Condi is such a liar

[Sandman]

This whole separation of powers argument is such crap. If they really felt
that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all. She just doesn't
want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of lying and
is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.

She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her lies
with impunity.

[Lionel]

Sandman wrote:
> This whole separation of powers argument is such crap. If they really felt
> that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all. She just doesn't
> want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of lying and
> is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
>
> She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her lies
> with impunity.

In french we say Condi ment.
Condiment, a good one ! :o)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.

Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a matter
before.

If they really felt
> that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.

And then you would complain about that.

She just doesn't
> want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of lying
and
> is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
>
She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.

> She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her lies
> with impunity.
>

You can prove none of this of course as usual.
>
>
>

[Jacob Kramer]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message t>...
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
>
> Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a matter
> before.
>
> If they really felt
> > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
>
> And then you would complain about that.
>
> She just doesn't
> > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of lying
> and
> > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> >
> She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
>
> > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her lies
> > with impunity.
> >
>
> You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> >
> >
> >


"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat
information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
inside the United States."

Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04

"Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin
since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

--Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
> >
> > Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a
matter
> > before.
> >
> > If they really felt
> > > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
> >
> > And then you would complain about that.
> >
> > She just doesn't
> > > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of
lying
> > and
> > > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> > >
> > She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
> >
> > > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her
lies
> > > with impunity.
> > >
> >
> > You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
> historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat
> information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
> inside the United States."
>
> Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04
>
> "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
>
> Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin
> since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
> Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
> followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
> Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"
>
> "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
>
> --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001

As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
Bush was not President.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message >...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
> > >
> > > Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a
> matter
> > > before.
> > >
> > > If they really felt
> > > > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
> > >
> > > And then you would complain about that.
> > >
> > > She just doesn't
> > > > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of
> lying
> and
> > > > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> > > >
> > > She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
> > >
> > > > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout her
> lies
> > > > with impunity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
> > historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat
> > information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
> > inside the United States."
> >
> > Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04
> >
> > "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
> >
> > Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin
> > since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
> > Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
> > followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
> > Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"
> >
> > "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> > patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> > preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> > recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
> >
> > --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001
>
> As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> Bush was not President.

She said it wasn't a warning. It was a warning. What she meant was
that it was not a warning of a specific attack (also not true). But
it is characteristic of her that she dissembles in this way.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> > t>...
> > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a
> > matter
> > > > before.
> > > >
> > > > If they really felt
> > > > > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
> > > >
> > > > And then you would complain about that.
> > > >
> > > > She just doesn't
> > > > > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of
> > lying
> > and
> > > > > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> > > > >
> > > > She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
> > > >
> > > > > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout
her
> > lies
> > > > > with impunity.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
> > > historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat
> > > information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
> > > inside the United States."
> > >
> > > Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04
> > >
> > > "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
> > >
> > > Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin
> > > since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
> > > Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
> > > followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
> > > Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"
> > >
> > > "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> > > patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> > > preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> > > recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
> > >
> > > --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001
> >
> > As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> > I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> > at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> > Bush was not President.
>
> She said it wasn't a warning. It was a warning. What she meant was
> that it was not a warning of a specific attack (also not true). But
> it is characteristic of her that she dissembles in this way.

It was a general warning assembled from late 90's reports.
In 2002, Sen Bob Graham, who had seen it earlier, had
said the same thing. As amatter of fact, a number of Senators,
those on the intelligence panel, had seen it quite some time ago.

The most telling fact to me, regarding the polliticians
from BOTH parties, is that the threat of Al Queda
wasn't even mentionsed as a campaign issue, neither by
Bush nor by Gore. Prior to 9/11, there just wasn't a
mindset to do anything about this. And I mean there wasn't
a mindset in politicians, nor the press, nor the American populace
at large.

Of course, if Bush had taken effective steps, he would have been
roundly laughed at and criticized by the media and his
opponents. Geez, he couldn't even talk about increased
airport security of people of Arab background
AFTER 9/11 happened.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message >...
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a
> matter
> > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they really felt
> > > > > > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then you would complain about that.
> > > > >
> > > > > She just doesn't
> > > > > > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention of
> > > lying
> > > and
> > > > > > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> > > > > >
> > > > > She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
> > > > >
> > > > > > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to spout
> her
> lies
> > > > > > with impunity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
> > > > historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat
> > > > information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
> > > > inside the United States."
> > > >
> > > > Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04
> > > >
> > > > "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
> > > >
> > > > Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin
> > > > since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
> > > > Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
> > > > followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
> > > > Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"
> > > >
> > > > "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> > > > patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> > > > preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> > > > recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
> > > >
> > > > --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001
> > >
> > > As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> > > I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> > > at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> > > Bush was not President.
> >
> > She said it wasn't a warning. It was a warning. What she meant was
> > that it was not a warning of a specific attack (also not true). But
> > it is characteristic of her that she dissembles in this way.
>
> It was a general warning assembled from late 90's reports.

"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States."

Rice, before the commission, 4/8/04

Explain.

> In 2002, Sen Bob Graham, who had seen it earlier, had
> said the same thing. As amatter of fact, a number of Senators,
> those on the intelligence panel, had seen it quite some time ago.
>
> The most telling fact to me, regarding the polliticians
> from BOTH parties, is that the threat of Al Queda
> wasn't even mentionsed as a campaign issue, neither by
> Bush nor by Gore. Prior to 9/11, there just wasn't a
> mindset to do anything about this. And I mean there wasn't
> a mindset in politicians, nor the press, nor the American populace
> at large.
>
> Of course, if Bush had taken effective steps, he would have been
> roundly laughed at and criticized by the media and his
> opponents. Geez, he couldn't even talk about increased
> airport security of people of Arab background
> AFTER 9/11 happened.

[Jacob Kramer]

> > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > om...

> > > > > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States.

> > > > > Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04

> > > > >
> > > > > "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

> > > > > "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> > > > > patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> > > > > preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> > > > > recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
> > > > >
> > > > > --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001


Rice sounds downright candid compared to this pathological liar:

"That PDB said nothing about an attack on America."

--George W. Bush, April 11, 2004

<http://play.rbn.com/?url=ap/nynyt/g2demand/0411bush_911_SS.rm&proto=rtsp&mode=compact>

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> > > t>...
> > > > > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > This whole separation of powers argument is such crap.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong, no person in her position has ever had to testify in such a
> > > matter
> > > > > before.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they really felt
> > > > > > that way, she wouldn't meet with the commission at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > And then you would complain about that.
> > > > >
> > > > > She just doesn't
> > > > > > want to go under oath because she knows she has every intention
of
> > > lying
> > > and
> > > > > > is afraid of winding up in jail for perjury.
> > > > > >
> > > > > She said before she fianlly testified that she wouold like to.
> > > > >
> > > > > > She prefers the talk show/morning show/Faux News outlets to
spout
> her
> > > lies
> > > > > > with impunity.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can prove none of this of course as usual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was
> > > > historical information based on old reporting. There was no new
threat
> > > > information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks
> > > > inside the United States."
> > > >
> > > > Condoleeza Rice, before the 9/11 commission, 4/8/04
> > > >
> > > > "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
> > > >
> > > > Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin
Ladin
> > > > since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin
> > > > Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his
> > > > followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber
Ramzi
> > > > Yousef and 'bring the fighting to America....'"
> > > >
> > > > "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time [1998] indicates
> > > > patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with
> > > > preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including
> > > > recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
> > > >
> > > > --Presidential Daily Brief for August 6, 2001
> > >
> > > As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> > > I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> > > at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> > > Bush was not President.
> >
> > She said it wasn't a warning. It was a warning. What she meant was
> > that it was not a warning of a specific attack (also not true). But
> > it is characteristic of her that she dissembles in this way.
>
> It was a general warning assembled from late 90's reports.
> In 2002, Sen Bob Graham, who had seen it earlier, had
> said the same thing. As amatter of fact, a number of Senators,
> those on the intelligence panel, had seen it quite some time ago.
>
> The most telling fact to me, regarding the polliticians
> from BOTH parties, is that the threat of Al Queda
> wasn't even mentionsed as a campaign issue, neither by
> Bush nor by Gore. Prior to 9/11, there just wasn't a
> mindset to do anything about this. And I mean there wasn't
> a mindset in politicians, nor the press, nor the American populace
> at large.
>
> Of course, if Bush had taken effective steps, he would have been
> roundly laughed at and criticized by the media and his
> opponents. Geez, he couldn't even talk about increased
> airport security of people of Arab background
> AFTER 9/11 happened.
>
>
Indeed. Remember the recommendations that were done by some commission or
other that Gore headed up on airport security improvements? None were
enacted.

[Michael McKelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> > I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> > at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> > Bush was not President.
>
> It's not a question of throwing stones. The point is to embarass the
> hell out of an incompetent boob so he and his carpetbagger friends will
> get the hell out of D.C.
>
>
>
I saw nothing in the PDB that even mentions John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy.

[Jacob Kramer]

(Jacob Kramer) wrote in message >...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message >...

> > It was a general warning assembled from late 90's reports.
>
> "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States."
>
> Rice, before the commission, 4/8/04

Hey Mikey, why don't you respond to this contradiction?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Jacob Kramer) wrote in message
>...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > It was a general warning assembled from late 90's reports.
> >
> > "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States."
> >
> > Rice, before the commission, 4/8/04
>
> Hey Mikey, why don't you respond to this contradiction?

[Jim-Ed Browne]

> > > As she said, it was a historical synopsis.
> > > I don't think Dems and Reps should be throwing stones
> > > at each other, but from 1997 throught January, 2001,
> > > Bush was not President.
> >
> > It's not a question of throwing stones. The point is to embarass the
> > hell out of an incompetent boob so he and his carpetbagger friends will
> > get the hell out of D.C.
>

Just imagine in your mind, Condi and Rocco in the movies. Condi
making those Whoopi Goldberg faces to the cheesy soundtrack and the
thocka-thocka-thocka of Mr. Siffredi's...