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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Coolhand, try snapping your mind out of that narrow tunnel vision u have. Anti Republican does not instantly men one is democrat. Can you comprehend this?

Condi Rice is testifying now because she has her story nice and edited. So, Im sure shell leave oput the parts where she called up her friend and told him not to fly round the date in question.




posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Coolhand, try snapping your mind out of that narrow tunnel vision u have. Anti Republican does not instantly men one is democrat. Can you comprehend this?

Condi Rice is testifying now because she has her story nice and edited. So, Im sure shell leave oput the parts where she called up her friend and told him not to fly round the date in question.


So, what do you think of Clarke, Skadi?



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I am a little curious as to why people are going after her?

Why didn't anyone bring up the fact that Clarke refused to testify before Congress when he worked for the Bush administration? He used the same reasoning as she is, but no one seems to have an issue with that.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I am a little curious as to why people are going after her?

Why didn't anyone bring up the fact that Clarke refused to testify before Congress when he worked for the Bush administration? He used the same reasoning as she is, but no one seems to have an issue with that.


CH, you confuse fact with fiction. READ the C O N T R A D I C T I O N S linked in my first post. Those are mainstream-SOURCED, so you know. I'd hate for you to soil your young eyes with anything alternative or mainstream...

You CANNOT refute it.

And by the way, since you never bother to read any of the linked material, I will let you in on something.. Rice has refused to come clean, prompting even Republicans to wonder out loud publicly what she has to hide; whereas, Clarke is promoting complete transparency.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Here's an editorial written by Tom Maertens, retired Naval officer and Vietnam vet. He worked with Clarke in the past and writes in support of the former terrorism czar's remarks and position.

Clarke's Public Service
By Tom Maertens
Star Tribune

Sunday 28 March 2004

MANKATO, MINN. Richard Clarke, who served as the national coordinator for counterterrorism in the White House, argues in his new book, Against All Enemies, that the Bush administration ignored the threat from Al-Qaida and instead chose to fight the wrong war by attacking Iraq.

The troops who could have been used in Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida were instead held back for the planned invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the 150,000 men sent to Iraq, only about 11,500 troops were sent to Afghanistan, a force smaller than the New York City police. The result is that Bin Laden and his followers escaped across the border into Pakistan.
www.truthout.org...



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
She is going to lie because 9-11 is one big lie itself.


If that be the case, then Clarke is also a liar and is a co-conspirator in your 9/11 belief. This makes him no more trustworthy that anyone else.

You've painted yourself in a corner, my friend.

ECK, you've never been anything but extreme left-wing, which puts you in the Democratic side (unless maybe you're a Log Cabin Republican), so I have a problem believing you have no political angle on this.

But back to the conspiratorial angle, which I enjoy. Illuminati, given the fact that Clarke would then have to be a part of the conspiracy, where do we go now? Take the ball and run with it, I'm interested in your theories!



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Skadi, Dr. Rice will now testify because she has been given permission to testify to a Congressionally appointed comittee. They must have gotten the bugs worked out where she can do that and it not upset the constitutional separation of powers by no precendent being set. I wouldn't have understood that until last year when I was voted in as a labor steward in a Teamster shop. Technicalities are a strange and dificult thing to work out! Pain in the butt, to be downright honest!



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Rice is still doing her job in a time of war, so there are ongoing issues relating to policy that she just can't discuss, I would think.

Clarke can say what he wants when he wants because his only job is in a private tech firm, teaching at the Kennedy School of Government (where he co-teaches a course with Richard Beers, National Security/Homeland Security Issue Coordinator for the Kerry campaign), and selling his book.

I personally think that the panel members, all ex-politicos themselves just wanted some more "look at me, I'm important" time on national television...



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Illmatic67
She is going to lie because 9-11 is one big lie itself.


If that be the case, then Clarke is also a liar and is a co-conspirator in your 9/11 belief. This makes him no more trustworthy that anyone else.

You've painted yourself in a corner, my friend.

TC, I've given you too much credit in the past for being smarter than that. I stand corrected. I have not painted myself into a corner b/c I've maintained that I've never trusted Clarke. I've never defended him, per se. I've only presented different views on it all.

ECK, you've never been anything but extreme left-wing, which puts you in the Democratic side (unless maybe you're a Log Cabin Republican), so I have a problem believing you have no political angle on this.

I've been a lifelong conservative Republican. I have never voted for a Democrat. I voted for Bush in 2000. That gives me every right in the world to criticize his utterly inept and corrupt "leadership." If you weren't so hopelessly partisan, you'd realize your views and mine are probably much closer on most issues than you can imagine. I happen to not be programmed to regurgitate rhetoric. I think for myself and have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the belly of the beast.

But back to the conspiratorial angle, which I enjoy. Illuminati, given the fact that Clarke would then have to be a part of the conspiracy, where do we go now? Take the ball and run with it, I'm interested in your theories!

You kill me, TC. That's probably the best back-handed compliment I've ever gotten. You never know, tho, maybe I am...

Before Clarke's book dropped and he testified, I actually thought he was very in the loop and lying through his teeth for this administration. My theory is even though he is doing "damage" to BushCo. his testimony completely underlines and highlights the BS Al Qaeda fiction. Can you get your mind around that? They'll throw Condi to the wolves, Clarke will make lots of money, Osama will continute to be the boogy man and life will go on. Maybe Kerry will be elected b/c of the scandal, maybe not. Bush may throw the election to fellow bonesman Kerry (who I have absolutely no love for, btw) like Poppy Bush did with Clinton. The deal goes, you throw it and I won't let anyone persue criminal charges against you. Kerry's strings are attached to the same strings Bush's are, for anyone who doesn't understand the way it works. The only difference is (D) or (R) by the name.




posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Do you really think she is going to tell the truth?

Im sure they have her speach done for here.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Do you really think she is going to tell the truth?

Im sure they have her speach done for here.


She's gonna have a helluva time being under oath. It's gonna be highly interesting.

Check this out:


Preparing For Condy Rice
By Joseph Ehrlich
Senderberl@aol.com
3-31-4


Her agenda will be to obfuscate and thus it is imperative for the 9-11 Commission to ask questions from which it will be difficult to escape the truths reflected by the realities taking place in connection with 9-11.

For your interest and possible benefit, we quickly drafted questions within the parameters of a Commission Hearing that even if known should prove difficult for Dr. Rice to fashion an escape. After she testifies, we will review and see whether the Commission pursued these lines. Remember, if the Commission is subsequently seen as soft, then we will assume that Bush has relinquished on more than having Condoleezza appear to testify publicly under oath! Otherwise, keep in mind that the Commission was allowed to pursue its agenda understanding it was obligated in the end to whitewash the truths behind 9-11.
www.rense.com...


Tough questions teed up for Rice testimony
By Mimi Hall and Judy Keen, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON When national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifies to the commission investigating Sept. 11, she will face questions that have intensified in the 30 months since the attacks.
She will be asked to clarify apparent contradictions between how the administration explains its policies and actions and the way Richard Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief, describes them.
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-30-questions-usat_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-30-questions-usat_x.htm




[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Let's try that again.

Here's the link to the USA Today article:

www.usatoday.com...[/ url]

To Thomas Crowne:

Here's an article that backs up my previous contention regarding the administration's 9-11 fiction:

Skeleton in Clarke's closet
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Thursday, March 25, 2004

Former counterterrorism official and now tell-all author Richard Clarke was at it again yesterday, scorching Bush administration officials in testimony before the national Sept. 11 commission.

We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.
[url=http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=440]http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=440




With Karen Hughes back in town large and in charge, it's a good bet the administration will make Controdicta Rice the sacrificial lamb.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I don't know why all that's hyperlinked. Apologies.



posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Plan on how to deal with Clarke left behind at Starbucks:

www.upi.com...

"Stay inside the lines. We don't need to puff this (up). We need (to) be careful as hell about it," the handwritten notes say. "This thing will go away soon and what will keep it alive will be one of us going over the line."

The notes were written by Pentagon political appointee Eric Ruff who left them in a Starbucks coffee shop in Dupont Circle, not far from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's home.

The notes are genuine, a Pentagon official said. They were compiled for an early morning briefing for Rumsfeld before the Sunday morning talk shows, during which administration officials conducted a flurry of interviews to counter the testimony of Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's former terrorism czar who left the post in 2003. Rumsfeld appeared on Fox and ABC.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join