It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Condi Rice WILL testify

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Word's out. Condoleeza Rice will, in fact, testify before the 9-11 commission. But, I'm sure there will be some hot topics that will not be discussed. Here are some:

(and I'm guessing on these...)

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap

A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth

March 26, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520&printmode=1




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Who cares?

Every answer she gives is probably going to be a lie anyway.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The beautiful thing is, she will most likely purjer herself. How can she not? If they can prove that... it's curtains for Condi.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Now, why would you say that, Illuminati? Because what she says will more than likely conflict what Dick Clarke, a fellow with an axe to grind and a book to sell says? Come on. A statement such as that is valueless. If it doesn't tow the anti-Bush party line, its a lie?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Illuminati? You'll have to explain that one, TC.

I favor neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in all of this. Parties from both parties are complicit. But thanks for your comment.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I favor neither the Republicans nor the Democrats in all of this.

The postings that you put out for everyone do not agree with that statement.

Show me an anti-Demcrat post that you have made and I will reconsider that statement.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
She is going to lie because 9-11 is one big lie itself.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

The postings that you put out for everyone do not agree with that statement.

And how is that?

Show me an anti-Demcrat post that you have made and I will reconsider that statement.

I suggest you do your own homework. Afterall, it is you drawn to my threads. But thanks for the interest, as always.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Aw, come on, Illuminati, you're way too cynical for your own good!



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
ECK,
Just do a search of your postings and show me which one was written with a negative view of Democrats? It should be pretty quick for you. I tried looking and I haven't found one yet.

Rice is under no obligation to answer for her actions. She is not an elected official, she has no constituents to answer to. The only person she has to answer to is the President.

The fact that she is willing to testify just goes to show that she has nothing to hide. Does anyone here honestly think that the government would allow this inqusition to proceed if there was even the remote chance that it could be proven that there is any fault to be found?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Aw, come on, Illuminati, you're way too cynical for your own good!


TC, I take that as a compliment, although you're way off base.


CoolHand, do your own homework. I don't have time to school yo a$$.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Not only on this one but can anybody answer me this question?

Why is it all people(no matter what topic) question all people who write a book about a specific topic and seek the attention of the press.

Okay, I can understand that it is logic to do this to boost sales and probably some of them are really lying or at least making some stuff more interesting to get the stuff saled.
But summarizing the response of the ATS membership on such cases 100% of them are all liars trying to improve sales.

As we shouldn't just say that somebody is just lying(as mentioned before about our dear Condoleezza) the same should be applied to people who wrote books, which may seem more like "story" than facts.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
ECK,
I have finished the search, sorry no anti-Democrat stuff from you.

Guess that makes you a Decmocrat, since we know you are anti-Republican?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The fact that she is willing to testify just goes to show that she has nothing to hide. Does anyone here honestly think that the government would allow this inqusition to proceed if there was even the remote chance that it could be proven that there is any fault to be found?


Until yesterday, she was not willing to testify. She stated that she could not testify as it went against rules for her position, as no one where she is had ever been able to testify to congress. Seems to me she has something to hide, but the powers that be are not giving her too much of a choice on weather to testify or not.

I am neither repub or dem, so it makes no nevermind to me who when or what testifies, but with 911 as big a deal as it was, I think it is only right she testifies.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The reason that she would not testify is that there is the whole conflict of interest thing that would lead people to question her testimony. Since she holds a job that is based on the President, and not voters, people will automatically assume that whatever she says (that supports the administration) is a lie and that she is telling it to keep her job.

But that is just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
ECK,
I have finished the search, sorry no anti-Democrat stuff from you.

Guess that makes you a Decmocrat, since we know you are anti-Republican?


That's funny, I've always voted Republican. Even for Dubya. How stupid was that... Don't worry, tho. I am sickened by the GOP and will be independent henceforth. Both parties are corrupt, my dear boy.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The reason that she would not testify is that there is the whole conflict of interest thing that would lead people to question her testimony. Since she holds a job that is based on the President, and not voters, people will automatically assume that whatever she says (that supports the administration) is a lie and that she is telling it to keep her job.

But that is just my opinion.



You swallow it all, coolhand. Just like a good sheep. She's bowing to the intense pressure. She will perjure herself. But the big boys don't care. She is replaceable.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
She will perjure herself. But the big boys don't care. She is replaceable.

How will she perjure herself?

Who will replace her?

You prove what I said about no one believing her.

[Edited on 30/3/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
She will perjure herself. But the big boys don't care. She is replaceable.


How will she perjure herself?

Who will replace her?

You prove what I said about no one believing her.

[Edited on 30/3/04 by COOL HAND]



Well, let's see.. They've begged Karen Hughes to come back.. That's lookin' pretty desperate.

Any number of people could replace Rice. You are aware that her specialty is not Mid-East politics, but Soviet, aren't you? (I know.. forget I asked that)

CoolHand, we are all expendable to the power elite. You would do well to remember that.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Let's see... Controdictory Rice has stonewalled and hem-hawed, not willing to testify under oath or in front of the whole commission.. She's clearly made a large amount of false statements (link of listed in my original post for all to see) and is having quite the difficult time juggling all of the "untruths." Now the pressure comes to bear..

Former terrorism advisor Richard Clarke has now challenged Ms. Rice to make public all of his emails and recommendations.

So, whose telling the fibs? Whose just bowed to the pressure?

Clarke Challenges Condi
Rice To Reveal Secret Emails
By Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
The Guardian - UK
3-29-4


Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser whose revelations threaten to torpedo George Bush's re-election strategy, launched a counterattack yesterday at a White House that he said was determined to destroy him.

In a riveting television performance, Mr Clarke called on his principal critic and former employer, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to release the entire record of their emails in the months up to the September 11 terror attacks to prove his contention that the White House did not then take the threat of al-Qaida seriously.

He also agreed to Republican demands to declassify testimony he gave to the Senate two years ago - to "prove" there were no inconsistencies. "Let's take all of my emails and all the memos I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of them," Mr Clarke told NBC television.
www.rense.com...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join