Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cityboi

Condoleezza Rice lying under oath?

Recommended Posts

"America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Rice said, adding, "tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing."

But Democratic commissioners asked if the Bush team acted on warnings it received in the summer of 2001.

Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste engaged in a testy exchange with Rice over one pre-Sept. 11 intelligence report — the president's Aug. 6, 2001 presidential daily brief.

Rice said the briefing did discuss the threat of a hijacking, but took an historical view and did not say that airplanes might be used as missiles.

"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States," Rice said. "It did not in fact warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

But Ben-Veniste pointed out that the title of the report was "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States."

Rice said the report didn't indicate an attack in the U.S. yet the title of the report refer to Bin Laden attack in the United States. That sound like a lie to me. I hope we can all find the truth in this matter so nothing like this will ever happen again to our country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Guest donaltopablo

Here is a more indepth version from CNN. Without knowing the exact wording of the documents provided that August (which I believe the details are still classified), it would be difficult to make an assumption of lying. I seriously doubt that anyone had all of the information necessary to stop 9/11. The closest thing came out shortly after the attacks, a memo from an FBI field agent warning that Islamic Radicals were in aircraft training with no interest in learning how to take off or land. As we know, that memo was sent to the agents management, but if I recall correctly didn't go any further.

Rice says presidential memo 'not a warning'

Testifies for three hours before 9/11 commission

Thursday, April 8, 2004 Posted: 2:05 PM EDT (1805 GMT)

Condoleezza Rice wraps up three hours of testimony under oath Thursday before the 9/11 commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON CNN TV

Watch CNN-USA now: Kyra Phillips is joined by CNN correspondents and analysts in our follow-up coverage of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's three hours of testimony before the 9/11 commission.

RICE 9/11 TESTIMONY

Excerpts from comments of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice

"In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States -- something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies."

Concerns that terrorists may use airplanes as weapons may have existed in the intelligence community before Sept. 11, 2001, but "To the best of my knowledge this kind of analysis ... actually was never briefed to us."

In the days after the attacks, the Bush administration considered the involvement of Iraq, but never "pushed anybody to twist the facts."

THE MORNING GRIND

High stakes: Much rides on Rice testimony

VIDEO

Rice says President Bush 'never pushed anybody to twist the facts' on Iraq.

PLAY VIDEO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste presses Rice about a memo that may have warned of attacks.

PLAY VIDEO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rice says President Bush understood the threat of al Qaeda before the attacks.

PLAY VIDEO

RELATED

Clarke vs. Rice: Former colleagues at odds

Transcript: Rice's opening statement

Political overtones as Rice goes before 9/11 panel

Clarke: Bush didn't see terrorism as 'urgent'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Condi was very professional, and I don't believe she was lying. But I think that the Aug 6. PDB that they talked about so much is very important... But since it contains so much sensitive material I think it will be some time before we get to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't lie, Bush's administration wouldn't take that risk, especially during election year. Use your brains. lol

All politicians lie, even during election year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ bingo. They all lie. Especially this administration. If democrats had control of congress there would surely be impeachment hearings going on right now. They would of course be lieing about was the original lie was, but thats besides the points.

I really wish Franken wasn't so partisan and taken on everybody in his "lies and the lieing liars that tell them." There's good guys/gals out there, in both parties. You don't get to hear about them too often because we like lies. Lies make the headlines. Lies get the votes. Lies makes babies happy.

By not claiming responsibility, she's basically saying that she didn't do her job. She's taking the fall for the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ A lot of voters like that I know too. He could be accussed by witnesses of double homicide and some people would still be loyal. Don't understand that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She says she didn't remember a lot of stuff.

I call that "selective memory" ;) One thing that I did notice is that she tried to take a long time to answer each question so that the panel wouldn't be able to get all their questions in. Members of the commission even said they weren't able to ask all their questions because of the time limit. You have to understand, everything is political. I mean the president set a dead line by June to turn over the government to the iraq and with all the chaos that going on, we know thats not realistic. But I do think the president want to make that move before the election. Its all election year politics. The way things are going on over there, it may have been better if Saddam were still in power. At least things were stable over there. I think its impossible to have a succuessful democracy in Iraq because their culture is just to different from ours. There are just to many people over there that hate America and its ideals. I think going over there to remove Saddam Hussein is alot like cutting a patient open to remove cancer. Sometimes the cancer spreads even worse when you do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donaltopablo

At least they are more honest than Bill's administration was...

I don't even hate Bush and I'm not sure I'd make that claim, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are more honest than Bill's administration was...

For one, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

For two, what exactly did Clinton and his administration lie about?

For three, how many American deaths did their lies result in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, he lied to the entire US people by saying he didn't have an affair, which is worse than lying to just the congress or senate.

Another, if Bill did the right thing, the Mogadishu incident wouldn't have happened, or we would have retaliated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one, he lied to the entire US people by saying he didn't have an affair, which is worse than lying to just the congress or senate.

Another, if Bill did the right thing, the Mogadishu incident wouldn't have happened, or we would have retaliated.

Do you even know what happened in Somalia? Doesn't sound like it from that response.

They were on a peacekeeping mission to help with menial tasks - like helping deliver food to an impoverished people being killed by warlords.

Its not even remotely the same thing as invading a country and allowing for nearly a thousand soldier deaths.

Devin - I'm sorry - but if you think lying about oral sex is a big deal - then you have to be one backwards guy. What Clinton does in his bedroom is HIS business. In America we believe in freedom and individuality, afterall. We don't confine ourselves in a box and require everyone else to have the same moral values as ourselves.

No debate is acceptable here. That's just the way this country was founded on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.