A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dr. Rice Kicked Your Fat Derrieres, DEMO-SLUTS!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 04, 04:28 AM
Elwood Blues
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dr. Rice Kicked Your Fat Derrieres, DEMO-SLUTS!

"Wyatt Earp" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Thursday mornings public testimony by the President's
National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice before
the 9/11 commission went beautifully for Dr. Rice, as
she answered the questions posed to her. But partisan
demosluts failed miserably as they managed to trip up
only themselves, while Dr. Rice skated right over the
top of em! This November 2nd election will so utterly
wreck the hopelessly-rabid and self-aggrandizing demo-
sluts, that they might as well concede defeat now and
abolish their disgraced demoslut-party once & for all.

Made in America,
Daniel Joseph Min


Danny, my boy!

You should never feed the trolls. But more than anyone else I have seen on
the internet (even Nancy Leider), you annoy the crap out of me. I'm quite
amazed your post isn't about anti-Christian and anti-Xian thoughts, or the
killing of those people, as you have advocated in the past. As usual,
you've cross posted this message to a bunch of newsgroups that have nothing
to do with each other, except that they are flooded with your bull****.

And while I would not, nor should I attempt to refute your whole world of
thought, I think I'll take a crack at this one. And I'll use some facts and
links for proof, rather than mindless ranting. This is not my work, but the
work of the Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/.
But I could not hope to improve on the work done to put this article
together, which can be found at
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=44887.

Elwood Blues
----------


Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

April 8, 2004

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton
Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the
network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice
Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to
monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported
"though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in
late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over
Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the
reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources:
(1) Newsweek, 3/21/04; (2) AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida
network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies
to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects
of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and
military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our
plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban
leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of
9/11." [Source: (3) 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize
terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton
Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an
important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden."
Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed
efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being
abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided
"no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source:
"The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for
action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator
throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a
debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators"
and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: (4)
AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several
agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than
half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice
Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that
the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for
149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54
additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that
gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the
Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense
into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; (5) NY
Times, 2/28/02; (6) Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we
also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that
had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously - and
inaccurately - denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan
was turned over to the new administration." [(7) Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of
2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert
and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration
"did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice
Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism
had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush
Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul
Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don
Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new
Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he
never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were
gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: (8) Washington Post, 3/22/04; (9)
LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of
2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that
U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept.
11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American
planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President
personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama
bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot
could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually
admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received
said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: (10)
ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]


Links:

(1) http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040321/nysu007a_1.html
(2)
http://www.helenair.com/articles/200...1062503_04.txt
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar24.html
(4)
http://www.helenair.com/articles/200...1062503_04.txt
(5)
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/trans...e% 20Dept.htm
(6) http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html
(7) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar21.html
(8)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
(9)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5099504.story
(10) http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...emo020516.html

Transcript of Dr. Rice's testimony on April 8, 2004:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Apr8.html


Dr. Rice quote of the day:

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were
issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't
remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed
to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned
against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall
the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the
United States."

(Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" responded to that sound byte with, "You've
got to be ****ing kidding me.")


  #2  
Old April 10th 04, 11:17 AM
OhBrother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dr. Rice Kicked Your Fat Derrieres, DEMO-SLUTS!


"Richard Johnson" wrote in message
...

[snip ranting]
These are the (in)actions of an administration you think is
doing a good job?


There has only been one thing that makes the taking of Aircraft

(Commercial
Airlines) safer. It does not involve the Government in any way. It is

now
a fact you try it you either get beaten half to death, or all the way to
death should you try to highjack the plane. The passengers will stop it.
Before 9/11, the passengers believed there was a very good chance that

they
would live through it and would cooperate and were told so by the flight
crew. Now, if you try it you will have to kill 200 passengers one at a

time
before you get a chance to gain the controls. Even a force of 10 or 15
would find that a real problem. Even if you managed to kill the first few
you would run out of energy and would get overwhelmed. The passengers

know
they are dead unless they succeed and won't stop if you kill one or two.

In
fact that would energize them to be more aggressive. That one reason and
only one reason is why flying is safer than it has ever been. (Don't say
nonsense, it has been proven several times already.) Nothing else would
have stopped those flights. The first tact would have been to try to
negotiate before 9/11. Remember we were in "Police" mode then. We are

now
in War mode. There is no way the public would have tolerated or excepted

an
intercept/shoot down of a commercial airliner prior to 9/11. So, get

real.

Excellent point Richard! I fly 2-3 times per month and as I sit there, I'm
perfectly prepared to pummel anyone who makes a move for the flight deck.
You're point is spot on.

The model of the pennsylvania crash is still very clear in everyones mind
and after the past two years of seeing the cowardly and merciless methods of
the terrorists, it is clear that direct action is about the only thing that
stands between passengers and a plane becoming a lawn dart. Even if they
would succeed in getting a couple, the survival instincts of the rest of the
passengers would drive them to overwhelm them. Especially since the flight
deck is barricaded, they'd simply end up cornered in the front of the plane.

O'





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.