Condi Rice on "Nightline" now-11:30 PM EDT.

[Kool Kitty]

Thought you'd like to know. Already Ted asks, where are the weapons?

[Kool Kitty]

1. Either the weapons were there, or they weren't, sez Ted.

He also sez that maybe the Iraqi Army would have made good border guards, maybe a bad idea to let them disband.

[Kool Kitty]

2. Condi sez that now all the terrorists are in Iraq.

And I believe that was probably the intention all along. She sez that we do need manpower. Ted just asked her is they possibly threw the baby out with the bathwater.

[mmm]

8. ALL the 'terrorists' are in Iraq

I thought there were terrorists on every square mile of the planet.
How'd they all get there so fast?

At any rate, this has been their intention all along
......... whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

[loudnclear]

28. Don't you believe it...they are all not in Iraq...these people are not as

stupid as we would like to believe. They can't all be in Iraq...just ask the folks in Indonesia and the Philippines. Oh, yeah, and ask those in DC around the WH. There's a group of terrorists for you!

[Rooktoven]

3. Damn, makes you glad that

we are experts in sorting out the "Good guys from the Bad guys"

Wonder if any Air Force Academy grads were helping decide....

[Kool Kitty]

7. Ted just asked her about the bounty on Saddam and Osama.

He said you'd think with all that money on their heads, they would have been turned in. She said she's sure that they'll be turned in. Not everyone worships the god of money, Condi. Sometimes you can't buy people.

[Cush]

4. if saddam was so hated

and there's a bounty, why is he still at large?

[coda]

5. Thanks, Kool Kitty.

Looks like Koppel is going to interrupt her a lot rather than indulge.

[Rooktoven]

13. She seems like she's trying to run out the clock

by referring to irrelevant (or out of referenced time-frame) events.

[Cush]

6. now David Kay

why didn't Ted ask why the report is being shelved?

[Kool Kitty]

11. She sez, "We don't spend every hour of every day looking for the reports."

Ted sez, "We don't EXPECT you to spend every hour of every day looking for them, but before the war, you were emphatic about it." Whoa-he just stopped her when she mentioned the "using the weapons on his own people" yak, saying they did that ONCE-in 1988. He isn't letting her get away. Asking, if Saddam was such a threat, why didn't you go to Baghdad in 1991? What changed? She believes that he had wider ambitions, sez that he was getting illiegal money for oil, he continued to shoot at our planes, he continued to produce WMD. He asks, how does this constitute a direct threat to the US? Condi sez, we couldn't allow a threat to gather. He clearly had ambitions to dominate the Middle East. He spent the money on WMD, not the infrastructure. Get ready for the 9-11 questions...Ted sez, are you saying that he was responsible for 9-11? NO, she sez. We have never claimed that, but he had a penchant for accumulating WMD. What horseshit. We haven't found one thing.

[Cush]

9. Go Ted

You talk about him using Chemical Weapons, that happened what, once or twice?

The WHite Prevented a resolution condeming the actions

[coda]

10. " You don't know that the WMD's are not now in the hands of

those we were trying to keep them from."

"You talk about Saddam using gas, that only happened only one time. the Congress tried to pass a law and the White House staopped it....why is Saddam more dangerous now than then?"


Shit fire! People don't miss this thing! Koppel is great!

[Kool Kitty]

15. Gee, I wonder if Brit Hume

will take the chance and ask W these questions? :eyes:

[indigo11153]

17. This is good

Don't back down now TED!!!
HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT OT BET SHE BRINGS UP THE MUSHROOM CLOUD:eyes:

[grasswire]

19. a national treasure

That's Ted Koppel. I will be so very sad when he retires some day. He's been fabulous for the last six months.

[coda]

25. What's sad is that a lot of reporters used to ask questions like this.

Now there's one. I'm shocked that she came on the show.

[coda]

12. What was it that you and the President thought was the threat to the US.

Condie: You had a bloody dictator, wouldn't spend money on his own people....


Are you saying there is any connection to 911 and Saddam seeing how 60%+ of the American public thinks that's the case?

Condie: We have never claimed that Saddam had any connection......

[jab105]

14. Ted stays so cool....

He's the best, but CALL HER ON THE SPIN ALREADY!!

"region of the 9-11 terrorists"

he asks about the region....good....

But then lets her go on and on....

BLAH!

[caledesi]

16. Mushroom cloud, Condi...mushroom cloud...You f*cking liar.

[indigo11153]

21. And he just

let her spin away! Damn!!! I was hoping for more.:argh:

[Kool Kitty]

18. "If we can't find the weapons in Iraq,

then where are they?" Condi sez-prior to the war, we were not in a position to say where they were. Left unchecked, he might have a nuke by the end of the decade. Ted sez, "THE END OF THE DECADE? Members of the administration made it sound immediate." Condi sez, we have just had a great victory in Iran. Ted Sez, they are not going to comply. Not such a great victory, huh? Now Syria. She sez that Syria is a country that we continue to have problems with. We don't feel they are meeting the mark. So, where are we headed next-Iran or Syria?

[FauxNewsBlues]

20. Syria is Next

Drudge is headlining, the moonie reporter Bill Gertz's "Scoop" that the admin thinks Saddam's vanishing WMDs are in Syria. W will try to start a war with Syria during the general election next year I bet.

[Kool Kitty]

22. That's it.

Great stuff. She's a liar. Jon Stewart is right, they think we're retarded. Are we just supposed to forget all the stuff she said before this?

[indigo11153]

24. Thanks for the heads up anyway

Kool Kitty. Ted got in some tough questions and we got nothing new from Little Miss can't be wrong. I still enjoyed seeing her getting a real question. Thanks again.

[Kool Kitty]

27. You're very welcome.

It was nice to see her questioned, at least. How many times did Ted say, "I'm going to stop you right there..." She looked surprised each time. Like I said, good stuff. I wish all of them would be questioned by Ted, particularly Rumsfeld.

[indigo11153]

30. OOOOOOh

If only Ted could question the crowned chimp:think:

[glarius]

23. That was one half hour of UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!

:puke:

[Bozita]

26. Condi would be a lousy poker player. She squirms when faking it.

She squirmed a lot with Ted.

[FubarFly]

29. Condi's such a fighter...always bobbing and weaving.

Mostly bobbing.

:evilgrin:

[davekriss]

31. What, we didn't see these lies coming?

I refer to the bobbing and weaving of both Condi-LIE-za and Darth Rumsfeld. I recall the carefully crafted Orwellian pre-war language that proved to me and others that no WMD existed nor was there a connection between Hussein and OBL. Their choice of words then, I claimed (albeit on other boards), augered that later (today) they would recant the conclusions the public drew from their words -- but only after having marshalled the public behind their War! (Goebbells would be proud, Karl!) Nothing more than the actualization of the neocon's Straussian political philosophy; lie to get what you want, nobody will care. On this last point, I'm hoping they are wrong, but I already note how those "16 words" have disappeared from the major media babble...

I have nothing pre-war handy on the connection between Hussein and OBL at the moment, but to illustrate (from GWB's State of the Union Address):

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Note two things: Bush never states that Hussein had Anthrax, just "materials sufficient to produce" Anthrax. And note that it isn't the Bush administration making the claim, it's the United Nations.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Same here -- we don't have weaponized botulinum toxin, just a UN conclusion of "materials sufficient to produce".

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Here Bush was bolder. It's no longer the "irrelevant" UN, but "our intelligence officials" that estimate Hussein had, not sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agents, just "the materials to produce as much as...". But note Bush still provides himself an out -- one of course he has since used to deflect accountability.

I drew from this, after the SOU was delivered, that Bush would say (when no weapons turned up) that he never said Hussein had WMD, just the means to produce them. A "program", as it were. We will be spending $169+ billion of hard earned present and future treasure because Hussein, like many other nations on the earth, had possibly the technical werewithal to produce weapons. Hardly sounds imminent to me!

But, then, the National Security Strategy of the United States (quietly ushered in as policy in 2002 without debate) does not say threat has to be "imminent", it merely needs to be "sufficient". Take a look. Quoting myself now (bolded emphasis added),

I understand the arguments that, in the age of WMD proliferation and of ferocious terrorist will (greatly elevated with the attacks of 9-11), we may now need to rethink policy. Significant threats may no longer announce themselves as armies massing along borders, allowing time for security-maintaining (and legal) first strikes based on observed imminent threats. Some reasonable and thoughtful people today believe that the first sign of "imminent threat" might now be a rising mushroom cloud over Manhattan or Washington DC. They think, therefore, we must eliminate, not just real present threats, but the potential for such threats to emerge. Children and mothers in foreign lands might have to die based on a whim and a fear held by our President that someday – perhaps in a month, a year, or ten years – their leaders may develop the means and the will to attack the United States directly or by proxy via terrorists. Saddam Hussein, for example, might be developing nuclear weapons, and he might share them with terrorists, therefore we must amass our armies on his borders and attack to protect ourselves. I wholly reject this thinking.

Such is the paranoid madness and careful calculation of our King George. Hold onto your seats, folks, as this has only been Act I. There's much more fun to come!

[oasis]

32. excellent post.