Why Rice Cannot Testify About 9/11 Under Oath

[Beloved Citizen]

Because in order to defend President Bush on this matter she would have to lie.

Condi Rice: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the WTC and another and slam it into the Pentagon."

Sorry, Condi, but here is an article that shows that many people not only did predict such a thing happening, but also tried very hard to warn us. And perhaps if you had been concentrating on the Al Qaeda situation rather than the Bush family grudge with Iraq, you might have been in on the secret, too.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html

[dbt]

1. Sweat, Sweat, Condi

You couldn't drive a needle up her ass with a sledgehammer right now!

:evilgrin:
dbt

[Pepperbelly]

13. maybe with a ballpeen hammer you'd have better luck.

:evilgrin:

[Mz Pip]

2. So she has to lie.

Big deal. That's what BushCo does best.

IF she lies, they will eventually come back to bite BushCo on the ass. If she tells the truth, she'll be out of a job. It's no wonder she won't testify. It's a lose-lose situation for her.

MzPip
:dem:

[OneBlueSky]

3. they were simulating just such an attack that very morning . . .

yes, on the morning of 9/11! . . . and Cheney attended . . . so how can they possibly claim that they had no idea planes might be used to attack buildings? . . .

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=22437

"This machine kills fascists . . ." Woody Guthrie

[many a good man]

4. Not lie!

Misspoke! There are probably a few other things she "misspoke" about, too. Wonder if we'll ever get to know?

[papau]

5. predicted that these people would take an airplane - WAS SOP Since Clinton

in 96 had folks come up with thought as part of the brainstorming on the Atlanta Olympics.

We put in place defenses at that time - and such an option was a standard item on all "what will terrorists possibly do" list since 1996.

Condi is a lousy liar.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

6. Tonight she will spin, bobble, shake, dart her eyes, reshape

the questions and then lie. All the while, she will seek to craft a sensible defense while in the process defame Richard Clarke. A tall order, but one i know she's good at.

We are dealing with ideologues here and not truth tellers. Everything they do is based on a pre-constructed believe system, not based on facts or truth. To them truth don't matter, but rather protecting papa bush and the rest of regime.

To me that's what makes this administration so dangerous in that they think they are right even in the face of evidence or facts to the contrary.

[buycitgo]

7. you do know that she went back to the commission to redact

her statement about the "planes slamming" into buildings, don't you?

you wouldn't know it by today's horrid gasbag performances, but the WashPost had it Thursday, and Margaret Carlson, of all people mentioned it last night on Capital Gang

you're right, of course

she's lied so often that she absolutely won't be able to keep them all straight

twerpy Chris Shays assured us on CNN that she WILL testify, though

I hope to heaven he gets his wish

PLEASE!

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

8. She's a walking contridiction

[calimary]

9. Contradicta Rice.

[Ravy]

11. And a new name is born! Nice one! (n/t)

[MetaTrope]

12. Rice redacted her statement?

Link please? Please please please?

[Robbien]

14. Yes, she misspoke once again

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

From the Washington Post no less,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html

edit: Another paragraph in the same article tells of how many times they have had to redact their "misspokes"

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

[buycitgo]

10. there's another, long thread on this.....anybody know how to pull it up?

this one is excellent, too, btw

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. However, it is the 2nd part of that statement

that she is really avoiding. The part where she says we thought it was going to be a typical hijacking.

It seems to me that what she was really saying is that the 9-11 attack was supposed to be a typical hijacking. Not they no one ever thought someone would fly a plane into a building at some point in time. But on 9-11 the plan was to hijack planes and have a dramatic rescue, probably in Florida with Barbara Olsen on board reporting live and then Bu$hco would have had their excuse to attack Afghanistan. However, rouge elements in this misadministration upped the ante and put on a bigger show than the one Condi was told to expect.