Posted: 3/30/2004 6:33:17 AM EDT
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html
|
|
Oh ho! The Bush admin uses "rope a dope" to its advantage yet again! This is Rove at work, and the strategy works every fucking time, it seems. The basic idea is to mislead the dim's into thinking that you don't want to do things a particular WAY, then get them frothing, then capituate and leave them hanging on the end of the limb they've walked out on. Example: Bush say: "The United States can attack Iraq without a UN resolution regarding noncompliance, because its in our national interset." The Dem's respond: "NOOOOO! A "UN" resolution is imperative. It is the be all and end all of authority and we must get one. Bush says: "Ok, I've got one now." The Dem's say: "ummm" Bush says: "Look, you guys said how important it was for the UN to have a say, they say "serious consequences," and gosh, wouldn't it be bad, as important as you guys say the UN is, if we didn't enforce that resolution!?" Dems: "grumble, grumble, grumble." Now, look at the current situation and tell me that the administration hasn't planned on having Condi testify all along. She probably has some good nuggets, probably most particularly about failures by Clark, that she wants to put on the table. If the White House put those on the table voluntarily, that would have been "The Republican Smear Machine," But, if the Administration has to be "coereced" into having her testify, that wipes out one of the Democrats' counter-arguments when they find out that what she's got to say, and the evidence she has is badly damaging for the Klinton administration. Rope a dope! |
|
How stupid is this. How will this not set a precedent? In the past advisors have been exempt but because other types of officials have testified before they are using that precedent as a means to push her to testify. How do they think this won't set a precedent when they only reason they are caving is because of another precedent. Why do the Republican's have to have balls of jelly? |
|
Quoted: Good. I sure hope whatever she says will clear up a lot of doubts. Nope, and you know it. The Bush-haters will say it's not enough, or that she's lying, or they'll just find something else to harp on. His drinking in the past, his Nat'l Guard service, pre-9/11, WMDs, oil-company ties, judicial appointments, fill-in-the-blank - all the answers, explanations, & evidence in the world won't be enough & if it ever is they'll just find something else and, as always, they'll have the mainstream media's full cooperation... |
|
Three weeks after 9-11, I wrote the following prediction, in a post on anouther board. " What the Tom Clancyites fail to understand, is that Secret Wars don't work. They'll turn Bush into Nixon, Afghanistan in to Cambodia and without disernable victories the public will forget 9-11 as they go back to their self centered pursuit of Jerry Springer and who owns the biggest SUV on the block." That was written two and a half years ago and never has their been more evidence, that I was right, than one could gain by watching an hour or two, of the Congressional 9-11 hearings. Secret wars work for a while. During the patriotic hot flash following the advent of a new American war, but the public's acceptance of "well, it looks like the terrorists are winning, but we assure you that we are doing secret things to win the war, that we can't tell you all about" only lasts a couple of years. As we found out in Vietnam. I've about come to the realization, that the big secret is "We'er so paralized by our own partisan political bickering, THAT THERE IS NO PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR." We might have to kill Muslims till they don't have the stomach or ability to fight back and nobody, but nobody on either side of the political spectrum, seems to be able to grasp that ugly reality. Thats what the Administration fears most. Not That Condi might reveal something about policy just after 9-11, but that the administration, a year after the invasion of Iraq, HAS NO IDEA WHERE TO GO FROM HERE. Thats the big secret, they've run out of ideas and are marking time, telling us that they'er doing something secret in the war on terror, while they wait for the next big terror attack, which must surely come. |
|
Oh, I think she'll wipe the floor with Clark to, I just don't expect we'll hear any bright ideas on "How to Win the War" beyond lame political retoric about "winning the hearts and minds" of the muslim world. How to Finish Winning the War on Terror, is what the 9-11 hearings should be all about, not the political recriminationfest that they have become. |
|
Quoted: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html[/url] Rice to Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Commission Tuesday, March 30, 2004 WASHINGTON — The White House [red]agreed[/red] Tuesday to [red]let[/red] National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) testify under oath and in public before the commission investigating pre-Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks provided that her testimony does not set a precedent. In return, the commission unanimously agreed that Rice's testimony will not set a precedent that would require future White House aides to testify publicly. An administration official said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (search) had already given a verbal assurance, but has agreed to deliver in writing a commitment that such testimony would not upset the concept of separation of powers (search) between the legislative and executive branch. The White House has also offered to the commission to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath. Rice has already appeared for four hours in front of the Sept. 11 commission to answer questions in private about what the administration had been doing about terror threats. She has rejected testifying in public, arguing that she is prevented by executive privilege (search) from revealing confidential conversations. Why does the white house have to agree to let someone testify? |
|
Unlike many on this board, I am not a fan of this war in Iraq, nor do I have many qualms about it. I just don't believe that it should get our top attention. The savages in the mid-east will not have their problems solved by us being involved, and it eastes our childrens lives and our nations resources on something that we cannot fix. My main problems is that I do believe that it distracts us from the one thing that we should be accomplishing, which is finding and destroying Osama, and everyone else involved in 9-11. But I do love the fact that poor "dumb George and his band of retards" always outmaneuvers the Lib/Dems. I love pushing my Bro-in-laws buttons with the statement " isn't it amazing how all "those conservative dummies always end up on top? From stealing the election, to getting Congress to agree to what they want, they somehow seem to luck their way through over and over." I do worry that the top of his head will blow off though. He's a pretty good guy despite his obvious affliction (Liberalism.) This appears to be another example of him winning by getting them to agree to do what they want under his conditions. The few of them that may actually have some sense must be frothing at the mouth over the way that this went down. |
|
Who knows perhaps they'll ask her about these allegations, as if the ones listed above have no merit: BTW, most of this is quite old info, that has been fully available for those interested in [b]REALLY LOOKING INTO[/b] the reasons behind 9/11. [url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew2.html[/url] excerpt: [blue][b]ACCORDING[/b] to a report today Friday, May 17, 2002, on Pacifica Radio, the warning to San Francisco's mayor came from squeaky-clean [b]Condoleezza Rice[/b]. I recall that attorney general John Ashcroft received a similar warning in July. I watched Ms. Huxtable, uh, Rice, on C-Span a day or two ago, and she seemed genuinely rattled by the disclosure of these facts; not by the facts themselves, just by the disclosure.[/blue] here's the old link to the SF Chronicle article about this story: [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL[/url] Or maybe they should be questioning [b]Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld[/b] for his complicity in revising the orders issued to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects. This order came from [b]S.A. Fry[/b] (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears that responsibility for the US armed forces [b]"Failure to Respond"[/b] rests directly with [b]Fry[/b] for issuing this instruction, as well as with [b]Donald Rumsfeld[/b] for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion. See the relevant details in pdf files here: [url]http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf[/url] [red][b]These new instructions superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.[/b] This CJCSI states that [b]"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."[/b] Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- [b]BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense[/b]. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field. All of this points to the [b]"Stand Down"[/b], issues claimed by some to have been in effect on that fateful September morning, which, it is now clear was implemented through a routine administrative memo. If this comes up as an issue at the Washington 911 cover-up commission, it would be interesting if [b]Fry[/b] could testify as to the reasoning behind [b]making it bureaucratically impossible for the DOD to respond to hijackings in a timely fashion.[/b][/red] Need more reasons to question and bring others infront of the Investigating committee, here's more...... Then of course, how about GWB and Poppy's own former business partners, which could be the reason that the censorship of the Senate 9/11 report was decidedly lacking in information concerning the financial ties to terrorist sponsoring Saudi Sheikhs and CIA dealing bankers with which he and his father seem so closely connected. Here's nine of them covered in this article: [url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAR403A.html[/url] excerpt: [green]Oil-related business deals between George W. Bush and several powerful Saudi Sheikhs, from 1979 to 1991, lacked both ethical integrity and Congressional intelligence oversight, [b]since Bush used the same Saudi-controlled global banking network that was also used by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and by Osama bin Laden. once a CIA asset. Yet, several abbreviated FBI and Congressional investigations later, this explosive truth still remains mostly hidden from the American public.[/b] Consider the facts. For decades the current President's father, [b]former President George H. W. Bush, has had publicly close ties to the oil-enriched Saudi royal family in regards to both politics and business.[/b] Then consider that the bin Laden family is the most entrusted of all families by the Saudi Royal household. For many decades, every Saudi King has granted the bin Laden’s giant construction conglomerate exclusive contacts to restore all castles and holy sites within the country, and for numerous public works and infrastructure projects. Also, consider that soon after bin Laden's September 11 attacks, [b]it was public knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia[/b], as was critical funding for bin Laden's al Qaeda network and for his earlier Arabic anti-Soviet fighters in Afganistan. [b]Al Qaeda's predecesor was, in fact, bin Laden's 50,000 highly disciplined "Arab-Afghan" mujahideen, who were the most elite among Ronald Reagan's famous "freedom fighters", that were covertly given massive U.S. CIA support.[/b] What is not generally known is that in years past, George W. Bush had several important business relationships with principle cohorts of Osama bin Laden's long-term financial sponsor, the powerful Saudi multibillionaire and banker to the king, [b]Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.[/b][/green] and yet another MadCow article here on GWB's biography, which seems to have been overlooked in most books about him: [url]http://www.madcowprod.com/[/url], see right sidebar, Pt. III of [b]"The Secret History of George W Bush"[/b], then go back and read parts 1 and 2. [b]Seems to me there are quite a few folks that have some explaining to do......[/b] Mike |
| The only reason for having her testify under oath is so the Dems can either trip her up later and create a scandle or to use what she says against someone else in the Administration. That's exactly how the Republican's got Clinton. They put him under oath for one topic and during that questioning is when they suprised him with a totally unrealted question about Monica. Of course he was put on the spot and denied it...that trick then became the whole basis for his impeachment. |