Perjury: Aunti Condi's List of Lies

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

Speaking in the past tense does'nt constitute a lie in any definition of the word, this section is doublespeak for people with low comprehension skills.

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 you admit you think she lied? If you read the title of this thread it's about Rice and her lies, not clark. So let's stay on topic and find the rest of her lies.

Yes JOHNSmith, as your agenda so dictates, your request will be complied with.
Hence my non-comment since.........


seekerof

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Seekerof]

I think I have finally stumped Seekerof. AIN'T "SEEKING" NO MORE, ARE YA!

Originally posted by Colonel
I think I have finally stumped Seekerof. AIN'T "SEEKING" NO MORE, ARE YA!

lol
colonel, still the same # shaker i see

good to see not much has changed.

" I know you are, but what am I?"

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

Fine, if there is proof of the perjury on Clarke's part ( Allegations from FreeRepublic/NewsMax/World News Daily don't count, I've already peered down those outhouse pits & they're full of $hit ), hang him too. The only fully vetted aspect left untapped from him is the strenuousness of the whistleblowing effort.
Everyone who can be proven to be a complicit player in the stand down & cover up concerning 9/11, choosing their careers over their duty, should be prosecuted.
And despite the yernings of your furthest Neo-Con flights of fantasy ( Clinton did it!), the blood bath starts with the Bush team - leadership is accountability and if something happens on your watch, you take responsibility. No one on the Bush team has come close to syllable #1 on that score

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Huh, it looks like, from reading the posts on that other thread, that it was ok for Clinton to lie under oath, but it's not for Condie, in Colonel's mind. Personally, I think both are at fault (haven't read much about condie yet, so I'll hold my judgement on her for now, tho). But no, it's all about political lines. If you're a democrat, you're an angel, a republican, a demon. Everything a republican does is wrong, a democrat can do no evil

" Can't we all just get along?"

Originally posted by Seekerof
Thats the tragedy of this whole affair....and it serves the AMerican people how, exactly?

By being the caveman who ate the new berries, only to die because they were poison.....i.e. NEVER AGAIN

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!

See Above

seekerof

At best - an administration filled with hubris because of their very long Washington ties + disdain for the policies of their predessesor + their cold war view of the world, even though they were told otherwise.

At worst - Neo Fascist bent on Reichstag Fire measures to get & keep power.

[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Bout Time]

"Yes there's a woman in our bed, but are you gonna trust me or your lying eyes?"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phoenix

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Stretch? The only thing approaching the breaking point of tensile physics is your apologist clutching for straw, sans all compunction.

Condi Rice = Advisor to the President & National Security Advisor = THE GENESIS POINT FOR SCENARIO RUNS & COUNTER-MEASURES FOR THE SAFTEY OF THIS COUNTRY. Seeing as the NSA is a Cabinet post, her claiming semantics ( and you as well ) is illustrative of her incompetence, complicitness or both. I think it's both.



[Edited on 9-4-2004 by Bout Time]

Originally posted by junglejake
hat it was ok for Clinton to lie under oath, but it's not for Condie, in Colonel's mind.

I never said it was ok for anyone to lie. But point in fact clinton got a blow job, big freaken whop. Rice is trying to cover up her own personal negligence that caused the death of 3,000 americans.

" No really, coke & poprocks WILL make your head explode!!"

Originally posted by Phoenix
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

Speaking in the past tense does'nt constitute a lie in any definition of the word, this section is doublespeak for people with low comprehension skills.

Timeline: not knowing about it then can be passed off to incompetence or complicity, where those two are again the sole possible answers to the Bush Junta's 9/11 role.

BUT, feigning ignorance to facts 2 years later after YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE, is calculated deception. Political cover or attack is the only reason to perpetuate that lie.

Question BT:
Have you e-mailed or phoned Bob Kerrey yet and asked him if all this is, indeed, "an asymmetric approach"?

Yeah brother-in-arms, I hear ya, good thing Condi doesn't. She'd probably chew you up and spit you out as she did good ole' Bob Kerrey.


seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah brother-in-arms, I hear ya, good thing Condi doesn't. She'd probably chew you up and spit you out as she did good ole' Bob Kerrey.

seekerof

I think he'd slip between that chipmunk gap in her teeth. You'd think they pay her enough to get that fixed.

As for Bobby, poor guy never got a straight answer. If you call evading the question of why she wasn't doing her job "chewing him up and spitting him out" than you'd be correct. I mean who cares it was only 3000 people who died why should she have to give a straight answer to anyone?

Coming from one as astute as you...I would image that would be "an asymmetric approach" also?



seekerof