you remember what you read. The psycho impersonating Bush resembles what would be sad if it wasn't in America. It's fascism. You are a Heil Bush fascist that would have cheered the holocaust as "counter-terrorism".

[jokerswild]

The real bush(not you, psycho) found his desertion of his priviledged guard service funny. He finds the fact that he lied about WMD funny. He thinks it's funny that Americans want to know the truth about 9-11.

He is a disgrace to the Constitution. He isn't funny.

[Boris]

I'm sorry how how was Clarke discredited? What were his contradictions? It seems patently obvious that Bush either lacks the intellectual capacity to assess information given to him by cabinet members, or that he doesn't really care what happens.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fascism. You are a Heil Bush fascist that would have cheered the holocaust as "counter-terrorism".

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats are using an investigation into the destruction of buildings as a political tool to defeat their political opponents. Democrats are following in the footsteps of the Nazi party which used the investigation of the destruction of the Reichstag building as a way to eliminate the parties that opposed them. Fine footsteps for Democrats to follow in.

Information and picture of burning Reichstag building. (http://www.holocaustcenter.org/Holocaust/reichsta.shtml)

W

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats are using an investigation into the destruction of buildings as a political tool to defeat their political opponents. Democrats are following in the footsteps of the Nazi party which used the investigation of the destruction of the Reichstag building as a way to eliminate the parties that opposed them. Fine footsteps for Democrats to follow in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be the real GWB. Your grasp and analysis of modern history bears an uncanny correlation. Or are you suggesting the Democrats orchestrated 9/11

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
are you suggesting the Democrats orchestrated 9/11

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the exact opposite. The Democrats are suggesting my administration is responsible for the deeds of the terrorists on 9/11, just like the Nazis suggested their opponents were responsible for the Reichstag fire.

W

[MMMMMM]

Well here's the first thing I pulled up of much detail. It's an op-ed, unfortunately, but it does list very specific instances in which Clarke has contradicted himself. You should be able to find plenty of corroboration in plain news articles, since these are matters of record, but it would take longer to ferret them out and this seems like a pretty good compilation.

"Clarke's contradictions

In hawking his book and testifying before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks, former counterterrorism boss Richard Clarke testified that the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda prior to the attacks. Under softball questioning from a Democratic member of the September 11 panel, former Rep. Tim Roemer, Mr. Clarke asserted that there was "no higher" priority than fighting terrorism under former President Clinton, but that the Bush administration "either didn't believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem."
But Mr. Clarke's assertions are contradicted by his own words. National Review editor Rich Lowry, for example, points out that, in his book, Mr. Clarke writes that forcing through a Middle East peace agreement was a higher priority for Mr. Clinton than retaliating for al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole.
Moreover, in a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail to National SecurityAdvisorCondoleezza Rice, Mr. Clarke outlined some of the major steps taken by the Bush administration in the summer of 2001 to put the nation on a higher alert footing in an effort to prevent a possible attack.
Mr. Clarke noted, for example, that on July 5, 2001, representatives of federal law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Immigration and Naturalization Service — were summoned to a meeting at which they were warned of a possible al Qaeda attack. "Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement (including FAA) knew" of the possibility "that a major al Qaeda attack was coming and it could be in the U.S. ... and did ask that special measures be taken," Mr. Clarke observed in his e-mail to Miss Rice.
More damning to Mr. Clarke's credibility, in an August 2002 background briefing for journalists, reported Wednesday by Fox News, he explained in greater detail all the steps that the Bush administration took prior to September 11 to deal with the growing threat from al Qaeda (see facing page).
Just days after coming into office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Bush administration decided to "vigorously pursue" the Clinton policy of taking covert action, which could include killing Osama bin Laden. In the spring of 2001, Mr. Clarke noted in that background briefing, the new administration decided "to add to the existing Clinton strategy" by increasing five-fold CIA resources for covert action against al Qaeda. At that same briefing, Mr. Clarke also forcefully rebutted the assertion that the Bush administration's approach to the problem was motivated by a general animus toward the Clinton administration. "This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place," Mr. Clarke said. "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me."
Mr. Clarke said that from Oct. 1998 until Dec. 2000, the National Security Council in the Clinton administration failed to make any new recommendations on how to deal with the burgeoning al Qaeda threat. By contrast, in the summer of 2001, Mr. Clarke said, the Bush administration changed U.S. policy from the "rollback of al Qaeda over the course of five years" to its elimination. All of these points, however, are ignored or glossed over in his new book — which depicts the administration as laggards in dealing with the al Qaeda terrorist threat.
The emerging picture of Dick Clarke is one of a political chameleon and an impetuous man who is starved for attention after years of toiling anonymously in government bureaucracies. He points to his service in Republican administrations, and says he was a registered Republican in 2000 (credentials that make it easier to peddle a book bashing a Republican president). But a survey by Insight magazine, a sister publication of the Washington Times, found that his only political contributions in the last decade went to Democrats. T. Irene Sanders, executive director of a research group called the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy, described an odd encounter with Mr. Clarke several months ago, after he spoke at a luncheon on cyberspace security (see adjacent letter to the editor,). When she asked him a technical question he could not answer, he responded that they should write a book together, boasting that his publisher, Free Press, does a good job of obtaining publicity for authors.
But Mr. Clarke's enormous capacity for self-promotion and taking liberties with the facts may be catching up with him. Time magazine's online edition yesterday published a blistering review of his book and his endless television appearances. Mr. Clarke, the magazine concluded, has become so shrill in disparaging President Bush that he "undermines a serious conversation about 9/11." Time also criticized "the polemical, partisan mean-spiritedness that lies at the heart of Clarke's book, and to an even greater degree, his television appearances flacking it." We wholeheartedly agree."

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040325-091450-2193r.htm

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the exact opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Republicans were responsible ?

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats are suggesting my administration is responsible for the deeds of the terrorists on 9/11, just like the Nazis suggested their opponents were responsible for the Reichstag fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Nazi's did more than suggest and very quickly too

The night of February 27, 1933 loomed dark and gray over the city of Berlin. The Reichstag, seat of parliamentary government in Germany had been in recess since December of the preceding year. New elections were scheduled for March 5th. The great building was quiet and except for a watchman, empty. At 9:05 that evening, a student passing by saw a man carrying a burning torch through the windows of the first floor but did not report it. Ten minutes later smoke was observed coming from the building and the first fire alarm was received by the Berlin Fire station. In less than ten minutes the firemen were on the scene but already flames were breaking out all over the building. At 9:30 there was a tremendous explosion and the great central chamber was totally enveloped in flames. The fire quickly raced out of control despite the efforts of the fire fighters and soon only the walls of the gutted building were still standing. Within minutes police arrested a half naked and seemingly dazed Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was discovered at the scene.

It wasn't long before Chancellor Hitler and Prussian Minister Göring arrived amid a flurry of reporters and photographers. Although he had just stepped out of his car, Göring at once accused the communists of setting the fire. The debate over who set the fire continues and may never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Despite attempts to support the case against van der Lubbe, who was tried and executed for the crime, a great deal of evidence collected and analyzed by Walther Hofer of Bern points in the direction of a SA/SS Sondergruppe headed by Reinhard Heydrich and an official of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, Kurt Dalüge. Less important than the cause of the fire however was the result. Before the sun rose on the morning of the 28th, over 4,000 communists and a miscellany of intellectuals and professional men who had incurred the wrath of the Nazi Party were arrested. A shaken President Hindenburg, 86 years old, was easily convinced that the nation was on the verge of a communist revolution, was induced by Hitler to sign an emergency decree suspending the basic rights of the citizens for the duration of the emergency. This decree also authorized the Reich government to assume full powers in any federal state whose government proved unable to restore public order, ordered death or imprisonment for a number of crimes including some newly invented such as resistance to the decree itself. The decree did not include any provision guaranteeing an arrested person a quick hearing, access to legal counsel, or redress for false arrest. Those arrested often found their detention extended indefinitely without legal proceedings of any kind.

On March 2, Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the Daily Express whether the suspension of liberties was permanent. He answered in the negative saying that full rights would be restored as soon as the Communist danger was over. The reality was that the decree of February 28th established what would become the normal order of things under National Socialism - arrest on suspicion, imprisonment without trial, the horrors of the concentration camps. This condition would persist until the end of the Third Reich.

Immediately after its promulgation the decree was turned against the real and fancied enemies of the Nazi Party. In the last weeks of the election campaign the Marxist press was silenced. The Social Democrats found it impossible to campaign effectively and even respected Center party politicians like former Reich Chancellor Heinrich Bruning had their meetings broken up by brownshirted SA thugs. Despite this the Nazi Party fell far short of the two thirds majority needed to change the constitution. Hitler now showed his contempt for the rule of law by turning the decree of February 28th against those states where significant opposition still existed. Using the argument that local authorities were unable to maintain order, which was in the main being disrupted by drunken brownshirts and SS members, the government replaced the legally constituted governments of Wurttemburg, Baden, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, Saxony, Hessen and Bavaria. Soon, with the support of the Center, Catholic and Bavarian Peoples Parties, the Nazis gained the passage of the Enabling Act, and Adolf Hitler on the afternoon of March 23rd, became the supreme dictator of Germany, free from any restraint from his cabinet or the aged President Hindenburg and free to mold Germany into the nightmare state of his darkest dreams.

A little bit more drastic than asking some pointed questions.

[jokerswild]

Didn't answer the questiom. Yes, whoever you are,Mr.Psycho who impersonates Bush, you are not George Walker Bush.

The suggestion that the Bush Administration did 9-11 like the Nazis did the Reichstag is completely accurate. That's why George Walker Bush has been covering up the affiar as best as possible. It is clear that he was warned about Bin Laden. Plenty of info indicates that he was forewarned about the anthrax.

Of course, George Walker Bush isn't well read. He wouldn't know what the Reichstag refers too without a PDB.

[GWB]

Since you deliberately misinterpret the clear English language remarks I made, and say silly things like:
[ QUOTE ]
The suggestion that the Bush Administration did 9-11 like the Nazis did the Reichstag is completely accurate

[/ QUOTE ]
there is little point to this conversation.

What I said earlier remains true:
[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats are suggesting my administration is responsible for the deeds of the terrorists on 9/11, just like the Nazis suggested their opponents were responsible for the Reichstag fire.

[/ QUOTE ]
The truth is that neither party is responsible for the actual actions of terrorists on 9/11. But one party (the Democrats) is responsible for trying to use a fact-finding inquiry as an attack on their opposition party.

W

(this post was in plain English, if you reply, please reply to the actual meaning of the statement I made. This makes a discussion work better)

[ACPlayer]

but at least it is reassuring that Clarke was caught in his own contradictions and largely discredited.

Sniffing the glue again eh?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Whether she lied or not is really irrelevant. Had any politician had the chance to foil 9/11 they would not have given up the chance for such a tremendous political opportunity. But alas, the pieces of the puzzle just didn't fall together in time. It's done.

Now I ain't defending rice, she's a politician, so by definition, she's kissing babies with one hand and stealing their lollypops with the other. However, had gore gotten elected, there would still be a commission, and still be scapegoating going on. see my post on scapegoating on the other rice thread on this forum...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=624128&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=5&o=14&fpart=

BTW, despite the fact that GWB got elected in a rather strange quirk of fate, I have to say it's better that way. Gore is a wimp and I wouldn't want him in the whitehouse at this point in history. Also, tipper as first lady? why don't we all just throw all our rights out the window right now and lay down and die.

al

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, tipper as first lady?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you guys think of Teresa Heinz Kerry?

She gives me the willies.

W

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, despite the fact that GWB got elected in a rather strange quirk of fate

[/ QUOTE ]

and you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't buy your 'best democracy in the world' line

[Al_Capone_Junior]

she's not as bad as tipper gore. But then plague is not as bad as ebola.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Well "best democracy in the world" isn't really MY line.

Personally I think the whole electoral college BS is exactly that, BS.

al

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't answer the questiom. Yes, whoever you are,Mr.Psycho who impersonates Bush, you are not George Walker Bush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing gets past you does it joker? I see you are still sharp as a tack. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Well one little detail got by you. That would be the one where you are distorting Conde's testimony.


Jimbo