posted April 08, 2004 01:28 PM              

She is no different than anyone else in Washington, serving special interests and playing patsy to GWB.

Why is she refusing to testify under oath about 911 and Iraq? Perhaps so she doesn't have to lie under oath?

posted April 08, 2004 02:06 PM            

Left-leaners just hate GWB IMO and by extension anyone who works for/with him, in spite of their accomplishments, etc. It's no different from right-leaners hating anyone and everyone who had anything to do with their poster boy, Clinton - both views IMO are narrow - it's guilt by association which I don't believe in personally.

posted April 08, 2004 10:10 PM            

Regardless, to skirt an issue and to outright lie aren't the same thing.

But people should not so flippantly throw around such allegations as "they're liars" without being able to back it up with examples of the actual lies.

What would you think if someone here just arbitrarily called you a liar, backing it up with vaguarities and unfounded allegations?

posted April 09, 2004 07:29 PM              

If ya wanna start going by how people look. Do you plan to sleep with her?

Her birthday is November 14, 1954

Sun - Scorp
Moon - Cancer
Merc - Scorp
Mars - Scorp
Mars - Aqua
Jup - Cancer
Sat - Scorp
Ura - Cancer
Nep - Libra
Pluto - Leo

Chiron - Capricorn
NN - Capricorn

Mercury & NN is transiting her Natal 3rd

Chiron in Capricorn transit is CONJ her Natal Chiron in Capricorn in the 12th

posted April 09, 2004 09:29 PM            

"Sticks and stones may break my bones,but whips and chains excite me!"

posted April 10, 2004 03:43 AM            

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission


Planes as Weapons
CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

US National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice listens to a question during testimony before the 9/11 commission in the Hart Senate office building in Washington April 8, 2004. REUTERS/Larry Downing

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]

IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

posted April 10, 2004 01:16 PM            

What if the sky falls?

What if there's a French conspiracy for world domination in which they pit us against the mideast and emerge from the mushroom cloud the victor?

What if Bin Laden is going to marry one of Bush's daughters in a bid for world oil domination, and this whole war is to detract from the Taliban so Bush can find his son-in-law to be.

It must suck to live in a conspiratorial world. Don't get me wrong, questioning is good, and I thought I was paranoid, being a Scorp and all...but when nearly everything becomes an purported government conspiracy, where nothing and no one(except Michael Moore lol) can be trusted - well, that's a dark world I don't want to live in.

Sure, there could be a conspiracy lying in wait in every one of her answers - but then again, it could just be your run-of-the-mill matters of national security.

posted April 10, 2004 01:50 PM            

There is enough evidence of a 9-11 conspiracy that it should raise the concern of even a skeptic. Have you looked into it?

posted April 10, 2004 03:39 PM            

I'm sorry but a desire to go to Iraq immediately after 9-11 is not to me proof of a prior conspiracy - opportunistic certainly, but rarely will someone argue that Saddam didn't need to be deposed...

What really ****** me off is that we had to wait until 9-11 to go into Afganistan...instead of doing it a year earlier when the Taliban was destroying Buddhas in Bamiyan and every other non-islamic artifact they could lay their hands on. Not to mention the way women were treated there - but now I digress..

I think many who hate the current administration are quick to jump to conspiratorial conclusions regarding 9-11 because it further justifies their loathing of the administration. I think the same thing went on conversely when Clinton was in office. Those who detest who's in office further conspiracy theories to back up their often irrational feeling against that individual, whether it's a Dem or Repub. To me, that's pretty much all it is from my perspective, and therefore I marginalize conspiracy theories as a whole because their proponents' motives (regardless of political affiliation) are always in question to me.

posted April 10, 2004 03:52 PM            

And this motivation is far from some of the most compelling evidence in support of gov't complicity. How about this-

posted April 10, 2004 05:51 PM            

The way I see it,we're in Iraq for one reason and one reason and one reason only!(Well, maybe I should say two reasons...)

1. Daddy has a beef with Saddam and now they have no idea on how the administration is gonna pull out without the World knowing that this initiation for war is all about revenge for SADDAM AND HIS SPOKESPEOPLE!

2. There is OIL to be SEIZED from parts of the Middle East(towards the fundimentalism of the ALREADY priviledged few)and are using the military(from all over the World)to embark on a (not so sound investment),in order to be happy and now we're in a fix in order to get out of this little stupid mess,without it all turning to be a complete disaster for the World!

I really don't care too much about looking at the mechanics of it all,but the truism DOES come forth on what really needs to be done! And the thing that(at this point) that needs to be done is...

WE NEED TO PULL ALL OF OUR TROOPS AND THOSE THAT ARE INVOLVED OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST,BRING THEM TO ALL THE CELLS(ALL AROUND THE WORLD)AND BURN THEM OUT (LIKE WASPS IN A NEST TO GASOLINE),SEND OUR SATELLITES ( TO TARGET OUR ENIMIES, FROM WHAT WE CAN POSSIBLY IMAGIN TO BEING IN THIS 'OTHER ELITE' OR WHAT HAVE YOU)GET THE CIA,DIA,HOMELAND SECURITY,ETC,TO START DOING THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS ON ALL SLEEPER CELLS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD AND ATTACK THEM WITHOUT RESISTANCE!

STOP THIS GABAGE OF TRYING TO TURN THIS WHOLE THING INTO THE 60'S AGAIN,BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I CHECKED,THIS WAS 2004 'BROTHERS AND SISTERS' AND WE-A-NOW-A-SUPERPOWER!

IT'S ABOUT TIME WE FLEXED A LITTLE MUSCLE!