Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush official caught in another lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush official caught in another lie

    I am having trouble keeping these lies about Richard Clarke straight.

    From 60 Minutes:

    **
    STAHL (exp): {He also says Clarke was wrong when he said the President pressured him to find a link between Iraq and 9/11}

    HADLEY: We can not find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the President ever occurred.
    **

    Aaaaaand, the update that you knew was coming:

    **
    Public trust in the president's judgment was relatively high after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington and spiked up again during the Iraq war. But the percentage of people who trust Bush has fallen below 50 percent in some polls since.

    Retracted White House statements do little to boost public trust. CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports, until today, the Bush administration denied a meeting had taken place between the president and Clarke, during which Bush allegedly instructed Clarke to investigate Saddam Hussein and Iraq after Sept. 11.

    The White House today reversed that comment, and staff members now tell reporters, "We are not denying such a meeting took place. It probably did."

    **


    So we add Hadley to the liar's club?

    Now, with evidence that Hadley lied before us, let's look at 2 other questions Stahl asked him:

    ***
    STAHL (exp): {Hadley says that contrary to Clarke's assertion, the President didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.}

    HADLEY: All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas, but interestingly enough, the President got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community, 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland,' and at that point, various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying, 'The intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out a threat to the possibility of a threat to the homeland and therefore preparatory steps need to be made.' So the President put us on battle stations.

    STAHL: Now he[Clarke]'s the top terrorism official in this administration at that point. He's saying you didn't go to battle stations.

    HADLEY: Well I think that's just wrong --
    ***

    So what are the odds either of those answers are lies as well?
    Dude. Can. Fly.

  • #2
    Who cares?

    Wouldn't the President naturally want to know who was behind this? Especially when a sworn enemy had taken part in bombing the same buildings the last time?
    And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

    -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the point is that the first reaction of this administration is to deny, deny, deny...then retract the denial at a later date.

      In the meantime, the President (through his spokesmen*) and the Party are turning the names of long-time federal employees -- almost all hired by a Republican administration (Clarke's a registered Republican!) -- into Mudd.


      Iraq crossed everyone's mind that day, no doubt.

      But this is like Frist's accusation of perjury -- the first instinct is not to answer the allegations, but to smear the person making them -- even if you know that what you're saying is patently dishonest, at best.

      It's a pattern in this White House.

      *While I have not heard Bush make any statements concerning Clarke, there can be no doubt that Rice, Powell, Hadley and Cheney are all out there speaking for him, which is why the conflicting stories and backtracking and retracting are so disturbing.

      What say you, Mr. President?
      His mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
      Pointless debate is what we do here -- lvr

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by moedrabowsky@Mar 27 2004, 11:40 AM


        In the meantime, the President (through his spokesmen*) and the Party are turning the names of long-time federal employees -- almost all hired by a Republican administration (Clarke's a registered Republican!) -- into Mudd.


        Roger that.
        Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ~

        A.C.

        Comment


        • #5
          Shameful.
          Norman Chad, syndicated columnist: “Sports radio, reflecting our sinking culture, spends entire days advising managers and coaches, berating managers and coaches, firing managers and coaches and searching the countryside for better middle relievers. If they just redirected their energy toward, say, crosswalk-signal maintenance, America would be 2 percent more livable.”

          "The best argument against democracy," someone (Churchill?) said, "is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

          Comment


          • #6
            Bush lost me when it became evident that there was no WMD to be found.

            That's why went to war.

            Whether it was a big lie or it was poor judgement....either way ... he does not deserve four more years.
            Go Cards ...12 in 13.


            Comment


            • #7
              Depends on the alternative.
              And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

              -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 27 2004, 12:37 PM
                Depends on the alternative.
                Not for you it doesn't.

                Name one Dem. alternative you would elect over Bush not named Zell.

                Dude. Can. Fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I could vote for Lieberman - and I might have had he gotten the nod.
                  And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                  -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 27 2004, 12:41 PM
                    I could vote for Lieberman - and I might have had he gotten the nod.
                    Dammit, forgot him in my "besides" list.

                    I still like McCain, personally, over any of the current options.
                    Dude. Can. Fly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting that Kerry proposes cutting business taxes yesterday.

                      I was laughing my ass off.

                      Bush ought to tell him to get that bill through the Senate - pronto.
                      And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                      -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Mar 27 2004, 12:45 PM

                        I still like McCain, personally, over any of the current options.
                        Same here.

                        But he got 'Roved' in 2000.

                        Wouldn't a Kerry/McCain ticket just be a hoot?!

                        Bush and the Republican party would just go apeshit.
                        Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Damtoft@Mar 27 2004, 12:46 PM
                          Interesting that Kerry proposes cutting business taxes yesterday.

                          I was laughing my ass off.

                          Bush ought to tell him to get that bill through the Senate - pronto.
                          You don't think that was a sincere pledge I take it?
                          Go Cards ...12 in 13.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's just further validation of the Bush strategy of not playing Charlie Brown to media/Democrat's Lucy.
                            And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                            -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IN HIS INTERVIEW with Stahl, Clarke goes to great lengths to suggest that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. At one point in the interview, Clarke makes a stunning declaration. "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
                              Leave aside the fact that Clarke was a key player in the decision to strike the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in 1998. That strike came twenty days after al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton administration officials repeatedly cited Iraqi support for Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation and al Shifa in their defense of the targeting.
                              Disregard, too, the fact that when the Clinton Justice Department blamed bin Laden for those attacks, the indictment specifically cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda, under which the Iraqis would help al Qaeda with "weapons development" in exchange for a promise from bin Laden that he wouldn't work against the Iraqi regime.
                              Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X