Ummm, wow:

quote:

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. CLINTON: OK.. WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20. CLINTON: No let’s talk about… WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business? CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people. ... WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir? CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him. WALLACE: Right… CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know.. WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir… CLINTON:… WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question? CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know… WALLACE: We asked… CLINTON:… WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir? CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that. WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of… CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth. WALLACE: About the USS Cole? CLINTON: Tell the truth. WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask. CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about… WALLACE: [laughs] CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care. ..... CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever… WALLACE: [Laughs] CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/

Absolutely fucking priceless. Keep in mind Bubba was there to raise money for his nonpartisan global initiative. So Wallace thought it cute to try to corner him with the bogus 9/11 show with all the lovely fraudulent claims within. I may disagree with Bubba on some issues, but damn can that boy think quickly on the spot. It's sorely missed.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

excellent post opus

yeah, regardless of political differences, ive always admired clinton's intellectual capacity. he certainly seems extra intelligent 6 years on doesnt he? everything's relative!

im wondering if Q5 has an interesting point of view on this.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Absolutely fucking priceless. Keep in mind Bubba was there to raise money for his nonpartisan global initiative. So Wallace thought it cute to try to corner him with the bogus 9/11 show with all the lovely fraudulent claims within. I may disagree with Bubba on some issues, but damn can that boy think quickly on the spot. It's sorely missed.

They obviously mistaked him for fool and ended up getting played themself.

I was actually quite impressed with Clinton and his efforts OUTSIDE the oval office...

Here he is on the Daily Show

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Wow, Clinton owned it up...

"they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office."

It's true, our current government let it all happen... what a coincidence that the twin towers were still standing up until Bush took office...

Interesting psychology:

humans begin laughing when they are placed on the spot.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im wondering if Q5 has an interesting point of view on this.

well, here's slick willy lying about one thing...



i can't find a video clip of the Wallace interview. prolly cause it hasn't aired yet, but i've seen clips of it and he acts in exactly the same manner.

say what you want about the guy but he could sell ketchup packets to a woman in white gloves. you just never know when he's feeding you a line crap.

here he is in 2002.



now what i don't get is that if he was so vociferous about "killing" Bin Laden here and ordering CIA death squads there to track him down to the ends of the earth, on what grounds did he base those orders on? because in 2002 he was shirking some serious responsibility on the subject. which one is it? i mean, you heard them both!
the only thing i can think of is Nov '98 after the embassy bombings. but the Justice Dept. had only issued an indictment for questioning.

the guy is a stone cold liar. he's good.

you see with Bush it can only be one of two things. either a, he's too stupid to lie so he doesn't or b, he's waaayyyy more talented at it than Clinton could ever be and he's doing it all the time.

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-24-2006 at 03:00

clinton could sell the brooklyn bridge if he wanted

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well, here's slick willy lying about one thing...

Shocking. Truly shocking to see a Bush-boot licker pull out Clinton's blowjob. It's always fun to see someone with extramarital affairs and the lie to America about it versus the lovely blowjob Bush has successfully given to America on both his foreign and domestic policies.

It's such a toss-up to depict which one has harmed America worse. I guess I'll just flip a coin.

quote:

i can't find a video clip of the Wallace interview. prolly cause it hasn't aired yet, but i've seen clips of it and he acts in exactly the same manner.

Yeah, what an asshole that Clinton. Going to an interview to discuss a nonpartisan issue and get American citizens involved in such an endeavor, only to get sideswiped by another Bush boot-licking neocon shitmonger. I guess he really shouldn't have such nerve to be sidetracked by that little shitmonger on such an issue, considering the source, the news channel, the owner, and the majority viewers. How dare Clinton show a nutsack and attack the dipshit bullies on their own court! What a bastard I say!

I wonder if Wallace did indeed ask any Administration offical why they fired Dick Clarke? Hmmm, let's see this interview of Rummy:

quote:

WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story — is he telling the truth, or is he pushing an agenda. WALLACE: Let’s switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this. There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify Clarke’s testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve any such declassification. Do you think it’s a good idea? WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it’s the debate over Dick Clarke’s credibility, his charges, whether it’s the fact that we’re in the political season, that the important work you say the commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115436,00.html

Hmmm, guess that was a wiff. Wasn't quite the question Clinton posed to Wallace now, was it?

How 'bout Condi?:

quote:

WALLACE: When commission member Jaime Gorelick was questioning you about that, did you know that when she was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, that she had issued an order that, in fact, helped build the so-called wall even higher? RICE: I did not know that, Chris. I did know, of course, that she’d been deputy attorney general. I did know that there were responsibilities there for issues concerning counterterrorism, but no, I did not know. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117427,00.html

Gee, that was interesting, wasn't it?

(BTW, 9/11 Commission member Slade Gorton (R) called that cute little swift boat smear "ridiculous", and "She had nothing to do with any ‘wall’ between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies.": http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-e...01757-6420r.htm)

Again let's recap the part we're referring to here with Clinton and Wallace:

quote:

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know… WALLACE: We asked…Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

Again let's keep in mind something about the U.S. Cole - the CIA and FBI did NOT conclude that the U.S. Cole was the work of Al Qaeda UNTIL early 2001. Where the fuck was Bush's efforts on this sucker, EVER?

Please answer me that one, if you will. And then please tell me why the likes of Coulter somehow believed or directly implied that Clinton should have somehow gone after something without evidence to support the conlusion. Granted, that is pretty common with Bush, but most logically thinking folks don't tend to act in a similar manner.

So did Wallace or Tony Snow EVER grill anyone on this Administration about the Cole? Did they even ask Condi about that cute little memo titled, "bin laden determined to strike the U.S."? Did they EVER ask Condi about her DIRECT FUCKING LIE about her supposed lack of knowledge on commercial airplanes being used as weapons, despite evidence to the contrary? Cheney's been on Fox News Sunday 6 times, Rummy 9 times, Condi about 2 dozen times. What kind of REALLY hardball cornering questions were they asked by Wallace or Snow?

Oh, that's right, isn't Snow the fucking Press Secretary now? Gee, who woulda fucking thunk that little gem?

Look, the obviousness of this whole charade is beyond the pale. Let's stop fucking playing dumb and realize just how much of a deliberate hackjob this whole affair was on Clinton. It was the policy of the getgo for this great Diverter to shift attention away from his fucking debacle on Iraq and resort to smears on a president who last time I checked is no longer in power and had a fairly decent record of actually TRYING to go after the bastard that attacked us.

Hard to say the same fucking thing about this current fella when he left Tora Bora now, isn't it?

The tactic is typical, tedious, and old. It's the same fucking song on repeat from 2004, only now it should be hilarious for it's obviousness.

Here's another one of those "serious" GOP boys in Congress who took such dire warnings about al Qaeda and terrorism so seriously from Clinton:

quote:

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill. [...] Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state." http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti....bill/index.html

I've documented others just like this. How much more fucking political can we get here. This is a fucking joke, and I'm sick as fuck hearing it.

quote:

say what you want about the guy but he could sell ketchup packets to a woman in white gloves. you just never know when he's feeding you a line crap.

Of course you could actually check his record like I did here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=3

and allow it to speak for itself, as well as compare what the GOP did to his bills and continual attempts to water down and belittle his efforts to increase anti-terrorism funding, but that would actually entail some critical thinking, so I guess we'll just skip over the hard stuff.

quote:

here he is in 2002. now what i don't get is that if he was so vociferous about "killing" Bin Laden here and ordering CIA death squads there to track him down to the ends of the earth, on what grounds did he base those orders on? because in 2002 he was shirking some serious responsibility on the subject. which one is it? i mean, you heard them both!

And yet strangely, that darn librul partisan 9/11 Commission said this:

quote:

Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States.The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec4.pdf

Now we can parse words and try to figure out exactly what the Commission meant here - it could be a literal interpretation to which if correct would entail the report being incorrect (not the first time on the report, I certainly acknowledge that), or they could mean "handing" bin Laden over in regards to custody and charging bin Laden. In either case I wonder if anyone can explain how we can hold someone custody without ever correctly charging them with any crimes? How can we hold someone without any credible evidence that demonstrates we could successfully arrest them with charges held against them?

Oops, I guess I just explained Bush's secret CIA prisons and Gitmo. My bad.

quote:

the only thing i can think of is Nov '98 after the embassy bombings. but the Justice Dept. had only issued an indictment for questioning.

Exactly, so the question still remains - how can we hold someone without evidence to support our detainment under our Constitutional law?

quote:

the guy is a stone cold liar. he's good.

Bush is much, much better.

quote:

you see with Bush it can only be one of two things. either a, he's too stupid to lie so he doesn't or b, he's waaayyyy more talented at it than Clinton could ever be and he's doing it all the time.

So I want to make sure I understand your implication here - are you asserting that Bush has not lied under any circumstances? I want to make sure this is what you are stating before we go any further.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

i was just demonstrating how Clinton lies. after watching his Wallace interview i'm convinced in his dubious manner. what that means really i'm not sure right now. maybe i'll get back to you on that.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again let's keep in mind something about the U.S. Cole - the CIA and FBI did NOT conclude that the U.S. Cole was the work of Al Qaeda UNTIL early 2001. Where the fuck was Bush's efforts on this sucker, EVER? Please answer me that one, if you will.

On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil.

On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.

On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. This number included 13 who were convicted of the USS Cole bombings and the bombing of the French tanker Limburg in 2002. Among those who reportedly escaped was Al-Badawi. Al-Qaeda's Yemeni number two Abu Assem al-Ahdal may also be among those now on the loose.

quote:

And then please tell me why the likes of Coulter somehow believed or directly implied that Clinton should have somehow gone after something without evidence to support the conlusion.

Coulter only referenced the Cole bombing only to point out there were zero indictments given under the Clinton administration concerning the attack. sorry, thats a true statement.

quote:

So did Wallace or Tony Snow EVER grill anyone on this Administration about the Cole?

didn't have to.

quote:

Did they even ask Condi about that cute little memo titled, "bin laden determined to strike the U.S."?

i don't know did they? wasn't she grilled by the 9/11 commission about that?

quote:

Did they EVER ask Condi about her DIRECT FUCKING LIE about her supposed lack of knowledge on commercial airplanes being used as weapons, despite evidence to the contrary?

i don't know, must not been a lie. what makes you think she was lying?

quote:

Cheney's been on Fox News Sunday 6 times, Rummy 9 times, Condi about 2 dozen times. What kind of REALLY hardball cornering questions were they asked by Wallace or Snow?

why are you crying about this? there's no such thing as the "librul media" right?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot...... On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death....... On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen......

Indeed these things were done. I should have been more specific with my question. What exactly did Bush and his Administration do PRIOR to 9/11 once they had learned of bin Laden being the culprit of the U.S.S. Cole bombings? Doin' the need post facto 9/11 wouldn't really be much of an issue at all - Jesus the country would have Bush's head if he continually blew bin Laden off AFTER 9/11 (well, that Tora Bora thing still doesn't stick out, but oh well - can't convince the public of everything all the time).

You see, Bush had a very good idea what was going on with bin Laden once he took office due to Clarke's involvement. The problem, however, was that Bush didn't do diddly fucking squat. Here's a rundown from another source. It is a biased source, granted, but you're welcome to parse through the opinions and check the assertions yourself (and just to make you do less work, the assertions are held up by the 9/11 Commission and intelligence reports):

quote:

Who Blew Off Bin Laden? by Paul Sperry In its miniseries about the missteps that led to 9/11, ABC spared not only Bill Clinton but also George W. Bush. Our hawkish War President had almost nine months to respond to the USS Cole attack and did nothing, even as his security staff fired off memo after memo fingering Osama bin Laden and urging retaliation. Clinton claims, feebly, that he didn't have enough evidence to pin the October 2000 attack on bin Laden. But Bush certainly did. On March 2, 2001, then-senior White House counterterrorism official Roger Cressey sent a memo to then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice relaying intelligence that bin Laden had gloated about the attack on the Cole in a poem he read at his son's wedding. "BIN LADEN on the USS COLE" was the title of the urgent memo. But Rice couldn't be bothered with stuff that happened on Clinton's watch. Undeterred, Cressey a few weeks later followed up with Rice's deputy Steve Hadley. He wrote, "We know all we need to about who did the attack to make a policy decision." His March 22 email – written under the heading, "Need for Terrorism DC Next Week" – fell on deaf ears. Two days later, White House terror czar Richard Clarke weighed in on the subject. He wrote both Rice and Hadley that the Yemeni prime minister had told the State Department that while Yemen was not saying so publicly, Yemen was 99 percent certain that bin Laden was responsible for the Cole attack. His March 24 memo, "Yemen's View on the USS Cole," only elicited more yawns from Bush's top security aides. By the summer, Clarke finally had the iron-clad proof he needed to convince Rice and the president to take action against bin Laden. On June 21 – less than three months before the 9-11 attacks – Clarke fired off another memo to Rice and Hadley alerting them that a new al-Qaeda video claimed responsibility for the Cole. His memo couldn't have been more plain: "Al Qida[sic] Video Claims Responsibility for Cole Attack." More yawns. Later that month, two Saudi jihadists arrested by Bahraini authorities during the summer threat spike told their captors that their al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan had held celebratory parties over the Cole attack. By now, Clarke's hair was on fire. He dashed off another memo to Rice on June 29. Rice again did nothing – except demote Clarke, that is. Why were Bush's neocon security advisers so insouciant about terrorism? They were still fighting the last war. Obsessed over Russia, China, Iraq and missile defense, the cold warriors refused to give an audience to the career White House security experts who presciently warned about the new greater threat from al-Qaeda terrorists. The White House before 9/11 held some 100 Cabinet meetings on Iraq, Russia, missile defense and other Bush-41 hobbyhorses, and only one on terrorism. Rice insists al-Qaeda was priority No. 1, but a speech she'd planned to deliver on Sept. 11, 2001, contained no mention of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic terrorists. The focus of the policy speech, before the neocon School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was missile defense, and not of the passenger airliner variety. In fact, Rice overlooked al-Qaeda in every public speech she made between Jan. 20, 2001, and Sept. 11, 2001, a Nexis search reveals. Even stretching all the way back to early 1993, when the World Trade Center was first hit, Rice mentions al-Qaeda not a single time in any speech, article or media interview. By comparison, she cites Iraq more than 1,000 times from 1993 to 2001. And the same misguided set of priorities were in place over at the Pentagon in the run-up to 9/11. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his neoconspirators were just as stuck in the Cold War. Al-Qaeda hardly registered on their radar screen, either – even though the attack on the Cole was arguably an act of war. Al-Qaeda killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured more than 30 while nearly sinking a Navy destroyer anchored in the port of Aden, Yemen. Yet there was no response from the Pentagon at all. "Secretary Rumsfeld did not order the preparation of any new military plans against either al-Qaeda or the Taliban before 9/11," states a staff report released by the 9/11 Commission in 2004. Zero. Zip. Nada. Rummy apparently was too busy drawing up plans to invade Iraq. When Bush stepped into office, he clearly had learned nothing from the previous administration's grave mistake of underestimating bin Laden, attack after bigger terror attack. Nor did he learn anything from his own mistake of blowing him off after the Cole. Bush now crows about taking out "the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing who was the chief of al-Qaeda's operations in the Persian Gulf." That would be Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, captured in 2002 – only after the 9-11 attacks. Again, Bush is fighting the last war, always one step behind. If he had focused on bin Laden and al-Qaeda as the career White House security experts were pleading for him to do before 9-11, if he had retaliated for the brazen attack on a U.S. warship by an enemy that had already declared war on us, perhaps 9-11 could have been diverted. Even after 9/11, Bush didn't go after bin Laden hard enough. He let him live another day – 1,830 days to be exact. He's failed to decapitated the al-Qaeda leadership, because he got distracted once again fighting a previous war – in this case his daddy's. And in doing so he's only played right into his hands of bin Laden, who is making great hay of the "crusaders" attacking and occupying (admittedly, for no good reason) the seat of the old Islamic caliphate. If a President Gore had attacked the wrong country and blown off bin Laden for another five years, we'd never hear the end of it from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the rest of the Koolaid crowd. Or from me. Yet President Bush gets a pass? "Patriots," my ass. http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Thought I'd continue breaking these points up into smaller parts, just to save all from longwinded rants (see, I am thinking of others ).

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Coulter only referenced the Cole bombing only to point out there were zero indictments given under the Clinton administration concerning the attack. sorry, thats a true statement.

Do me a favor and tell me what color my patio umbrella is, please. Please don't guess - you should know.

You give up? Why did you have trouble? Could it be because you do not have enough information to make a valid conclusion?

Perhaps that might give you a bit of insight as to why Coulter's claims are so laughable and highly misleading. Unless, of course, you or her can explain how we could indict anyone when your intelligence agencies don't know who it was until AFTER you left office.

And could you also ask that Coulter gal what Bush did with our intelligence conclusions of bin Laden being behind the attack PRIOR to 9/11? What did he do with that hot off the press info.?

quote:

didn't have to.

You mean, didn't want to.

quote:

i don't know did they? wasn't she grilled by the 9/11 commission about that?

How much grilling was mandated? That was kinda sorta a big document to ignore by this Administration, don't cha think?

quote:

i don't know, must not been a lie. what makes you think she was lying?

What did that silly little memo say on Aug. 1, 2001 to Bush?:

quote:

Bush "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." Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01

Those sources also indicate that in July of '01 this Administration had received information that the terrorists were exploring using airplanes as missiles.

Now are we going to define what "is" means and somehow wiggle out of this by saying that Condi somehow didn't come by this information? Are we going to assume she was telling the truth when she said she had no idea that airplanes could possibly be used as missiles?

quote:

why are you crying about this? there's no such thing as the "librul media" right?

Oh hell no! There's always been a librul media, as fur as Limbaugh and me are concerned, I reckon'. That's exactly why these folks in this Administration have been on their favorite channel so many times and have been taken to task about those touchy issues so many times in the same manner as Wallace tried to pigeonhole Clinton. It's why Tony Snow was so affective in cornering them so often, so much to the point that they loved being cornered so often that they decided to make him their Press Secretary.

Yep, nothin' to be cryin' 'bout har. Durn libruls control everything!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...