Dr. Rice owns O'donnell

Gunner

Potential Star
Registered
An epic interview from the former Secretary of State in a vigorous defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq. If only Bush Administration officials had argued this effectively when they were in the White House.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TCOMX5OCFwQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You see it as Rice owing O'Donnell? I saw it as Rice not answering one damn question directly. GW couldn't make the argument because all of the evidence was circumstantial and the GW administration weighted it toward attacking Iraq. And when their was any descent the GW administration destroyed any opposition (see Valerie Plame). Definitely different world views.
 
Last edited:
in4h78.png


For GOP, It's Rice to the Rescue on Bin Laden


ilnkc0.jpg


http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002177.htm

May 6, 2011


<br>As their massive mobilization in response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden shows, nobody circles the wagons like the Republican Party. And that goes double for Team Bush. Confronting President Obama's success where George W. Bush failed to deliver Bin Laden either dead or alive, torture architect John Yoo and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey quickly penned op-eds proclaiming &quot;the waterboarding trail to Bin Laden.&quot; But with President Obama in the spotlight at Ground Zero on Thursday, Republicans turned to the kinder, gentler Condoleezza Rice to make the case that it was her boss who deserves the credit for &quot;having taken the really tough decisions that put the infrastructure in place to do this.&quot;

As it turns out, Condi Rice is an odd choice to rewrite the history of George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. After all, from her pathetic performance before the 9/11 Commission and myriad policy failures to her dissembling over Saddam's nonexistent WMD and mythical links to Al Qaeda, <em>Condoleezza Rice is the embodiment of the Bush administration's deceptive cheerleading gone horribly wrong</em>.
<br>That cheerleading was on display Tuesday when the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State explained to Fox News that President Obama could never match George W. Bush's &quot;bullhorn speech&quot; at Ground Zero:
<blockquote><em>"President Bush had at Ground Zero probably the most important moment maybe in American history."</em></blockquote>
But with President Obama in Lower Manhattan Thursday to honor 9/11 families and first responders, Condi Rice took to the airwaves to give credit where it wasn't due. On CNN, she insisted that President Bush didn't merely &quot;put the infrastructure in place to do this,&quot; but that the Bush administration's regime of detainee torture was responsible for Bin Laden's death eight years later:
<blockquote><em>&quot;We just sit and talk about the people and remember the day, actually, that Mike Hayden came in to say that they knew now about this courier and they were following the leads. He had a brother and it all kind of comes flooding back.</em></blockquote>
She told CNN's Anderson Cooper that the Bush administration learned about Bin Laden's courier in 2007 and then explained how:
<blockquote>&quot;There's no doubt that the information that was gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and al-Libi and others and contributed to this day and, so I know there was a lot of controversy around these issues but the controversy I would have been worried about is if people had said you didn't do everything you could do and President Bush at the time said, 'I want to do everything that I can that is within the law and is necessary.'&quot;</blockquote>
Then in a combative interview with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Rice regurgitated her old talking points for justifying the war in Iraq that diverted resources and attention from the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
<blockquote><em>&quot;If one looks at what happened to us on September 11th, we didn't connect the dots, there was a threat materializing that we didn't respond to. Saddam Hussein had been a threat from the time that he invaded Iran in the late 1980s through 1991, when in fact he went into Kuwait, dragging us into war. We thought he had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. And in a context in which terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was a nexus that we could not allow, we decided that this was a threat that had to be dealt with.&quot;</em></blockquote>
Unlike the real threat to the United States, which from the earliest days of the Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice and her boss blissfully ignored.
<br>On August 6th, 2001, a vacationing President George W. Bush received the infamous Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) warning of Al Qaeda's intent to attack the U.S. homeland. His response to his CIA briefer?
<blockquote><em>&quot;All right. You've covered your ass, now.&quot;</em></blockquote>
That would be the same PDB about which Condoleezza Rice was quizzed by the 9/11 Commission three years later:
<blockquote><em>BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
<br>RICE: I believe the title was, &quot;Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.&quot;
</em></blockquote>
On March 22, 2004, Rice took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post to argue, &quot;No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration.&quot; And in an argument she would later make repeatedly, Rice first introduced the Bush administration's soon-to-be ubiquitous &quot;nobody could have predicted&quot; defense on May 16, 2002:
<blockquote><em>&quot;I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.&quot; </em></blockquote>
As it turns out, then National Security Adviser Rice was misleading the American people on all counts.
<br>While Rice claimed, &quot;I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would...try to use an airplane as a missile,&quot; counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had anticipated exactly that. More alarming still, the plan he presented to Rice in January 2001 only became the subject of a national security &quot;principals meeting&quot; in the days just before September 11. (Bush, you'll recall, spent the previous month at his Crawford, Texas ranch agonizing about his policy on stem cell research which his adviser Karen Hughes described at the time as &quot;the most important decision of your presidency.&quot;) It's no wonder Sandy Berger told Rice during the transition that &quot;I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.&quot;
<br>Berger, as events would show, was wrong. It was Iraq which starting in the immediate aftermath would dominate the Bush administration.
<br>Condoleezza Rice didn't just peddle bogus intelligence claims about Iraq's &quot;nuclear tubes.&quot; She became a primary propagator of the Republican myth that Saddam was tied to the 9/11 attacks.
<br>In a major address on October 7, 2002, President Bush warned, &quot;America must not ignore the threat gathering against us,&quot; adding, &quot;Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.&quot;

But it was Condi Rice who introduced that talking point a month earlier:
<blockquote><em>&quot;We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.
<br>The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.&quot;
</em></blockquote>
On April 22, 2003, Washington Post columnist and Fox News regular Charles Krauthammer created a now-abandoned credibility test for the Bush administration and WMD:
<blockquote><em>&quot;Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.&quot;</em></blockquote>
A credibility problem, indeed. Just not one George W. Bush, Condi Rice, Karl Rove or the others who warned of Saddam's WMD ever owned up to.
<br>Sadly, Rice's mythmaking hardly ends there. She also played a central role in perpetuating the GOP's zombie myth about Saddam's ties to Osama Bin Laden.
<br>Zombie, that is, because it will never die. As late as March 2009, former press secretary Ari Fleischer insisted:
<blockquote><em>&quot;After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed.&quot;</em></blockquote>
Pressed by Charlie Rose a week later, Rice played dumb about the Bush administration's past claims about 9/11 and Iraq:
<blockquote><em>ROSE: But you didn't believe it had anything to do with 9/11.
<br>RICE: No. No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.
<br>ROSE: No one.
<br>RICE: I was certainly not. The President was certainly not. ... That's right. We were not arguing that.
</em></blockquote>
Of course, that's precisely what Rice and the mouthpieces of the Bush administration were arguing. As ThinkProgress documented in March 2009:
<blockquote><em>In his book, Bush At War, Bob Woodward noted that Bush said after 9/11, &quot;I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now.&quot; Rice was no exception either. On Sept. 15, 2002, she said that Saddam had &quot;links to terrorism [that] would include al-Qaeda.&quot; As late as September 2006, she remarked, &quot;there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade.&quot; Cheney still believes there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.</em></blockquote>
Rice's pathetic talking points go on and on. In September 2006, Secretary Rice tried to defend the chaos and carnage in Iraq by drawing parallels to the American Civil War, a forerunner the &quot;Bush as Lincoln&quot; meme jointly manufactured by the White House and Fox News. As MSNBC recounted, Rice told the predominantly African-American readership of Essence magazine that the invasion of Iraq was &quot;absolutely&quot; worth the costs in blood and treasure:
<blockquote><em>Rice then offered a parallel between critics of the administration's Iraq policies and &quot;people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War (in this country) to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold.&quot;
<br>&quot;I'm sure that there were people who said, &quot;why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves.&quot;
</em></blockquote>
In her defense, Condi Rice is not without her moments of candor. After the Bush administration's push for Palestinian elections which produced an overwhelming victory for Hamas, Secretary Rice admitted that, in essence, the Bush White House didn't know what it was doing:
<blockquote><em>&quot;I've asked why nobody saw it coming,&quot; Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. &quot;It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse.&quot;</em></blockquote>
While Condoleezza Rice rushed to the front lines of the Republican campaign to credit George W. Bush for the elimination of Osama Bin Laden, it's worth remembering that she once spoke the truth. As she acknowledged about the Iraq war in 2006:
<blockquote><em>&quot;I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure. I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration.&quot;</em></blockquote>
On that point - and perhaps that point alone - Condoleezza Rice was telling the truth.
</body>

 
Condi had a strong logic:

She repeated the same excuses from then, b/c that was the information they had then.

Lawrence should have challenged her premises, such as:

1.) Her talking about Saddam as though the U.S. and Brittan didn't install him as an 'Arab facade.'

2.) Her talking about the invasion of Iran as establishing Saddam as unpredictable as though he wasn't following American and British orders, with American weapons, to counter the revolutionary government that ousted the Shah.

3.) How she tried to establish Saddam as a threat citing the security council resolutions, in spite of the fact that the U.S. increased their support for him after things like his use of poison gas.

4.) The Bush administration's certainty that he had WMDs being based on the fact that we tried to give him chemical and nuclear WMDs.

She had a nickname in the Bush white house as 'the un-sticker,' they didn't call her that for nothing.
 
did Condi mention how bush pretty much insinuated the finding bin laden wasnt important to him

did she mention the family ties between bush and the bin laden family, the same family where osamas money was coming from...

just foolishness, its really all just one big game....

jesse ventura wouldve done a much better job, interviewing codi rice...

much fuckn better....

Or the late Tim Russel there was no better political interviewer, EVER!
 
Dr. Rice owns O'donnell

An epic interview from the former Secretary of State in a vigorous defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq. If only Bush Administration officials had argued this effectively when they were in the White House.

This idea of "owning" is interested.

I've defended Condoleeza Rice on this board numerous of times but could you please tell us, in your words, how did Condi own the reporter in the video above.

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to pin her down on the prior inconsistent statements that she and George have made in the past with respect to invading Iraq ???

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to get her to answer the questions he asked; and unable to prevent her from answering the questions that she asked, instead ??? or

  • Was it because the answers she gave to the questions she asked were more convincing to you than the truth, as we know it today ???

In other words, does "ownage" have more to do with what it looks like, or, what it is ???

QueEx
 
<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=42924561^6600^295200&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc4e6fee" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=42924561^6600^295200&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
 
Sounds like O'Donnell and Maddow read my post before they did that video.
 
This idea of "owning" is interested.

I've defended Condoleeza Rice on this board numerous of times but could you please tell us, in your words, how did Condi own the reporter in the video above.

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to pin her down on the prior inconsistent statements that she and George have made in the past with respect to invading Iraq ???

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to get her to answer the questions he asked; and unable to prevent her from answering the questions that she asked, instead ??? or

  • Was it because the answers she gave to the questions she asked were more convincing to you than the truth, as we know it today ???

In other words, does "ownage" have more to do with what it looks like, or, what it is ???

QueEx

I would have to go with this one:

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to get her to answer the questions he asked; and unable to prevent her from answering the questions that she asked, instead ??? or

His questions were very misleading to the viewer. He was attempting to author an op-ed during an interview. She never waffled like most politicians. FYI she had her first degree at 19.

My Discourse:
The truth is paramount. I've watched many debates over the years and have yet to see in my humble opinion the skill in which Dr. Rice, Bill Clinton and Reagan possess. Which is to not back down when they are engaged on the tuff questions.
For example, with Clinton during the Monica fiasco. Even through the toughest questions he controlled the line of questioning. " All depend on what the definition of is is.

Many of these talking heads O'Reilly, Hannity, Man-Dow etal try to over talk their guests. Over talking someone doesn't make you right by any chance. Which is why I can't stand many of these hosts for more than 15min. The moment she was able to get him out of attack mode and forced him to have a conversation on her terms he was done. She even rephrased some of his own questions and he couldn't even answer them himself.

When Obama ordered the mission to take place on Osama I supported his decision. His job was to protect us against foreign threats. I WILL NOT EVER SUPPORT ANY POLITICIAN THOUGHTS EVEN IF THEY ARE A PERSON ON THE RIGHT SECOND GUESSING ANY SITTING PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY PERIOD.. Terrorist only have to be right one time. If the plan fails, oh well they will try again later. The president has to be right everyday. Everyday they have to get updates on all sorts of threats to this country. Three thousand Americans perished!!! Many jumped from those towers from the fear of being burned alive. How does one forget this over time alone?

Dr. Rice and others reacted on the information available to them at the time. Hillary, Gore and Clinton and a host of others believed he was a threat. She skillfully defused O'Donnell whom is an admitted socialist. His words

Al Gore
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fFBl0fnMUVc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Condi had a strong logic:

She repeated the same excuses from then, b/c that was the information they had then.

Lawrence should have challenged her premises, such as:

1.) Her talking about Saddam as though the U.S. and Brittan didn't install him as an 'Arab facade.'

2.) Her talking about the invasion of Iran as establishing Saddam as unpredictable as though he wasn't following American and British orders, with American weapons, to counter the revolutionary government that ousted the Shah.

3.) How she tried to establish Saddam as a threat citing the security council resolutions, in spite of the fact that the U.S. increased their support for him after things like his use of poison gas.

4.) The Bush administration's certainty that he had WMDs being based on the fact that we tried to give him chemical and nuclear WMDs.

She had a nickname in the Bush white house as 'the un-sticker,' they didn't call her that for nothing.

All of your points are great.
 
I would have to go with this one:

  • Was it because the reporter was unable to get her to answer the questions he asked; and unable to prevent her from answering the questions that she asked, instead ??? or

I wouldn't disagree, though I think all of the above would have been the most appropriate response.


His questions were very misleading to the viewer. He was attempting to author an op-ed during an interview. She never waffled like most politicians.
If the she felt the question was misleading, why not point out exactly why it was misleading and ask the interviewer to rephrase the question, without being misleading. Condi didn't do that. She tended to simply ignore the question while giving the spiel that she wanted to give, the question notwithstanding.


FYI she had her first degree at 19.

AND? The questions posed by O'Donnell didn't require a degree in order to respond. The answer only need be (1) the truth; and (2) responsive to the question. She wholly failed, especially in regards to the second element.


My Discourse:

The truth is paramount. I've watched many debates over the years and have yet to see in my humble opinion the skill in which Dr. Rice, Bill Clinton and Reagan possess. Which is to not back down when they are engaged on the tuff questions.
For example, with Clinton during the Monica fiasco. Even through the toughest questions he controlled the line of questioning. " All depend on what the definition of is is.
In all due respects, what you're pointing out is merely the skill with which one "avoids" the issue. Neither Bill Clinton or Condi Rice with respect to the O'Donnel interview -- were interested in the truth. You didn't give a specific situation for Reagan but with respect to Monica and Bill and Condi and O'Donnell, both were emphatically engaged in avoiding the questions so that they could avoid, the truth.

Plain and simple: Am I right or wrong ???


Many of these talking heads O'Reilly, Hannity, Man-Dow etal try to over talk their guests. Over talking someone doesn't make you right by any chance. Which is why I can't stand many of these hosts for more than 15min. The moment she was able to get him out of attack mode and forced him to have a conversation on her terms he was done. She even rephrased some of his own questions and he couldn't even answer them himself.

I agree with your "over talk their guests" theory, but I disagree with your statement that "The moment she was able to get him out of attack mode and forced him to have a conversation on her terms he [O'Donnell] was done."

On the contrary, Condi was simply avoiding the questions. No matter how skillful or adroitly she appeared to accomplish that task, she came out looking like a liar. Personally, I really love it when witnesses try to "takeover" the Q and A exchange. It is at that time that their banter leaves on-lookers (i.e., jurors) with a glimpse into the witness' personality that the witness is really NOT aware that he/she is sharing. In fact, while the witness is so focused on taking-over the question/answer, he/she is unaware that the on-lookers are shaking their heads in disbelief at both (a) the witness' behavior and (b) the incredible testimony that the witness is giving.

Thats why I don't see any ownage, as you call it. I saw a chick whose aggressive avoidance made her look like she was spinning disinformation.


Dr. Rice and others reacted on the information available to them at the time. Hillary, Gore and Clinton and a host of others believed he was a threat.

Again, I respectfully disagree and would further assert that the record simply does not bear that statement to be true. Moreover, the only way that Condi can make most of her statements to be true is to engage in a bit of sophisticated re-writing of the historical facts.


She skillfully defused O'Donnell whom is an admitted socialist. His words

I don't know whether O'Donnell is a socialist or not. Quite frankly, whether or not he is a socialist is plainly and simply not relevant to anything in the interview.

Assuming that you're not a socialist; would it make a difference if YOU asked the same questions ? I suggest not. Condoleeza would have avoided your questions just the same. It wasn't a socialist that she was avoiding. It was his pointed questions.

QueEx
 
She skillfully defused O'Donnell whom is an admitted socialist. His words

Wait, what? Do you even know what "socialism" is? Or are you just repeating it as an epithet and shibboleth without understanding what it is and what informed its formation and development?

But before I deal with that, I'll say that Dr. Rice (who I'd just love to fuck and show her what a talented tongue I have - I speak different languages, get your mind out of the gutter) has had plenty of time to get her story right.

It is a fact that when George Bush Sr ordered Coalition troops to stop north of Basra in 1991, within days a group of conservatives, led by Paul Wolfowitz began to challenge the wisdom of that decision. To have gone further, Colin Powell argued, would violate UN Security Council resolutions 1440 and 1441. Within days, full page adverts were published, full of names that would re-appear in February 2001 as cabinet members and senior staff in the White House and Pentagon. Few were at State. I'm talking Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, I'm talking people like Krauthammer and others who kept the fire lit for ten years in the media.

Despite a bit of wavering like Cheney appearing on C-Span in 1994 (when Clinton appeared ready to really strike at Saddam) and saying the magic words of "quagmire" and that the Baathists' would unleash terrorism, they have followed that line ever since 1991

It is clear, Saddam and the Baath Party of Iraq gave sanctuary to terrorists - just not al Qaeda terrorists. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - led by a Christian - and other PLO affiliated groups had sanctuary in Baghdad. Zarqarwi was in Iraq for about a year before the war, but it was in an area in mountains away from Saddam's control.

It is clear, that the United Nations mechanism for finding nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in any country in the world had been successful in finding Saddam's program. IAEA worked tirelessly from March 1991 until after the war. They found quite a bit and destroyed it in the first six months after the war. Scott Ritter and Mohamed el-Baradei have testified about their work. It's on the record: IAEA believed they had found EVERYTHING, but wanted to continue searching for evidence of a restarted program.

We know that the Baath party is a secular party and is the sworn enemy of Salfist groups, the main one being al Qaida as started by Abdullah Azzam. Any alliance between the Baathists and al Qaida is tenuous - only until after the US invaded in March of 2003.

Dr. Rice is wrong and has had a lot of time to practice defending a policy that has seen nearly 5,000 US troops die in Iraq. I hope she sleeps in peace.


Now to "socialism" - are you saying that socialism is a bad thing? If it wasn't for socialism, Africans would still be enslaved in the western hemisphere, there would still be colonies around the world, women would have no rights, most black men would not have voting rights, most white men - for that matter- would not be able to vote in most countries. If it wasn't for socialism, education would still be limited to only rich people, there wouldn't be free education up to the late teens and children would be exempt from most forms of work until after age 16 or more. If it wasn't for socialism, the death rate would be astronomical - no vaccinations for newborns, no prenatal care, no health care, no social assistance for people who are down on their luck. No assistance for the elderly, none for their medical care, none for their food and nothing for when they become feeble.

Socialists were the leaders of the movement for all of these things which have come down to us over the past 200 years. It was the conservatives who were against each and every one of those things, and the Tea Party is only the most recent expression of conservative hostility toward the majority of the people. When they threw "socialist" at Barack Hussein Obama, they knew exactly what they were doing.

So when you throw that back at Lawrence O'Donnell, understand what you're doing: You're saying it's a good thing for six year olds to be sent to work...

In otherwords: We're all socialists!
 

Condoleeza Rice's comments regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD threat which was the stated basis for the invasion of Iraq and her attempts now to shift the justification for the invasion away from WMD troubled me. They troubled me because I remember very well that some of the things she is now claiming as a basis for the invasion were rejected by members of the Bush Administration, before the walk-up to the invasion.

Condoleeza's comments troubled me enough until I thought I would listen again to her comments and do my own transcript of her words so that I could compare her words now with the words of Bush Administration personnel that were posted on this board back in the day (some of which was posted by yours truly).

Here is my transcript from the O'Donnell - Rice interview above, beginning at the 5:44 mark:


Odonnell: "40,000 casualties later in Iraq, 4,400 military, American military, deaths in Iraq later, would you say that is the single biggest miscalculation that the Bush admininstration made that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped by those military men who went in there and found no weapons of mass destruction.

Rice: Saddam Hussein was a threat, he had used weapons of mass destruction . . .

O'Donnell: but we now know that he wasn’t a threat . . .

Rice: Lawrence are we going to this with my answers, or your commentary

O’Donnell: nods (go ahead)

Rice: We have not focused on the fact, you have not focused on the fact, that Saddam Hussein had been a threat to the United States of American to the Middle East, since he invaded Iran. Now, we made the wrong call then and we supported him against Iran, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">he then became a more monstrous threat, after 1991 shooting at our aircraft, ah, in the no fly zone that was supposed to be keeping his airforce on the ground</span>, trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">breaking out of his sanctions through the scandalous oil for food program, yes, he was a threat, with or without mature weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat</span> and nothing of value is every won without sacrifice. Of course the lives lost will never be brought back – – but in Iraq that is not a threat to invade his neighbors, not a threat to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, not a threat to play Palestinian terrorists as suicide bombers – thats going to be a better Iraq and a better Middle East – and so in fact I think that what we did in Iraq will be demonstrated by history to be an important part, an important pillar, of a new Middle East.

O’Donnell: well I think history demonstrates that Iraq presented absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever . . .

Rice: That would be a surprise to the 16 Security Counsel resolutions that called him a threat to international peace - - that would be a surprise to Kurds who he gassed and the Iranians who he gassed and the people in the south of his country who he gassed, it would be a surprise to the CIA that considered him a massive threat to international peace and security . . .”

O’Donnell: You think he was a threat to Kuwait, you think he was threat to the Kurds; do you think he was a threat to New Yorkers, like bin Laden was ?

Rice: Lawrence, you obviously have a different view than the UN Security Council, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">you obviously have a very different view than those people who were flying the no fly zones like the soldier whose in my class Stanford who was shot at by Saddam Hussein;</span> so you may not view him as a threat but most of the world did.”


Now, consider the following posts from the thread, Liberal Media?, White-Out of bush’s Impeachable Offense!!!:


<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=424005&postcount=45" WIDTH=700 HEIGHT=900>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=424005&postcount=45">link</A>

</IFRAME>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=425212&postcount=57" WIDTH=700 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=425212&postcount=57">link</A>

</IFRAME>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=425245&postcount=58" WIDTH=700 HEIGHT=500>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=425245&postcount=58">link</A>

</IFRAME>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=441347&postcount=72" WIDTH=700 HEIGHT=700>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=441347&postcount=72">link</A>

</IFRAME>

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=442422&postcount=74" WIDTH=700 HEIGHT=700>
<A HREF="http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=442422&postcount=74">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

Who got owned?
- Lawrence O'Donnell, or

- Those who are now following Rice's shifting sands ???​

:confused: :confused: :confused:

QueEx


P.S.

Instead of using the term "Owned", personally, I think a better word is "Duped"

What do you think?

 
<font color="#FF0000" face="Arial Black" size="6">"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."</font><br>- <br>
<b><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF">George W. Bush, March 2002</b></font><div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://i.min.us/inpqQ4.jpg" align="right"></div>

Still alive TIME magazine link
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm




"Fuck Saddam. we're taking him out."
Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and <b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.</span></b>

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; <b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Rice flashed a knowing smile.</b></span> The President left the room....


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/timep.saddam.tm


<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr>
 
you obviously didn't watch the full interview. rice didn't even come CLOSE to 'owning' o'donnell. her entire 'we can end this interview right now' line was :lol:

u only threaten to end an interview when none of the go-to canned answers you're used to giving suddenly aren't working.

she and the rest of that ridiculous w. bush administration still owes the people an apology for being so reckless with american lives and wealth
 
icejm6.jpg



This thread is about Condi Rice’s continuing shameless sophistry about - “Why the US invaded & permanently has occupied Iraq”.

Some peeps even at-this-late date, 2011, are still befuddled (primarily willful ignorance) about why the Cheney-BuShit regime sent the US military into Iraq; despite Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11.

Thousands of dead & permanently maimed US troops, hundreds-of-thousands of dead and displaced Iraqis, Trillions of US dollars spent in an invasion & occupation that had nothing to do with WMD, or democracy, but had everything to do with capturing oil reserves for ‘Big Oil’.

General Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, holds no truth back as he is interviewed (May 2011) on US television about the Cheney-BuShit dismal foreign policy failings and why the US will never leave Iraq. <b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Wilkerson says that the Cheney-BuShit administration invaded Iraq to control its huge oil resources and that Dick Cheney was the de facto President of the United States due to the stupidity and ignorance of baby Bush</b></span>

Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur that Iraq’s oil report this month (May 2011) has projected it has as much as 300 billion barrels of oil, which dwarfs the amount of oil Saudi Arabia harbors.

<b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">“The President was not steeped in much of anything. Certainly not foreign policy,” said Wilkerson. He says that "Bush did not have executive ability" and Vice President Cheney did, therefore Cheney became US President in the first Cheney-BuShit term.</b></span>

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/BGASfcNTVbM?version=3[/FLASH]

No one will sue Colonel Wilkerson for misrepresentation (lies) or slander; he just straight–up told the truth that sad-to-say a significant percentage of Americans like Condi just can’t deal with, because it exposes their incessant lying and propagandizing.


<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="6"></hr>
 
Last edited:

I was searching for an old thread on Black landowners when I ran across this thread.

Then I noticed, Gunner you never replied. :(


 
Back
Top