Condi the Liar

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:49 am

From here.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:39 pm

She's right - the Bush administration fought for a way to go to war with Iraq much more aggressively than Clinton ever thought of. Of course, Clinton wasn't thinking of starting a war with Iraq, he was satisfied with the sanctions and keeping the "no-fly zone" clear - which he did. Now if you're talking about bin Ladin - which evidently Rice is not - that's a different story all together.

Post by **Dardedar** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:55 am

That is an incredible quote from the commission.

JD Allen · Post by **JD Allen** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:53 am

Darrel wrote:That is an incredible quote from the commission.

I think it is blindingly obvious that this administration was only concerned with finding a way to go to war with Iraq. Richard Clarke even talks about Rumsfeld and Bush trying to spin the attacks on September 11th as a way to get into Iraq on September 12th.

Post by **Dardedar** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:21 am

As I pointed out last night in the Whipping Post thread:

***
Bush & Al Qaeda – By The Numbers

0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities

0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001

0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)

1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.

104 – Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:01 am

Our society is drama-driven. For security reasons the 4+ millenium attacks the Clinton administration thwarted were not highly publicized. And unless you make a movie of it, preventing attacks (of any kind - heart attacks, terrorism attacks, whatever) isn't dramatic. Successful attacks are dramatic. And make good excuses for grabbing wanted but unnecessary power. Maybe somebody should get whoever is the Gregory Peck of this generation and make the movies about the Clinton's terrorism teams thwarting terrorists' attacks. For one thing, not only is that drama, but also it might make a scared America less scared - and less inclined to approve of shredding the Constitution in favor of King George the W.

Post by **Dardedar** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:34 pm

Not Gregory Peck but perhaps a new Ed R Murrow of our time. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTnmTZWRDOw

Olbermann turning up the heat.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:47 am

The spoken word is more powerful than the written - I'd read that script, but the video clip...! Still, while we need the Murrows to report the news (instead of talking heads mouthing propaganda), we also need the Pecks and Nivens and Connerys to make the movies. The bad news and good news are the same - people in our society believe what they see in the movies. They believe what they see in both overt and covert messages. We need the movies to get the truth out.