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.

 

Perjury: Aunti Condi's List of Lies

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
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]
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."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]

www.commondreams.org...

And what did they impeach Clinton for?




posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
why start a new thread? in my last thread "rice: liar or confused" was one they forgot in here:


Originally posted by J0HNSmith
Ok, here it is in black and white:

Rice: The FBI also tasked all
56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of
known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known
informants who might have information on terrorist
activities.

The FBI had not tasked any of their offices to do any such thing. The director of the FBI has received no such information or orders to do so. That was an out right lie. Out of the thousands of interviews with FBI agents by the 9/11 commission non of them had any information what so ever about what she is saying.

How much clearer does it have to get? She perjured herself.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Point. But this is a LIST of definitive lies. Not just a question of lying.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
As a lawyer McColonel...persecute her then buddy.
I'm sure Bush, just as Kerry did likewise to him over Clarke's testimony, will challenge Kerry to prosecute Dr. Rice if indeed she did lie.

Knock yourselves out trying.





seekerof



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Well, do you agree or disagree, Seekerof, that she has lied? Seems pretty obvious to me she did. She did a lot of lying, stalling and buck-passing...



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Are you likewise going to admit that Mr. Clarke lied and perjuryed as well, or is this as always, partisan politics at its best within the confines of ATS?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Its just sad. Sad sad sad. Sad that the repugnants, confronted with the truth, just don't give a damn. They say, "So what. What are you gonna do." Ths is how low they are. No intergrity, morality, or decency. This is why the country is in the state its in now. Never trust a repugnant.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Are you likewise going to admit that Mr. Clarke lied and perjuryed as well, or is this as always, partisan politics at its best within the confines of ATS?


seekerof


Hey, I believe they are all liars. And that this commision is a joke. Nothing but scum investigating scum. And I know nothing will really come of it other than an "oops" from the intelligence community and this administration.

No one is going to take the blame, but it's pretty clear that A LOT of blame belongs to this very adminstration, wouldn't your say?...



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I came across a site yesterday about a lady who's husband got murdered on 9/11... She is suing the bush administration for obstruction of justice and organized crime.. I'm not sure the legal terminology on this but it was pretty interesting, she is suing because she says she has proof of the bush administrations lies and coverups..

Now, let me go find that paper... Where's aware when I need him...

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I openly admit that this guy Clarke has lied. Don't know on which count...but he definitly did it.

If nothing else from all of this, Condi's chances at elected politics are eliminated. She will never be able to run for anything now. I think she may be retiring after all of this. Just my thoughts...



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Its just sad. Sad sad sad. Sad that the repugnants, confronted with the truth, just don't give a damn. They say, "So what. What are you gonna do." Ths is how low they are. No intergrity, morality, or decency. This is why the country is in the state its in now. Never trust a repugnant.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Colonel]


What is truly sad is the kentacky fried colonel's insistance that only Republicans lie...Demoncraps never do...they always tell the truth...like about blowjobs and such.....


Never trust the colonel....his chicken is full of fat....



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
No dear McColonel, what is TRUELY sad is how your partisan politics glasses are allowing you to play such BS games. Thats the tragedy of this whole affair....and it serves the AMerican people how, exactly?

Does it thwart another 9/11 scenerio?
Does it satisfy the questions of those seeking real answers?
Does it help this nation at all?
Thats whats TRUELY sad.....of all the real issues that need to be addressed, partisan politics, once again, befuddles the process!


seekerof



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
You know Seeker. You keep using this "partisan politics" defense alot lately.....in at least 4 different threads. But, what I keep seeing is your doing the same thing. "Do you admit Dr. Clark lied also" ring a bell. If that's not partisan, then I don't know what is. To be really unpartisaned (word?) then you have to look at both sides and realize...yes, they ALL are lying to save their asses. But, what Colonel is doing here is showing proof that Dr. Rice has lied. If you want to start a thread and show us how Dr. Clark has lied as much as this women, then by all means go ahead. Until then, Condi IS A LIAR and always will be.

edit: spelled partisan with a z...ooops

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by MacMerdin]



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
MacMerdin......
Good points raised but let me assure you of this....my partisan politics "defense" started yesterday....ask those here if that is wrong....I can actually grab the thread that it was announced in....let me know f you want to see it, k?

As to showing that Clarke has lied....been there done that....theres a couple floating around within ATS and in ATSNN. There is no need for me to present my "case" because the many that are posting on this thread know to which I am refering to and they know full well what I am implying.

Thank you for your contributions to this conversations though.



seekerof



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Seeker, actually I think I read the thread that you are referring to, so no need to get it. You also make valid points. I think to get past this, your right in getting the partisan politics out of it. Wouldn't it have been better if we had family members of 9/11 victims on the commission (sp?) instead the usual Demos and Repubs? Just a thought. They could have been briefed for this as it has taken over 2 and a half years already.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
If famlies of 9/11 victims were on the commission, something may actually happen. Nah, can't let people take responsibility for their actions now can we...



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Are you likewise going to admit that Mr. Clarke lied and perjuryed as well, or is this as always, partisan politics at its best within the confines of ATS?


seekerof


I'm not sure about clark lying. I watched his statements under the assumptions that he was coming from a political neutrality and what he said made sense to me. BUT..

saying you shouldn't prosecute Rice because someone else lied too is not only sloppy thinking it's ludicrous. One really has nothing to do with the other. She is responsible for the words that come out of her mouth, no one else is, she is the only one accountable for what she said.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
No JOHNSmith, heres the jest of what I am saying since very few are getting what I am implying:
If your going to cry foul and "lie" on one, when the other did so likewise, why is there only the call for one to be perjuryed and not BOTH by those here?

See?


seekerof



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
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]

You know its a pain in the butt when you guys plagerize someone elses list and post it in whole, its gonna take me forty posts to refute this balderdash.

A tactical warning in Genoa does not translate into an expection of airplanes flying into the WTC and Pentagon 2000 miles away. The word "strategic" means just what codoleeza meant it to - A widespread warning or expectation of a continental threat directly given to the whitehouse saying airliners are going to be used as missles.

Your source is stretching far afield in its claim on this item.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
No JOHNSmith, heres the jest of what I am saying since very few are getting what I am implying:
If your going to cry foul and "lie" on one, when the other did so likewise, why is there only the call for one to be perjuryed and not BOTH by those here?

See?


seekerof


So, now, yuo want me to arguye YOUR side? Sheesh. What did I say about repugnants being lazy?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join