You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Condi Rice Absolutely Cannot Testify. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 11:25 AM
Original message
Why Condi Rice Absolutely Cannot Testify.
Advertisements [?]
Because, not being "in the loop", she has already made a fatal mistake. Her collossal foot in the mouth occurred right after 9-11.

Let's analyze this please. Everybody knows that the threat of a hijacker using a plane as a missile has been well known by government officials at a minimum, from 1993-1994 when it was revealed through testimony in the '93 WTC bombing. After that the subject continually came up, all the way to July 2001 when Bush attended a conference in Italy and they had to worry about a plane being used as a missile.

Rice's blunder was this: She said after 9-11. "We thought there would be traditional hijackings, no one imagined that they could be used as missiles".

Now. Why would a National Security Advisor say such a thing? Why would she say "no one imagined the planes could be used as missiles?

The only possible explanation is that she was told IN ADVANCE that a "traditional hijacking" was going to occur.

What really concerns me about the "traditional hijackings" is that the hijackings were done with boxcutters, not bombs or guns.
Think about it. How Bush would have looked like such a hero storming those planes after they landed somewhere. Minimal loss of life because how many people can you kill with boxcutters before the storm troopers get you?

In addition, you have Barbara Olson on one of the flights. Placed there to get the inside story of the rescue.

The only reason that Condi couldn't imagine planes used as missiles is that SHE WAS TOLD that they were just traditional hijackings.

I want her to explain her statement under oath. If she didn't imagine them being used as missiles then we been paying her for nothing. Did she read anything when she assumed office?

How hilarious is it for her and Cheney to say Clarke doesn't know what he's talking about because he was "out of the loop." This is precisely what Clarke is testifying about. That they wouldn't listen. They corroborate his testimony better than anyone.

Lastly, did you tell Willie Brown not to take a plane that day and why did you do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC