Reply
Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:59 am
Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security advisor, is introduced as a former "Provost of Stanford University."
Whoa -- how impressive this sounds. Are you impressed? I am.
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nybres283726042mar28,0,2994047.column
It turns that as provost, she was in charge of assigning lecture halls!
If they were for decent right wing visiting lecturers, they were given good halls. A liberal had to speak with one foot in the bay. A Stanford scientist brought out Paul Glimscher from NYU to lecture. Rice found him to be a dastardly New York liberal and they couldn't get a place for three days.
I think you left out a few qualifications:
Condoleezza Rice
Born: 11/14/1954
Birthplace: Birmingham, Alabama
Rice became National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush in 2001. Rice received a BA in political science from the University of Denver at age 19, followed by an MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, and a PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. An expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, she began teaching political science at Stanford University in 1981. From 1989 to 1991 she advised the Bush administration on foreign policy and military issues, including the unification of Germany and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Rice later returned to Stanford, and was named provost, the university's budget and academic official, in 1993. In 1999 she took a leave of absence to advise the Bush campaign. Author of several books on foreign policy, Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and holds honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.
Titus wrote:She should've stuck to assigning lecture halls and giving speeches about a country that no longer exists (the USSR) because she makes a dreadful liar. 
Could you please tell me what she lied about? I am unaware of any such event.
In the spirit of ad hoc topics, let's stick to just one: pre-9/11 intelligence and what her boss did or didn't do with it?
Titus wrote:In the spirit of ad hoc topics, let's stick to just one: pre-9/11 intelligence and what her boss did or didn't do with it?
Please reference a statement she made that is a lie. And please, no more vague generalities - a specific statement.
In an opinion piece in The Washington Post on March 22, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."
Specific enough for you? Or do you need a safe to drop on your head?
Titus wrote:In an opinion piece in The Washington Post on March 22, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."
Specific enough for you? Or do you need a safe to drop on your head?
I think you forgot the step where you prove she was lying.
Brandon9000 wrote:I think you left out a few qualifications:
Condoleezza Rice
Born: 11/14/1954
Birthplace: Birmingham, Alabama
Rice became National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush in 2001. Rice received a BA in political science from the University of Denver at age 19, followed by an MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame in 1975, and a PhD from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. An expert on Russia and Eastern Europe, she began teaching political science at Stanford University in 1981. From 1989 to 1991 she advised the Bush administration on foreign policy and military issues, including the unification of Germany and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Rice later returned to Stanford, and was named provost, the university's budget and academic official, in 1993. In 1999 she took a leave of absence to advise the Bush campaign. Author of several books on foreign policy, Rice is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and holds honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, and the University of Notre Dame.
Excellent summary, Brandon!
Miller wrote:Excellent summary, Brandon!
Can't claim the credit. I got it from some Web site.
brandon:
I guess you need the safe dropped on your head after all.
Condoleezza Rice always is introduced as a former provost of Stanford University. You can't get anything to sound much better. Provost! She must be in charge of science you can't even imagine. Ancient literature. Anything ancient. If it is impossible to understand, she knows it.
It turns that as provost she was in charge of assigning lecture halls. If they were for decent right wing visiting lecturers, they were given good halls. A liberal had to speak with one foot in the bay. A Stanford scientist brought out Paul Glimscher from NYU to lecture. Rice found him to be a dastardly New York liberal and they couldn't get a place for three days.
She is now in the White House squalling that Clarke is a liar. If she knows anything about history, she might recognize Clarke as the new Whitaker Chambers. You could look it up.
Titus wrote:brandon:
I guess you need the safe dropped on your head after all.
I take it then that after calling her a liar, you are unable to provide even one example of a lie she told?
Brandon, Brandon, Brandon, what are we going to do with cha'?
I provided a Condi lie and in writing and in her own words, but you chose not to accept it.
You site her being a "provost" as your example of her lying? Is that what you are referring to?
Titus wrote:Brandon, Brandon, Brandon, what are we going to do with cha'?
I provided a Condi lie and in writing and in her own words, but you chose not to accept it.
You provided a quotation, but failed to show - in fact didn't even try to show - that she was lying.
This is so simple I almost can't believe that I have to spell it out. Having called her a liar, I am asking you to give an example of something she said and show that it was a lie. Just one will be sufficient.
Here are just a couple of links, Brandon9000-
There are a LOT more, but I am not a good "source er" , sorry
However, the numerous "cues" the government ignored, tells me-
At least SOME of them had to cross Rice's desk!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/013004randyglass.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/wtc_targeted_on_1999_fema_terror_book.htm
Here is another CNN archive I found on Bushwatch:
HOTLINE...AP NEWS FLASHES...CNN STORIES
DISASTER PICTURES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who attacked the World Trade Centre?
Special report: terrorism in the US
Staff and agencies
Tuesday September 11, 2001
The Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden, warned three weeks ago that his group would carry out an unprecedented attack on US interests for its support of Israel, an Arab journalist said today. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, said Islamic fundamentalists led by bin Laden were "almost certainly" behind the attack of the World Trade Centre.
"It is most likely the work of Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he would attack American interests in an unprecedented attack, a very big one," Mr Atwan said. "Personally we received information that he planned very, very big attacks against American interests. We received several warnings like this. We did not take it so seriously, preferring to see what would happen before reporting it."
<<<<you see Brandon9000, the administration heard lots and lots,
but they are unwilling to admit that they were not very concerned a large group of citizens would be killed. The LEAST they could do is admit there were a LOT of 'hints' out there, and they may not have been able to stop it, even if they were posted in every major travel station or terminal in the US, and at every major government building being mentioned.
I wonder sometimes if C. Rice knows her job, and realizes it is more than private meetings where they 'kick around' speculation--- and plot which sentences to air publicly. I have little confidence in this administration.>>>
Interesting, Jackie, and worth discussing, but what I am looking for here is any example at all of a statement Rice made, followed by some kind of specific demonstration or indication that she was lying. Surely, if someone calls someone else a liar, they must be prepared to do at least this much.
It will be interesting, Brandon, to see how Condoleeza's testimony before the Commission plays out--- April 8.
I have been reading the home front of MSNBC and copied a bit here:
Bush confident of Rice 9/11 testimony
Condoleeza Rice's testimony on Thursday was assured only after Bush changed course last week under pressure and decided to allow her to appear publicly and under oath. She has testified in a private session in February.
"She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place and will lay out the facts," Bush told reporters while on an economic and fund-raising trip to North Carolina.
"That's what the commission's job is meant to do and that's what the American people want to see and I'm looking forward to people hearing her."
Bush said he was looking forward to his own meeting with the commission, a joint session with Vice President Dick Cheney that will be private.
President previews testimonyPerhaps the reason we cannot satisfy your insistence upon an answer that is 'in and of itself, a lie'..... is due to the WORDING in statements from the administration. Spin, spin.
Notice how Bush says 'what is important for them to hear' instead of 'what is important for us to prove to the citizens'----
...then he goes on to say, "when I realized the stakes had changed...."
What???
They can KILL and Kill, just so they don't do it on USA soil? Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but it seemed to me Al Qaida had been trying all along to kill as many American citizens and military as they could---(re: barracks in Saudi Arabia, USS Cole...) but all of a sudden, the stakes have changed?? After all that has been SAID from 1999 on.... that there would be a large attack in the USA?? Confusing!!
Then Bush states that as soon as it was determined to be Al Qaida, he said, "We're going to get them, and we did". When???
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace