Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

This Condi Rice thing confuses me.Follow

#1 Mar 29 2004 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm really not understanding the motivation behind preventing her from testifying publically in front of the 9-11 commision. I mean, she's unqalified and a complete **** up at her job, but that's neither here no there in relation to what they'd ask her about. I just don't get it. Anyone have any thoughts? I mean clearly, they don't think she's going to fly off the handle and embarass the administration, she's on every other second on talking heads shows. Maybe there's something really obvious I'm just missing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 Mar 29 2004 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
The official word is that it's standard policy to never have any sitting Nat'l Security Advisor testify.
#3 Mar 29 2004 at 9:40 PM Rating: Default
***
2,453 posts
From what I've heard the administration is afraid that it would set a bad precedent.

Oh god forbid!! Anything but that!!
#4 Mar 29 2004 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,730 posts
Look! Look at what the right hand is doing! Ignore the left! Its not doing anything.
#5 Mar 29 2004 at 11:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I know that's the "offical" word, but even diehard Bush supporters admit that's ******** spin. They don't want her to testify, which is fine and their legal privlidge via seperation of powers but there's certainly nothing preventing them from letting her. As to being precedent, that's ******** too. Four or five sitting NSA's have testified in the past. There really isn't any sort of precenednt implying that it's bad form.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Mar 29 2004 at 11:37 PM Rating: Decent
She should testify, though the critics still would not be satisfied. The reason she won't is all Condi would have to do is make ONE misstatement and the entire Liberal World would be rushing to discredit the entire administration based on her comments.
#7 Mar 29 2004 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

She should testify, though the critics still would not be satisfied. The reason she won't is all Condi would have to do is make ONE misstatement and the entire Liberal World would be rushing to discredit the entire administration based on her comments.

See, I don't get that. You let RUMSFELD the quintisental loose cannon of all loose cannons go under oath but your afraid of what the "Liberal World" would do with RICE'S testimony?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Mar 30 2004 at 12:01 AM Rating: Default
I believe (and I could be wrong) that the precedent they are speaking of is that sitting NSA's have never testified about the administration's policy. The NSA is "in the know" about alot of things regarding policy that could come out during under oath testimony. This could be detrimental to national security etc... She testified behind closed doors so I am not sure why except for political reasons that the panel wants her to testify in public. (and the Reps as well as the Dems stand to gain if she does) ie she could make a mis statement which we all know the Dems would jump all over, and she can refute the testimony of Richard Clarke which would be to the benefit of the Reps.

I read that the past NSA's that have testified have done so about things not regarding the administration's policy. Thus the precedent. I am not stating this as fact just what I read and I cant for the life of me remember now where I read it. I hope this is all clear as mud now.

#9 Mar 30 2004 at 12:07 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Look, I don't care about the reasons to justify not having her testify in public. Whatever. They can just claim executive privlidge and not have to give any sort of reason at all and be totally justified in doing so.

What I don't understand is the motivation. Normally the motivation is transparent and the excuses are thin. Cheny's energy breifings would be a good example. The motivation is that there's something in there that's damaging. Him saying ********** the o-zone" or "don't worry, Iraq has plenty of Oil for you Enron boys" or whatever it is. I just don't see what Rice would have to say that wouldn't help the administration's case.

Unless there's a fear she'll perjure herself because of something I'm completely unaware of or that she'll be forced to contradict something she said on "60 Minutes" or whatnot.

Aside from either of those, which seem a stretch, I mean these guys like you or I breathe so I can't see them being suddenly worried about it, I just don't get it.

I think it makes a "where there's smoke there's fire" situation out of something that should have probably been forgotten about by now.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Mar 30 2004 at 12:41 AM Rating: Default
I think the problem is that under oath she will perjure herself, or implicant Bush further in the "I ignored terrorism for 9 months and 10 days debate"
#11 Mar 30 2004 at 1:34 AM Rating: Default
Why did Bush go into that Classroom?


He has confirmed he knew about a passenger jet flying into the North Tower before he went into that classroom.

If he was on top of the Al Qaeda threat as the are now claiming they were how could he never have thought it was anything more than an accident?

Even If it had been an accident?

Seems as if George was more interested in a Photo Op than the deaths of at least dozens of people?

That doesn't strike you in the least bit ODD?
#12 Mar 30 2004 at 1:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Not really. Were Bush's job titled "Presidenet of Anti-Terrorism" it might be odd. It's not though. Assesing terrorist threats is about 1/100,000,000th of the job of President of the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#13 Mar 30 2004 at 2:10 AM Rating: Default
Would you say responding to National Tradegies is one of the Jobs of the President?


A Passenger Jet flying into one of the World Trade Center towers would likely fit that description.

What really confuses me about George explanation was he Never thought it was anything more than an accident.

The record of the warnings recieved beforehand. The statements being made now by the Bush administration about be fully aware of Al Qaeda. Didn't Rice say they were at 'Battlestations'?

I guess the President wasn't in the Loop?
#14 Mar 30 2004 at 2:37 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm really a little fuzzy here. Aside from the implied tin foil cap, Skull and Bones rules the world crap what is it you're proposing here. That Bush should have known magically that it was a terrorist attack when the first plane hit the first tower?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Mar 30 2004 at 2:49 AM Rating: Default
I am under the impression that Mr. Bush was recieving daily briefings concerning the Al Qaeda threat?

I thought that what was being said by the adiminstration?

It wouldn't have to be magic for him to know if he had been briefed that morning or even the previous morning?

Mr. Bush knew that a National Tragedy had just occurred. Rather than attempting find out what has happened he continues on with a photo op?

Are you contending that a 'read along' is a logical reaction to what had just occurred?

#16 Mar 30 2004 at 2:53 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm contending that the threat board at NSA never, ever, in ths history of it's use has had less than ten credible threats going daily. Any day where there's less than twenty is considered "quiet". Yes, I do think that at the time continuing the planned schedule was the right thing to do. As opposed to panicking and cancling it before anyone had any idea what was actually happening.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Mar 30 2004 at 3:04 AM Rating: Default
How is cancelling a 'read along' a Panic reaction?

If nothing else Mr. Bush completely isolated himself from finding out what had happened.

Real Threat or Horrible Tragedy sitting in a classroom in Florida hardly seems a good way spending time finding out.
#18 Mar 30 2004 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Seems like the White House caved
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Mar 30 2004 at 1:32 PM Rating: Default
Qoute:
"Would you say responding to National Tradegies is one of the Jobs of the President?


A Passenger Jet flying into one of the World Trade Center towers would likely fit that description.

What really confuses me about George explanation was he Never thought it was anything more than an accident.

The record of the warnings recieved beforehand. The statements being made now by the Bush administration about be fully aware of Al Qaeda. Didn't Rice say they were at 'Battlestations'?

I guess the President wasn't in the Loop?"

How would anyone have known anything other than that it was an accident? It wasnt like UBL was broadcasting that he was responsible. The president continued with his schedule until it was determined to be something other than an accident.

Quote:
"I am under the impression that Mr. Bush was recieving daily briefings concerning the Al Qaeda threat?

I thought that what was being said by the adiminstration?

It wouldn't have to be magic for him to know if he had been briefed that morning or even the previous morning?

Mr. Bush knew that a National Tragedy had just occurred. Rather than attempting find out what has happened he continues on with a photo op?

Are you contending that a 'read along' is a logical reaction to what had just occurred?"

So I guess you think that Condi Rice told the president the morning of 9/11 that Alqaeda was going to crash a plane into the WTC and the President said nah I dont believe it?? So he should have known the minute that it happened that oh sh@t Condi was right?? No one knew. I am not positive of the time line; however, I believe at the time of the read along one plane had crashed into the WTC and there was a modest amount of casualties.

Hypothetically speaking if nothing else had happened that day and just that one plane had crashed into the WTC and it had been an accident. Would you be questioning now what the President did?





#20 Mar 30 2004 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Vassa - What was Bush supposed to do? He had the members of his staff doing the things they needed to, to determine what occured. Was Bush supposed to drop everything and make the cell phone calls himself? Geez, get real. Until his team in Florida could recieve proper updates and piece events together he did the right thing by going into the class room.
#21 Mar 30 2004 at 3:21 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Geez, get real. Until his team in Florida could recieve proper updates and piece events together he did the right thing by going into the class room.



How is sitting in front of a room of school children the right thing?

He knew before he went in that a 'horrible accident' took place.



Conducting a 'read along' was the Best use of his time?

Out in front of Cameras and the children where it would be difficult for his aides to come out and brief him on what was happening?



#22 Mar 30 2004 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
When the first plane hit the tower, my first reaction was "didn't a plane fly into the Empire State Building by accident during WW2?" which, while a tragedy, accidents do happen from time to time. I can imagine that many people thought the same thing.

As for Condi Rice, there's one thing that keeps running through my mind: I can see Halle Berry playing her in an ABC biopic in about ten-fifteen years. Then some as[b][/b]shats preventing it from being broadcast.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#23 Mar 30 2004 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Vassa. You are displaying an amazing ignorance of the sheer volume of things that go on during a day in the life of the president.


Vassa the Silent wrote:

How is sitting in front of a room of school children the right thing?

He knew before he went in that a 'horrible accident' took place.


Yes. He did. And the only difference between this one and 20 other "horrible plane accidents" in the last 50 years is that since this one turned out to be terrorist related, you're all second guessing what the president should have done.

What was Reagan doing 10 minutes after the Pan Am flight crashed in San Diego county? Do you know? Why not? Because it didn't matter. It was an *accident*. He was probably doing one of the 50 different things he has scheduled to do on any given day, then once he had accurate info about exactly what happened (which was probably a few hours later) he probably directed his communications director to give a statement.

That's what presidents do when tradgedies occur. He has way to full of a schedule to simply drop everything anytime something unexpected comes up. That's why he has a staff.



Quote:
Conducting a 'read along' was the Best use of his time?

Out in front of Cameras and the children where it would be difficult for his aides to come out and brief him on what was happening?


What exactly did you expect him to do? Jump into his special presidential jet fighter, swoop over to NYC, and save the day himself? Honestly? What should he have done. Spending the next 10 minutes doing what was on his schedule (which happened to be an appearance with some school kids) was exactly what he should have done. You can second guess all day long, but there really is nothing sinister here.


What are you suggesting? That bush had this evil plan whereby in the event of a terrorist act against the US, he would specifically arrange to be sitting in front of a room full of schoolchildren for a photo op? Ok... As evil plans go, that one's pretty lame...


I'm thinking pure coincidence. His staff took action to move him when it became clear that this was a terrorist event and there was a reason to move him. End of story. Until that point, he was going to continue his scheduled days work. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You've really got to stop watching all those conspiracy theory shows. This one's just ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Mar 31 2004 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
What exactly did you expect him to do? Jump into his special presidential jet fighter, swoop over to NYC, and save the day himself?




Perhaps not sit out in front of a room full of children on Live National TV?

He could have stayed in the next room and then Briefings wouldn't have had to wait for a Break?

If they were at Battlestations for an Al Qaeda attack? Please how is continuing a 'read along' consistent with fully aware of the Al Qaeda Threat?


Not even postponing for several minutes until more information came in?
8:47am Passenger Jet hits North tower

15 minutes later George continues along with Photo Op?







#25 Mar 31 2004 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Vassa the Silent wrote:
Quote:
What exactly did you expect him to do? Jump into his special presidential jet fighter, swoop over to NYC, and save the day himself?




Perhaps not sit out in front of a room full of children on Live National TV?

He could have stayed in the next room and then Briefings wouldn't have had to wait for a Break?


What briefings exactly? I just don't think you understand how many things a president deals with in a day. While I certainly am not privvy to any specifics, I can't imagine a single thing that the President could have done after first hearing that a plane crashed into one of the WTC towers that would have made any difference.


Quote:
If they were at Battlestations for an Al Qaeda attack? Please how is continuing a 'read along' consistent with fully aware of the Al Qaeda Threat?


Where are you getting this? I'll admit I haven't been scouring the media for info on this, but I have not heard that anyone knew that this was a terrorist attack until the second plane hit the towers. Where did you get the word "Battlestations" from? You make that up yourself?


Look. It was an average day. Don't read too much into the fact that the administration says they had X number of "terrorist threats", and reports that a terrorist event might occur on that day. They have those every day. Every single day, there are credible threats that the US government deals with. The president somehow manages to continue his job each day despite this. They were not at "battlestations".

Also. It's not the presidents job to deal with that stuff directly. Again. He has a staff that does this. He's got the Joint Cheifs to deal with military threats. He's got the CIA and NSA to deal with intelligence gathering and assessment. Those are the people who go on alert and change their daily activities based on threat conditions around the world. The president doesn't. He *can't*. If he does, he's sending a message that any radical in the world can alter the actions of the President of the US simply by phoning in a threat. His job really is to continue doing the day to day business of the government *until* something actually happens that requires action by him. Expecting him to do otherwise after the fact is just silly.


Quote:
Not even postponing for several minutes until more information came in?
8:47am Passenger Jet hits North tower

15 minutes later George continues along with Photo Op?


Yes. That's exactly what he should have been doing. What difference would a few minutes make? He was informed as soon as it became obvious that this was not an accident but was planned. What more can you possibly expect? The president does not scramble the military into action every time a plane crashes.


Do you actually think that the president would have recieved the information any faster if he'd been sitting there waiting for it? That's a horrible waste of a presidents time. When a situation occurs, the president asks when more information will be available (or sets a time when he wants a more complete briefing), and then he continues doing his normal work. When that time elapses *then* he gets more information. Standing around fretting over something may look like something he should be doing, but it's really not very productive. Most people understand that, but you apparently don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#26 Mar 31 2004 at 6:58 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Do you actually think that the president would have recieved the information any faster if he'd been sitting there waiting for it? That's a horrible waste of a presidents time.




Yes he would have gotten the information faster.

But conducting a 'read along' was a very normal thing to do just after hearing about a Passenger Jet fly into the World Trade Center?




Quote:
Where did you get the word "Battlestations" from?



Stephen Hadley, President Bush's deputy national security adviser:

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland," Hadley told CBS.

He said "the president put us on battle stations. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040321/325/ep3ij.html

« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 359 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (359)