@devmanl It is well to be skeptical. My writeup above provides links to the transcript of Dr. Rice's testimony and the text of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo so you may evaluate the context for yourself.
I remember watching a documentary in summer of 1999 when clinton was president about the 93 attacks on the world trade center and at the end it said bin laden will take down the twin towers. The threat was ongoing for over a decade.
More often than not your so-called leaders are foolishly blinded by their own self-importance, which leaves their emotions without the benefit of spiritual intellect. They have built their lives upon false foundations involving status, wealth, narcissism, ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, self-seeking glory and many more illusory ideologies that serve no other purpose than to fill their pockets and flatter their egos. Their crimes against you are at an end, for I have spoken and my word is law.
Asking questions is not conspiracy theory... It's the simple fact that they have been asked and are continuously avoiding from answering... Sorry but I won't believe the official story because I find it quite interesting that within like an hour or whatever it was all over the news of what exactly happened...
She said memos for historical reference so if something does happen... Ok so why? Why the Bin Laden name? Why would you need those? People start early to cover their tracks. Why were they not interrogated like they treat the people in GB?
VEEERRRY interesting, makes for good amusement. How about all the planning that the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have planned and will plan and have done? Strange that the chicken littles have not reported that? How about the Plan to get/kill Hussain? Osama was not about to be plucked away, pulled a pistol and the forces did what they have been trained to do, protect themselves. By the way the plan to get/kill Hussain was called Perparation H, because aholes!
1. Exactly WHO placed the PUT options on US airlines just before 911? Hundreds of millions if not billions were made on this "investment". The government refuses to tell us who knew ahead of time about 911.
2, Why did Silverman purchase the WTC for a few million down KNOWING that the cost of the mandated removal of asbestosis from the buildings was estimated at 2 BILLION?
3. Why do earliest photos taken at ground zero show the main support columns cut, melted at 45o angles?
1. Max Keiser stated that it was Buzzy Congard 3rd in line at the CIA
2. In addition the WTC NEVER turned a profit since it's construction, he was not even the high bidder for the contract.
3. Can't say for sure, but bld 1,2 &7 were taken down by nuclear demolition that is a FACT easily proven by the dust, siezmagraphs, and over head thermal images taken on the 16th.
@cheerdiver 1.There was more than one person involved in the WTC PUT scam. The government refuses to release the names of those involved under the guise of "national security".
2. Who (in their right mind) would purchase the publicly held WTC complex when knowing full well that the towers had a looming MANDATED asbestos removal bill of 2 BILLION dollars?
3. Early photos of WTC rubble clearly show MAIN central girders CUT at 45 degree angles. (Thermate?) Evidence was quickly hidden.
Read the August 6 PDB report online for your self, it does not give any information at all that could have been used to prevent the 9/11 attack. All it really revealed was: Bin Laden wants to attack the american homeland. They already knew that and that is hardly helpful in preventing an attack.
@samoa92064 Have you read the August 6 PDB report? I have. It does NOT give any information that could have been used to stop an attack from happening. It gave no indication of any specific terrorist plot. Read it, it is online. I am thinking for myself. I am not being swayed by this propaganda/ conspiracy theory YOUTUBE video.
@jspankin The video description above includes the links to the text of the PDB. Anybody who reads the document can see that it warns of preparations for hijackings and reports of bin Laden supporters planning an attack in the US. The CIA already knew of two al Qaeda operatives, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi, who had been living in the United States for some time.
@punxsutawneybarney OK, "Anybody" who reads these Docs should also see that they do NOT say where Bin Laden was prior to 9/11, WHERE an attack would happen, HOW an attack would happen, WHEN the attack would happen. The VERY FIRST LINE of the 3rd to last paragraph says "WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORROBORATE" reports on hijackings in 1998 (it says nothing about 2001). Next Par. says there is suspicious activity & recent surveillance of fed buildings. There are many fed buildings, this does not help
@jspankin Typical for a Condi apologist, you lie. The info on hijacking preps was AFTER 1998. As to what buildings were under surveillance, one would expect after dire warnings 5/30 and 7/10 from the CIA about imminent attacks by al Qaeda, that perhaps Nat'l Security Advisor Rice might phone the FBI and find out. Bob Woodward says a simple credit check on two known al Qaeda agents in the USA would show that they bought ten airline tickets for 9/11.
@punxsutawneybarney I am not a "Condi apologist" I am just looking at the evidence in the August 6th PDB period. As for what Bob Woodward said, there is nothing in the law preventing any group from traveling within the US without ample EVIDENCE to stop them. If the FBI has info of that nature, it was their responsibility to inform the White House that specific buildings are under attack. They are to provide the president with ALL the info necessary for him to make a decision.
@punxsutawneybarney U r implying Condi/ the President had all the necessary info to stop 9/11 sitting on their desks and just ignored it. This is NOT true. If you were IN 2001 & was NSA, obviously U would be smart enough to "phone the FBI" . But surveillance of buildings is suspicious but it's not illegal. Also no report suggested that they would fly into buildings. Hijacking does not equal flying into buildings. Secondly there was an error in intelligence gathering where CIA & fbi r separate
@jspankin Has to be the god damn dumbest fucking post. Of course it's not illegal, but when an anti-western unit is doing it, you do something about it. In the 90's and up to the first to Jan. 2001 our government had information that foiled plots from the Philippines and France that prevented flying planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the Eiffel Tower. At least read Ricard Clarke's book before butt fucking yourself. Richard Clarke did not imply they ignored it, he said they ignored it.
@lebronsmyboy6 I am not blind, I am not american. I have read the report myself and what I previously stated is true. I recommend you READ the report yourself if you have not already done do.
BTW, I was against Bush in 1999, I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I couldn't believe when he was re-elected. But some extreme conspiracy theories about the government being connected to the attacks just sound too fantasist
@mouloudidou yeah, muslims, not bin laden. there is no "one leader" of terror. so there's no war on terror really. terrorist acts are fruit of oppression and/or mental illness.
Well of course she lied, they all lie, it's part of a politicians job to lie, and make it convincing. The whole administration was pretty messy, all the time, and that was pretty obvious, but that doesn't mean they were "careless" in avoiding 9/11. This was a very well architected terrorist maneuver, and knowing that "some jihad people had planned attacks inside the US" doesn't mean they could have predicted what it would be. It makes no sense to think the government intentionally allowed it.
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise" Quran 4:56
These bunch of criminals have to stand for accountability on the day of judgement for the slander and their crime.
heres the scenario - someone in the CIA was feeding bush (and condi) pure bull on a regular basis. by the time 9/11 happened bush was convinced it was bin laden.
@punxsutawneybarney listen kid there are just as many if not more obama videos of him being caught in a bold face lie so dont even give me that.... and how did you get my email.....
@TruthDroveCove You lie. The 9/11 Commission was no witch-hunt. The Executive Director was a close friend of Condi's who pulled every string to cover up her wrong-doing, including asking the CIA authors of the PDB to validate her lies about it (they refused). She was warned. Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."
What should have been done is obvious: ask questions, read the AZ memo, the MN memo, collect the warnings.
@punxsutawneybarney Anyone that watched the full questioning where you took your out of context clips from could see that the guy was being partisan and trying to make Condi look at fault. He would try cutting her off before Condi was done answering in full. And you keep repeating these regurgitated talking points (typical) without basis in fact. I've provided links to where the the briefer of PDB himself said the brief was in answer to Bush's questions regarding domestic threats. You hate.
@TruthDroveCove Condi WAS at fault. She was National Security Advisor and she ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA. Condi was filibustering Ben Veniste's limited time allotment, so he cut her off--but he generously asked the question again so she could undo her blatant perjury. She declined the opportunity to tell the truth.
What link? We don't even know who the PDB briefer was. (I think Suskind believes it was Tenet; I believe Tenet denies it.)
@punxsutawneybarney YouTube won't allow hyperlinks, but I indicated one should look at White House records found on The National Security Archive website related to the PDB. The article is slanted, but there are links to those directly involved who easily objectively debunk the so-easily-resorted-to conspiracy theories or scapegoating which you so provide another disgusting example of. Again, you don't know how intel works. Condi is not the analysts. If there is fault, it's theirs.
@punxsutawneybarney You villainize Condi as a liar. She simply said it was not a "warning." That was clearly true. If it was a actionable warning, the intel analysts could have done something to stop it. They didn't, which means there was no actionable warning, which proves Condi was NOT lying. Pretty clear cut. But Haters will continue to spin the whole situation so it fits the narrative of their agenda. Where you and your ilk are sorely mistaken is that truth is not that tough to see...
@TruthDroveCove It was a warning. It warned "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". It contained new threat information about recent surveillance of federal buildings and planned attacks inside the US. Actionable is beside the point. She said it was not a warning. But it WAS actionable. Tenet and Blee agreed that if she had acted, 9/11 might have been prevented. I am getting really tired of your persistent and hysterical denial of reality.
@punxsutawneybarney There was nothing actionable in the PDB, hence same ol same ol terrorists wanna kill Americans. You're getting tired of hearing it cause it's true. You refuse to concede the truth. Tenet nor anyone can talk. Tenet was head of CIA and he allegedly tryin to point finger at someone else without as direct access to intel as he. That's absolutely laughable. And for you to be peddling it- pathetic. You know it. You again ignore that those picture takers were tourists. LOL.
@TruthDroveCove The PDB was a briefing. It warned of planned attacks. It was actionable--responsible readers were supposed to ask questions about what was going on. Tenet has written a book. You live in a fantasy world.
@punxsutawneybarney You're all over the place. It wasn't actionable. It was actionable. The brief was in response- if you read the White House briefs - to questions Bush raised. But it had nothing actionable. I was in intel for 10 years. I would know. You would not except what you read from anyone with a political axe to grind. You're lost and talking out your a**. LOL. It is you in a fantasy world- a world of so much hate directed at good patriotic people. Such patheticness...
@TruthDroveCove It was actionable. It supported a request for more information.
No such action was taken. The authors of the PDB denied that it had been prepared at the request of the president. They said it was CIA-initiated and was meant to inspire him to pay more attention to the threat. See Shenon 378
Anonymous claims of an intelligence background have no credibility, and if you did have an intel background you would understand that such claims are meaningless.
@punxsutawneybarney You continue to prove the points I've been making, diggin yourself deeper and deeper into your bottomless cavern of lies. Shenon is a partisan with political axe to grind & you've made him your bible source. LOL. Pathetic. "They said" it was CIA... No wonder! You really don't seem to seek truth, but find what fits your preconceptions-WEAK! LOL. I DO know how intel functions, you DON'T. WH docs prove PDB was direct response to request, hence the HISTORY in it, LOL!
@TruthDroveCove You keep making claims you can't prove. Is your name "curveball"? Where is your info that Shenon, a NYT reporter, has a political axe.
I don't hate Condi. I pity her. I think she got caught in a very hard squeeze. If she shows the guts to tell the truth in her book about the Bush years, I just might come to admire her.
@punxsutawneybarney Do your own homework! It's not my fault you've been spewing a bunch of disinformation and I've had to get the truth out. Look it up! Nat'l Archives! Shenon heads the Daily Beast-- another arm of the Democrat Party as is the NYT. Every sane person knows these are highly liberal biased. Condi doesn't have anthing to prove. It's you who should rethink your life. There was no "warning"-nothing actionable-right symantics. Condi told truth. You call her liar for it. TRASH!
@punxsutawneybarney Again resorting to namecalling. That's really telltale. So is removing another's post you surely find to be too revealing in proving your falsehoods. In effect, censoring. In effect, showing fascist disposition. I've stuck with truth, you resort to lashing out at person. Typical conservative seeking pragmatism vs liberal reliance on irrational emotion and HATE. LOL. So sad and pathetic. I understand the hate hate for the sake of hating. But since I can, I expose it!
@punxsutawneybarney You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. Fact: if there was actual legitimate actionable warning, intel communities could have prevented 9/11- they didn't need Condi herself to go out there and stop them, lol. Fact, if Condi lied under oath as you libel, she'd have been convicted of it, lol. Clinton was found guilty, lol, and he was president, lol...
@TruthDroveCove You have a difficult time distinguishing facts from your own unjustified conclusions based on unidentified and unquestioned assumptions.
@punxsutawneybarney Look who's talking, lol. Fair-minded folks can see for themselves where more truth lies in this debate, if you don't continue to censor the rest of what I wrote. If you do, oh well. It's you who will have to face consequences of a corrupt self...
@TruthDroveCove Fair-minded folks will see that Dr. Rice made statements under oath that she can not possibly have believed to be true, and they will see your denial of those facts as hysteria on your part.
@punxsutawneybarney Oh, so now you know Condi's mind! LOL. You sure are some piece of work. Keep on namecalling / deflecting. Doesn't change the truth. You simply cannot prove as in a court of justice that Condi lied. All the sources you reference, anyone with an ounce of investigativeness, can discover are quite liberal biased. Moreover, you also have on your homepage that 9/11 was inside job. Go on. LOL. Keep on your oh so popular, patriotic and loving track. LOL. What a joke...
@TruthDroveCove It is proven conclusively that Condi's claim was not true that the memo was not a warning. According to the 9/11 Commission, the CIA authors of the memo believed it "represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." They thought it was a warning. Are they liberally biased? I don't have on my homepage that 9/11 was an inside job. I never use that lame-brain slogan.
@punxsutawneybarney Who's lying now? You uploaded to your homepage some guy trying to convince collapse of 9/11 towers had to have been set up. Can you please stop evading truth? Can you? Show some civility? Now you'll probably censor this post or delete said upload of yours or both. Wouldn't surprise me. Did 9/11 Commission call Condi "a liar." Don't think so. "They thought"? Like I said. Your libelous, hateful claim couldn't stand in any court of justice. Only other haters agree.
@TruthDroveCove The 9/11 Commission did not call Condi a liar because the Commission did not assign blame and because the Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, was a friend of hers and he forced the Commission to downplay Richard Clarke's charges against Rice. The authors of the PDB thought it was a warning. Any reasonable person would think it was a warning.
@punxsutawneybarney "Any reasonable person would think it was a warning." -That is your opinion. That is not fact. Again, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to your own facts. Clearly I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, and I'm a 10-year intel community veteran so I speak not just reasonable but with actual experience hence credibility, that the PDB was not a real warning without actionable intel which even Veniste conceded. "Liar" libel is simply disgraceful...
@TruthDroveCove Any reasonable person would think that a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that spoke of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US was a warning. Actionable is not the issue. She said it was not a warning. It was a warning. The 9/11 Commission wrote that the authors wished to communicate that "the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." Communicating a current serious threat is a warning.
@punxsutawneybarney The point is it was nothing new in specific. Intel community and rest knew Osama wanted to attack in U.S. since 1997. Again, not new 'warning.' No specifics. Nothing actionable. It is the issue. Condi did not lie. It was historical and general. Again, no specifics, no real leads, nothing to exactly act on. Not actionable. Even the partisan Veniste conceded so. Wonder why can't you? You feel simply stuck with your narrative? Too proud to take back libelous hate?
@TruthDroveCove The warnings to the embassy in the UAE were new. Surveilance of federal buildings and preparations for hijackings were specific. The memo, as its authors said, was a reminder that the threat was currents and serious. Your quibbles about actionability and specificity would be irrelevant even if they were true (and they're not) because they do not change the fact that the memo was a warning and she lied under oath in claiming it was not a warning.
@punxsutawneybarney About the two so-called 'specifics' of the PDB you cite- They're quickly proven unrelated and unsubstantive to 9/11. The UAE call only mentioned pursuing 'explosives in US'- no revelation there. 'Surveillance of federal buildings'?- FBI discovers they're just tourists. The PDB was history of US threat since 1997, not imminent warning- nothing actionable, which is key. Check the Nat'l Archives I've repeatedly cited if you truly seek truth. Baseless libel and hate is bad.
@TruthDroveCove I am getting really tired of you inventing your facts. You don't know how wide or how deep the UAE warning went, and neither did Condi unless she asked some questions. How do you know those were just tourists at the federal buildings? The authors of the PDB said it was intended as a reminded of a current and serious threat. That is an imminent warning. In addition, the CIA warned on 5/30 and 7/10 of imminent al Qaeda attacks. Your defense of a perjurer is irrational.
@punxsutawneybarney Looks like you still haven't checked out the Nat'l Security Archive docs which I've cited. They are facts. You whining that they are not does not change the fact that they are facts. Good grief! Lol. It is apparent you insist on your hate and smear rampage despite evidence that debunks your accusation. The UAE call and tourists taking pics in NY were clearly unrelated. Let that rest, will ya? While you're at it, you ought to let rest that the PDB was the 9/11-warning.
@TruthDroveCove I read Blanton's page years ago. Do you have a point? Nothing you say changes the fact that the PDB was a warning, its very title was a warning, Condi lied about that under oath, and there is evidence that the document was in fact 11-1/2 pages and not 1-1/2 pages as we've been told.
@punxsutawneybarney The point I've made is clear and simple. The PDB was not a warning; it was a historical account of Osama's desire to attack the U.S. since 1997 to that point in time. Nothing in PDB was actionable or revealed plan for 9/11. That's empirical fact. You can deny it, but at expense of your own credibility. what you've done is taken the PDB out of context and presented it in such way to try to make a liar out of Condi who said, in truth, IN CONTEXT, PDB was not legit warning.
@TruthDroveCove The PDB talked about preparations for hijackings. That relates to 9/11. Condi did not say "it was a warning but it was not actionable." She did not say "It was a warning but it was not legit." She said it was not a warning, and that was a lie under oath.
@punxsutawneybarney You understand how someone can see your presentation as grasping at straws, stretching symantics to the extreme, or flat out coming to false conclusion out of thin air, right? In order for someone to buy your conclusion, he or she would have to ignore Condi's sensible explanation of how it was NOT a "warning," SYMANTICALLY- in context of national security, it contained historical and generic activities of terrorists, NOT anything ACTIONABLE. You CHOOSE to see it as a "lie."
@TruthDroveCove There were specifiic and actionable warnings of current and specific threats: preparations for hijackings, planned attacks in the US, and surveillance of federal buildings. The authors of the report said it was intended as a reminder of a current and serious threat. It was thus a warning. For you to repeat Condi's lies endlessly does not make them any less of a lie.
@punxsutawneybarney It all comes down to what Condi said. It wasn't a warning of 9/11 because nothing in the PDB ever was or ever will be connected to 9/11, hence it wasn't a warning to 9/11. That's the whole point. 'Preparations for hijackings' was not specific to 9/11. 'Planned attacks in U.S.' was not specific to 9/11. 'Surveillance of federal buildings' was not specific to 9/11. The PDB was historic to current info, a 'reminder' of threat, as you say. But even you can't tie to 9/11...
@TruthDroveCove The memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" had nothing to do with the attack five weeks later? So who do you think did the attack?
Al Qaeda "Preparations for hijackings" had nothing to do with al Qaeda hijackings five weeks later? The PDB was a reminder of a current threat.
@punxsutawneybarney Keep on. You continue to prove Condi's and my fundamental point- aside from what was already understood- that since 1997 Osama wanted to attack in US- you're acting as if it was some kind of new revelation-- no one got from that PDB actionable warning of specific 9-11 attack, ergo, not an actual warning of 9/11, which you and witchhunters would have liked Condi to say. Instead, she said what ANYone else with the intel have said- they couldn't have derived 9/11 fm that PDB.
@TruthDroveCove The PDB was a reminder that there was a current, serious threat. Most people would regard such a reminder as a warning. Condi lied to the 9/11 Commission and the the widows when she claimed the memo was not a warning. Deriving 9/11 is not the issue. Condi's lie is.
@punxsutawneybarney "Deriving 9/11 is not the issue"?! It was THE issue, hence the 'commission.' But you seem to believe it was to create a local conservative Repubican villain, like Ben-Veniste was clearly intent on. You also seem to believe that- oh, America knew Osama wanted to attack in U.S., since 1997, so POOF, of course U.S. could know exactly who, what, when, where, how of ALL possible attacks. Absurd! Have your hateful post. Fair-minded folks know Condi did not "lie" about 9/11...
@TruthDroveCove Condi said the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks in the US. Its authors said the purpose of the memo was to remind its readers of a current and serious threat. That's a warning. Condi lied.
@punxsutawneybarney What you don't seem to understand, which Condi and other analytical, fair minds do, is the NUANCE that, within the PDB, there was no ACTIONABLE warning, thereby it NOT being a SUBSTANTIVE 'warning' to those in national security arena. She knew all the contents of the PDB, including its provocative title and still had the intellectual honesty and courage to steadily articulate in midst of committee and victims' families what it was- NOT an actual 'warning.' She's a LADY.
@TruthDroveCove I'm sick of your repetitive lies. What was actionable was finding out "Who is preparing for hijackings? What more do you know about attacks using aircraft? What do we know about bin Laden supporters in the US planning attacks?" Condi claims she can't remember if she discussed al Qaeda cells in the US with the president. Condi's alleged ladyhood is beside the fact of her status as a perjurer and war criminal. The memo was a warning, and she lied about it under oath.
@punxsutawneybarney You can repeat like broken record that Condi lied and is a war criminal all you want. Who knows- it might just make you feel good about yourself. Does not make it TRUTH! But know this- Condi IS a lady- meaning she's NOT a villain- and she is FREE and HAPPY, because she deserves to be- leaders don't believe what you purport. Neither do most people. I guess you know you're FRINGE, right? Extreme, at that. You heard her open, VOLUNTARY testimony. She had nothing to hide.
@TruthDroveCove You live in a fantasy world. Her claim was not true, and she said it under oath. She certainly had something to hide: warnings from the CIA 5/30, 7/10, and 8/6. Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." Rice's testimony can be considered voluntary only in that she was desperate to respond to Richard Clarke's charges about her incompetence. She responded with lies.
@punxsutawneybarney Ah. So now you're resorting to citing Cofer Black's HYPERBOLE! Haha. Yeah. HE hadn't a reputation to try to protect, being CIA's counterterrorism chief and all. Hahaha. Wow. Really?! You're really grasping at straws. That's the difference- Condi and Bush didn't point fingers; they stuck with FACTS, whereas Cofer HAD to, LIKE YOU, conjure up a SCAPEGOAT! The FACTS are, that even Tenet and Cofer and Ben-Veniste DO NOT deny, there WAS NO ACTIONABLE 'warning' of 9/11.
@TruthDroveCove Condi didn't stick to facts. She lied under oath. The memo's authors said it was intended as a reminder of a current and serious threat. That's a warning.
@punxsutawneybarney The PDB was 'REMINDER' that SINCE 1997, it was understood that Osama desired to attack within US- NOT an ACTIONABLE warning. YOU can be reminded of constant threat of people that just HATED you so much that they desired to, for example, KEY your vehicle. You can be WELL aware of this, take all foreseeable precautions, but unless you're privy to when, where, by whom, and HOW, can you HONESTLY say that, IF/WHEN it actually HAPPENS, you were given SUBSTANTIVE 'warning'???!!!
@punxsutawneybarney Furthermore, by your logic, since US leadership has been aware of Al Qaeda's / Islamic terrorists' intent to attack in US, is all leadership, WORLDWIDE even, therefore 'NEGLIGENT LIARS', which you accused Condi of, in ALL the attempted attacks on US since, most of which would have killed many hundreds if not for the perpetrators' ineptitude to actually EXECUTE blowing up the bombs they snuck through security?! Could YOU, with all the 'REMINDERS', have thwarted EVERY attempt?
@punxsutawneybarney Surprise, surprise. DEFLECT, deflect. It's absolutely, FUNDAMENTALLY the ISSUE! You wouldn't DARE put yourself in Condi's position, YET you're QUICK to unfoundingly ACCUSE her of being a NEGLIGENT LIAR, when you KNOW as does ALL else involved, there was IN FACT NO SUBSTANTIVE, ACTIONABLE 'warning', just an up-to-date, historical 'reminder', as you've had to CONCEDE- NO 'dots' to 'put together', hence, NOT, SYMANTICALLY, a 'warning', as Condi stated. Case closed. Peace.
@TruthDroveCove Cute tactics you use. Accuse me of deflecting, and so change the subject to me. I didn't just accuse Condi of lying, I proved she lied. She said the memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside in the US.
@punxsutawneybarney The commission was on 9/11! The PDB DID NOT warn of particular 9/11 attack but only that, since1997, that terrorists desired to attack within US. Info within the PDB did NOT warn - the who, what, where, when, how of ANY specific attack. Accordingly, Condi stated that the PDB did not warn.... ABOUT 9/11! Apparently you cannot (or WILL not) GRASP the DISTINCTION! But what matters is most Americans are fair, which is why Condi's canididness has and WILL NEVER convict her!
@TruthDroveCove The PDB warned that bin Laden's people were preparing for hijackings and were planning attacks inside the US. It must be placed in the context of dire warnings 5/30 and 7/10 from the CIA. Bob Woodward says that the two alleged hijackers that were known to the CIA and had lived with an FBI informant bought ten airline tickets for 9/11. Your claim that Condi was candid is absurd. She lied under oath. You live in a world of illusion.
@punxsutawneybarney Condi WAS candid because even though she knew she would be unfairly treated, she VOLUNTARILY testified to commission. She didn't HAVE to. You say she 'NEEDED' to clear her name, but you nor anyone can prove she's guilty. She could just WRITE about it, which she is ALSO doing, it appears. You like to cite that intel community seemed to have all the pieces to put 9/11 together. IF SO, WHY DIDN'T THEY! PLAINLY, the intel DIDN'T warn, SPECIFICALLY, of 9/11, OBVIOUSLY!
@punxsutawneybarney - Why send me an email? I am appalled by your video and your theory. The Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind. And so you promote your misguided theory believing the worst kinds of things. This seems more like a plot of a fiction novel than anything grounded in the truth. You are manipulating words and facts to paint a specific non-fact based assumption which is of course, that our government is evil beyond comprehension.
@moonglow5x5 If a simple thing like lying under oath is "evil beyond comprehension" you must have a problem with comprehension. I'm not manipulating anything. Condi said the PDB was not a warning. Anyone who reads it can see that it warns of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US. She lied.
@punxsutawneybarney - I made my statement. For you to think it was an inside job is just ignorant. To imply that Rice knew specifics about 911 beforehand is both ignorant and vicious.
@moonglow5x5 I didn't say anything about an inside job. I said Condi lied under oath. No wonder you have comprehension problems if you keep larding simple facts with grand theories.
Of course the lard has its function--it shields you from the simple truths. You and your friends can sit around telling each other "It was not an inside job and therefore Condi didn't lie."
@punxsutawneybarney - Yeah and you and your friends can sit around wasting your lives on nonsense instead of contributing something worthwhile to society. What a life you lead, trying to make people look bad who are actually trying to accomplish something in the world. Talk about lard. Your fantasy world of everyone being evil shields you from the simple truth, you don't have direction so you waste your time in fantasy land. And I'm sure you never lie. Yeah right.
@moonglow5x5 Accomplish? Condi? What she accomplished was the executive failure that permitted 9/11 to happen, the degradation of American moral principles through the adoption and tolerance of torture policies, and the lies that sold to the American people a needless war that cost 1.3 million innocent Iraqi lives.
Condi lied under oath to the victims of her willful criminal negligence. I don't have to try to make her look bad. She looks bad. I just shine a light on it.
@punxsutawneybarney - The only thing you are shining a light on is your own ignorance. The Iraqi war? What? Taking down a dictator that murdered half a million of his own people? Oh yeah that is a terrible crime. I sure from your perspective, it would have been better to let him continue until the number of murdered Iraqi citizens reached millions, like Hitler. Congress, both left and right, agreed based on the intelligence that the war was the right call. Grow up and do something worthwhile.
@moonglow5x5 Invasion of a country that is no military threat to you is a War Crime both under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN. The 1.3 million death estimate comes from scientific studies done by a respected British research group, Opinion Research Business. Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that Condi lied under oath to the faces of the victims of her criminal negligence.
@punxsutawneybarney - OPB is basing its figures on a poll it conducted. Hardly scientific data. Just like you. A poll to stir people up based on their opinions. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in 15 of the 18 governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007. The idea you have that American soldiers just slaughter people for the hell of it is disgusting and appalling.
@moonglow5x5 Excuse me moonbeam. Polls are scientific data. The fact is, American soldiers slaughter people for fun. There have been many many incidents.
@punxsutawneybarney - Many incidents? How many? Opinion polls are not scientific data. How do the opinions of a hand full of people determine how many actual casualties there were? Secondly that poll contradicts all other real scientific data. Funny I see you attack Americans but apparently it is okay with you that Hussein murdered at least half a million of his own people. Some conscience you have. Oh I see. It is just about hating the evil Americans.
@punxsutawneybarney - The purpose of the war was to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction which they repeatedly announced they had based on collective intelligence. The war was supported by congress and 35 additional countries at the time.
@moonglow5x5 The purpose of the war was to make Bush a wartime president and make journalists afraid to write news that reflected poorly on him, it was to make a ton of money for Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater, and other Bush cronies, it was to prevent Saddam from selling oil for Euros, which would threaten the strength of the dollar, and to seize the oilfields and take the oil off the market to raise the price. Congress authorized military force. They never declared war.
@punxsutawneybarney Bush did the right thing, by maintaining control sadly using military force and making the US stronger econamically, for some wusses military action wasn't the best choice but this wouldn't be the strongest country in the world if wusses had complained about war and expansion Since WWI, which they did but who gives a crap about wusses right? vietnam and and korea wars kinda screwed us up thou
@moonglow5x5 Erm, 'based on collective intelligence'? You mean the made up documents from the Uk which were proved to be false/fabricated? We all went to war on a LIE, after the people running the USA slaughtered their own people. Doubt this? Go look it up, all the evidence you need is out their nowadays.
Their day will come. 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT WILL PREVAIL.
@boohoo1902 - Intelligence??? Wow I bet that is something you wish you had. People like you just want to believe the worst about Americans. You have no actual access to information. So go spew your hatred of Americans to someone else, not me. Why don't YOU look it up instead believing crap and hate mongering when you have nothing. THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO AGENDA. IT SIMPLY STANDS FOR ITSELF.
@moonglow5x5@punxsutawneybarney. There was not dec. on war, just giving shit for brains a badge and a gun. Larry Wilkerson, "They didn't give a shit about al quaeda...they cherry picked intel for iraq." Wilkerson, cheif aid to whom? The administration outed a CIA agent and a network of spies to cover up their lies. Let's not forget why they did it to Valerie Plame-I would bet punx knows w/o having to search. Whistleblowers from the cabinet on down. bush can't leave US because of arrest.
@walkermydawg - I guess you aren't too big on critical thinking. Bush was a real president, unlike the progressive/socialist we have now. Don't respond. I am bored with this nonsense.
@punxsutawneybarney - There are conflicting reports on actual Iraqi deaths. You just spout off numbers without any actual facts. Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009.The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths).
@punxsutawneybarney - Associated Press stated that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009. This number is per the Health Ministry tally of 87,215 covering January 1, 2005, to February 28, 2009 combined with counts of casualties for 2003–2004, and after February 29, 2009, from hospital sources and media reports.
@punxsutawneybarney HERE'S EVIDENCE TO DEBUNK THIS VIDEO'S WHOLE ASSERTION!! FIND The President's Daily Brief By Thomas S. Blanton Updated April 12, 2004 at THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE website. The page has many links to get context and OBJECTIVITY to debuk this 'lie' claim. Blanton, himself, I don't give credit for necessarily being objective, but the links he posts lead to info, docs, that, again, show how the PDB WAS NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SPECIFICS, HENCE NOT A 'WARNING'! AMEN! HA!
She's a classic example of when people of color go bad and will identify witrh their oppressor because he happens to be signing their paycheck. She'll realize she was just USED one day. Condi's sins will catch up to her.
I'd love to be around, say; 50 years from now.. when the "Untold Truth" is uncovered-
Throughout history, it has been the construed, or misconstrued.. as is SO evident here. The absurdity, is the fact that it will still have no meaning to the victims...
Anyone that takes this cut up video and believes without question that Condi responded the way she did, in different ways, about the exact same document probably wouldn't make a very good journalist. Ever heard of "taken out of context?" Moreover, does everyone think summer 2001 was only time terrorists wanted to murder Americans (only time admin.s read those types of PDBs)? Oh, and no Dems read the same briefs, just Repubs. Any discerning mind can see the clear hypocrisy and partisanship.
@TruthDroveCove I agree, no one should believe a heavily-edited video like mine. In the writeup I have provided links to the transcript of Dr. Rice's statement, and to the text of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, and anyone who is interested can check for themselves whether I have taken Dr. Rice's lies out of context. "This was not a warning" is pretty emphatic--kind of like "I did not have sex with that woman". Hard to take out of context.
@punxsutawneybarney As I suspected, the transcripts simply support my points. First, interviewer Democrat Ben-Veniste can clearly be seen as disrespectful, bullying and attempting to villainize Republican Rice- the interruptions and trying not to allow her to complete her responses, particularly to what he purports as fact in his questioning- already a sign of corrupt partisanship. Specifically, Rice has to clarify that the historical report in the PDB was by Bush's request, not new intel.
@punxsutawneybarney Given the fact that the PDB was more a historical account of terrorist theats dating back to 1997, the title "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States" only iterates what was long already known in the intel community, I venture to say even the civilian community, at that. There were, in fact, no new revelations or actual actionable intel contained therein. And, in fact, Rice gets Ben-Veniste to concede, "We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on..."
@punxsutawneybarney So, while it's savvy to juxtapose Rice stating the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" by her stating that "it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States," it is, in fact taken out of context. Conveniently ommitted was her line just before that- "It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information." Having been in Air Force intel for 10 years, I get the difference between historical and actionable...
@punxsutawneybarney But I don't think it requires 10 years of intel community experience to discern the difference between 'historical' and 'actionable,' but giving it a chance at objective analysis would be a refreshing prerequite. So, the whole premise of this video that Rice lied is, in fact, the lie. So, nice try. People are not stupid, but some will choose not to delve very far into further research, unfortunately, likely to the detriment to their getting to the truth v. propaganda...
out of context sorry cant trust it.
devmanl 2 days ago
@devmanl It is well to be skeptical. My writeup above provides links to the transcript of Dr. Rice's testimony and the text of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo so you may evaluate the context for yourself.
punxsutawneybarney 2 days ago
@punxsutawneybarney Thanks I will read and look into it.
devmanl 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OATH ★ KEEPER: Military brass, CIA & FBI now reveal 9/11 lies & kept secrets. houmadabrave on both Facebook & MySpace
CLANSON®
Create Local Awareness Networks to Secure Our Nation
houmadabrave 4 days ago
@thisbuds4me That's an insult to the many wonderful retoids our there who would never lie like this. Yet I have to agree, she is a freekin reptoid.
Loejyrrab 1 month ago
She lied. I accept this fact. But I still wonder about her personal life. What's her deal? As Penny would say.
AsheeshAnand 1 month ago
@AsheeshAnand lol
theajtruth 1 month ago
psst we weren't attacked by Bin Laden
NFLWINNERS 2 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD WATCHES ON
♥ INDIA SUPPORTS RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 3 months ago
I remember watching a documentary in summer of 1999 when clinton was president about the 93 attacks on the world trade center and at the end it said bin laden will take down the twin towers. The threat was ongoing for over a decade.
jack9717 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More often than not your so-called leaders are foolishly blinded by their own self-importance, which leaves their emotions without the benefit of spiritual intellect. They have built their lives upon false foundations involving status, wealth, narcissism, ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, self-seeking glory and many more illusory ideologies that serve no other purpose than to fill their pockets and flatter their egos. Their crimes against you are at an end, for I have spoken and my word is law.
SuperAscension2012 4 months ago
the woman is a violation of nature she is whack job and a bitch.
Tina196712 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tina196712 "violation of nature"? Please explain this comment.
EarlRegent 4 months ago
@Tina196712 Well?
EarlRegent 4 months ago
Sitting board member of Chevron.
SJDISSIDENT 5 months ago
Good!
herkamerkerable 5 months ago
@herkamerkerable leave ha alone white people
ikirawelch 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PHOTOS of 103 CRIMINALS WHO DID 911
(mostly dual-citizen Israelis, 5 Bushes, Cheney
whodidit (DOT) org/cocon.html
ROCKEFELLER REVEALS 9/11 FRAUD to Film maker Aaron Russo (10 mins)
youtube (DOT) com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
DR. STEVE PIECZENIK: 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB TO TAKE THE U.S. TO WAR & START AN ENDLESS “WAR ON TERROR”
(top operative in 5 admins, Dep Asst Sec State in 3 admins, ex-mil officer, taught false flags, med dr, hero/co-writer of Clancy novels
youtube (DOT) com/watch?v=vicwIrB9JFw
kingwarth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11/2011 - Ten Years, No Justice
/watch?v=FxPaebHe3fw
911debunkerschannel 6 months ago
Asking questions is not conspiracy theory... It's the simple fact that they have been asked and are continuously avoiding from answering... Sorry but I won't believe the official story because I find it quite interesting that within like an hour or whatever it was all over the news of what exactly happened...
jonnydboy1 6 months ago 6
She said memos for historical reference so if something does happen... Ok so why? Why the Bin Laden name? Why would you need those? People start early to cover their tracks. Why were they not interrogated like they treat the people in GB?
jonnydboy1 6 months ago
VEEERRRY interesting, makes for good amusement. How about all the planning that the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have planned and will plan and have done? Strange that the chicken littles have not reported that? How about the Plan to get/kill Hussain? Osama was not about to be plucked away, pulled a pistol and the forces did what they have been trained to do, protect themselves. By the way the plan to get/kill Hussain was called Perparation H, because aholes!
ThePostal67 9 months ago
1. Exactly WHO placed the PUT options on US airlines just before 911? Hundreds of millions if not billions were made on this "investment". The government refuses to tell us who knew ahead of time about 911.
2, Why did Silverman purchase the WTC for a few million down KNOWING that the cost of the mandated removal of asbestosis from the buildings was estimated at 2 BILLION?
3. Why do earliest photos taken at ground zero show the main support columns cut, melted at 45o angles?
t4705mb6 9 months ago
@t4705mb6
1. Max Keiser stated that it was Buzzy Congard 3rd in line at the CIA
2. In addition the WTC NEVER turned a profit since it's construction, he was not even the high bidder for the contract.
3. Can't say for sure, but bld 1,2 &7 were taken down by nuclear demolition that is a FACT easily proven by the dust, siezmagraphs, and over head thermal images taken on the 16th.
cheerdiver 7 months ago
@cheerdiver 1.There was more than one person involved in the WTC PUT scam. The government refuses to release the names of those involved under the guise of "national security".
2. Who (in their right mind) would purchase the publicly held WTC complex when knowing full well that the towers had a looming MANDATED asbestos removal bill of 2 BILLION dollars?
3. Early photos of WTC rubble clearly show MAIN central girders CUT at 45 degree angles. (Thermate?) Evidence was quickly hidden.
t4705mb6 7 months ago
"Kindaliesalot Rice" muhahahahahahaha. SPOT ON!
samoa92064 9 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
You should submit to allah or i kill you, ok ?
mouloudidou 9 months ago
Read the August 6 PDB report online for your self, it does not give any information at all that could have been used to prevent the 9/11 attack. All it really revealed was: Bin Laden wants to attack the american homeland. They already knew that and that is hardly helpful in preventing an attack.
jspankin 9 months ago
@jspankin huh? did you miss out on "thinking for yourself" class in 2nd grade?
samoa92064 9 months ago
@samoa92064 Have you read the August 6 PDB report? I have. It does NOT give any information that could have been used to stop an attack from happening. It gave no indication of any specific terrorist plot. Read it, it is online. I am thinking for myself. I am not being swayed by this propaganda/ conspiracy theory YOUTUBE video.
jspankin 9 months ago
@jspankin The video description above includes the links to the text of the PDB. Anybody who reads the document can see that it warns of preparations for hijackings and reports of bin Laden supporters planning an attack in the US. The CIA already knew of two al Qaeda operatives, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi, who had been living in the United States for some time.
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney OK, "Anybody" who reads these Docs should also see that they do NOT say where Bin Laden was prior to 9/11, WHERE an attack would happen, HOW an attack would happen, WHEN the attack would happen. The VERY FIRST LINE of the 3rd to last paragraph says "WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CORROBORATE" reports on hijackings in 1998 (it says nothing about 2001). Next Par. says there is suspicious activity & recent surveillance of fed buildings. There are many fed buildings, this does not help
jspankin 9 months ago
@jspankin Typical for a Condi apologist, you lie. The info on hijacking preps was AFTER 1998. As to what buildings were under surveillance, one would expect after dire warnings 5/30 and 7/10 from the CIA about imminent attacks by al Qaeda, that perhaps Nat'l Security Advisor Rice might phone the FBI and find out. Bob Woodward says a simple credit check on two known al Qaeda agents in the USA would show that they bought ten airline tickets for 9/11.
punxsutawneybarney 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney I am not a "Condi apologist" I am just looking at the evidence in the August 6th PDB period. As for what Bob Woodward said, there is nothing in the law preventing any group from traveling within the US without ample EVIDENCE to stop them. If the FBI has info of that nature, it was their responsibility to inform the White House that specific buildings are under attack. They are to provide the president with ALL the info necessary for him to make a decision.
jspankin 9 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney U r implying Condi/ the President had all the necessary info to stop 9/11 sitting on their desks and just ignored it. This is NOT true. If you were IN 2001 & was NSA, obviously U would be smart enough to "phone the FBI" . But surveillance of buildings is suspicious but it's not illegal. Also no report suggested that they would fly into buildings. Hijacking does not equal flying into buildings. Secondly there was an error in intelligence gathering where CIA & fbi r separate
jspankin 9 months ago
@jspankin Has to be the god damn dumbest fucking post. Of course it's not illegal, but when an anti-western unit is doing it, you do something about it. In the 90's and up to the first to Jan. 2001 our government had information that foiled plots from the Philippines and France that prevented flying planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the Eiffel Tower. At least read Ricard Clarke's book before butt fucking yourself. Richard Clarke did not imply they ignored it, he said they ignored it.
MrEatonbeaver 8 months ago
@jspankin you got it all wrong. this was an inside job and you are part of the coverup.
samoa92064 4 months ago
@jspankin ur blind my friend thanks for being the reason america sucks ass.
lebronsmyboy6 9 months ago
@lebronsmyboy6 I am not blind, I am not american. I have read the report myself and what I previously stated is true. I recommend you READ the report yourself if you have not already done do.
jspankin 9 months ago
@jspankin yea u are shut up
lebronsmyboy6 9 months ago
@lebronsmyboy6 what can I say, Continue to embrace ignorance and stupidity like you always do.
jspankin 9 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER
No, this time it is a muslim terrorist attack, maybe yourself should your head testing, not us.
mouloudidou 9 months ago
@SASNIGHTCRAWLER no water, i only drink vodka.
WilliamAztech 9 months ago
BTW, I was against Bush in 1999, I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I couldn't believe when he was re-elected. But some extreme conspiracy theories about the government being connected to the attacks just sound too fantasist
WilliamAztech 9 months ago
@WilliamAztech
Yes, musleems did,off course...
mouloudidou 9 months ago
@mouloudidou yeah, muslims, not bin laden. there is no "one leader" of terror. so there's no war on terror really. terrorist acts are fruit of oppression and/or mental illness.
WilliamAztech 9 months ago
Well of course she lied, they all lie, it's part of a politicians job to lie, and make it convincing. The whole administration was pretty messy, all the time, and that was pretty obvious, but that doesn't mean they were "careless" in avoiding 9/11. This was a very well architected terrorist maneuver, and knowing that "some jihad people had planned attacks inside the US" doesn't mean they could have predicted what it would be. It makes no sense to think the government intentionally allowed it.
WilliamAztech 9 months ago
"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise" Quran 4:56
These bunch of criminals have to stand for accountability on the day of judgement for the slander and their crime.
partridgecaravan 9 months ago
Beverly Eckert was murdered on that downed flight to Buffalo in Feb 2009, two weeks after she asked 'Bama to reinvestigate 911.
"Better get your shit together... pretty soon you're gonna be dead"... John Lennon
1tonykirk 9 months ago
Ossama Bin Ladin made attack 09/11/2011 without any doubts
mouloudidou 10 months ago
@mouloudidou oh, so you were there with him when he planned it?...
WilliamAztech 9 months ago
@WilliamAztech
No, but all my musleems friends made a big party all over the world for enjoying the WTC attacks !!
mouloudidou 9 months ago
Condoleeza ... whatta skeezer.
Longetty 10 months ago
So...why is it none of them have been brought up on perjury charges yet? All the evidence is there, and the 9/11 commissioner knew she was lieing...
ConSmith1807 10 months ago
I DON'T THINK SHE IS LYING BUT MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I GOT A CRUSH ON HER.
simon10177 1 year ago
@simon10177
no, she don't lies, conspiracy is all lies !! Bin Ladin did it !!
mouloudidou 10 months ago
HELL YA SHE LIE SHE HAD TO THAT GAME SHE PLAYING!!!
OLD BOY N-WORKs!! this big TIME!!!
GRIZZLYBEARR7 1 year ago
Why bring up the Constitution George told us it just was a piece of Paper
Nstar76 1 year ago 3
@Nstar76 Actually, the evidence for that story is not very good.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago 4
It is clear that Condi has been surrounded by ass-kissers for too long. She is used to being believed, no matter what ridiculous nonsense she spouts.
geezzerboy 1 year ago
Fools open your eyes!!!
This bullshit about prior knowledge of 9/11 is pURE SHIT to distract people from the truth:
The US government was INVOLVED in the 9/11 attacks!!!!
Simply to invade Iraq, where there is an abundance of OIL and other "******"
this is deeper than you think lol
My younger brother is in Afghanistan currently, and like Bush, Obama isnt doing jack shit ..
BoriHachi 1 year ago
she looks like a predator....;)
AUnal10 1 year ago
heres the scenario - someone in the CIA was feeding bush (and condi) pure bull on a regular basis. by the time 9/11 happened bush was convinced it was bin laden.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@nonzerospy So in your world it's Monday Morning Quarterbacking to point out that someone lied under oath?
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney listen kid there are just as many if not more obama videos of him being caught in a bold face lie so dont even give me that.... and how did you get my email.....
nonzerospy 1 year ago 2
@nonzerospy Obama didn't lie under oath to the faces of the victims of his negligence.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@DavidKWegley They're only above the law if we allow it.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove You lie. The 9/11 Commission was no witch-hunt. The Executive Director was a close friend of Condi's who pulled every string to cover up her wrong-doing, including asking the CIA authors of the PDB to validate her lies about it (they refused). She was warned. Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."
What should have been done is obvious: ask questions, read the AZ memo, the MN memo, collect the warnings.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Anyone that watched the full questioning where you took your out of context clips from could see that the guy was being partisan and trying to make Condi look at fault. He would try cutting her off before Condi was done answering in full. And you keep repeating these regurgitated talking points (typical) without basis in fact. I've provided links to where the the briefer of PDB himself said the brief was in answer to Bush's questions regarding domestic threats. You hate.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Condi WAS at fault. She was National Security Advisor and she ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 3 FBI offices, and the CIA. Condi was filibustering Ben Veniste's limited time allotment, so he cut her off--but he generously asked the question again so she could undo her blatant perjury. She declined the opportunity to tell the truth.
What link? We don't even know who the PDB briefer was. (I think Suskind believes it was Tenet; I believe Tenet denies it.)
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney YouTube won't allow hyperlinks, but I indicated one should look at White House records found on The National Security Archive website related to the PDB. The article is slanted, but there are links to those directly involved who easily objectively debunk the so-easily-resorted-to conspiracy theories or scapegoating which you so provide another disgusting example of. Again, you don't know how intel works. Condi is not the analysts. If there is fault, it's theirs.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove How exactly are the analysts at fault for Condi's lies?
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You villainize Condi as a liar. She simply said it was not a "warning." That was clearly true. If it was a actionable warning, the intel analysts could have done something to stop it. They didn't, which means there was no actionable warning, which proves Condi was NOT lying. Pretty clear cut. But Haters will continue to spin the whole situation so it fits the narrative of their agenda. Where you and your ilk are sorely mistaken is that truth is not that tough to see...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove It was a warning. It warned "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". It contained new threat information about recent surveillance of federal buildings and planned attacks inside the US. Actionable is beside the point. She said it was not a warning. But it WAS actionable. Tenet and Blee agreed that if she had acted, 9/11 might have been prevented. I am getting really tired of your persistent and hysterical denial of reality.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney There was nothing actionable in the PDB, hence same ol same ol terrorists wanna kill Americans. You're getting tired of hearing it cause it's true. You refuse to concede the truth. Tenet nor anyone can talk. Tenet was head of CIA and he allegedly tryin to point finger at someone else without as direct access to intel as he. That's absolutely laughable. And for you to be peddling it- pathetic. You know it. You again ignore that those picture takers were tourists. LOL.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The PDB was a briefing. It warned of planned attacks. It was actionable--responsible readers were supposed to ask questions about what was going on. Tenet has written a book. You live in a fantasy world.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You're all over the place. It wasn't actionable. It was actionable. The brief was in response- if you read the White House briefs - to questions Bush raised. But it had nothing actionable. I was in intel for 10 years. I would know. You would not except what you read from anyone with a political axe to grind. You're lost and talking out your a**. LOL. It is you in a fantasy world- a world of so much hate directed at good patriotic people. Such patheticness...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove It was actionable. It supported a request for more information.
No such action was taken. The authors of the PDB denied that it had been prepared at the request of the president. They said it was CIA-initiated and was meant to inspire him to pay more attention to the threat. See Shenon 378
Anonymous claims of an intelligence background have no credibility, and if you did have an intel background you would understand that such claims are meaningless.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You continue to prove the points I've been making, diggin yourself deeper and deeper into your bottomless cavern of lies. Shenon is a partisan with political axe to grind & you've made him your bible source. LOL. Pathetic. "They said" it was CIA... No wonder! You really don't seem to seek truth, but find what fits your preconceptions-WEAK! LOL. I DO know how intel functions, you DON'T. WH docs prove PDB was direct response to request, hence the HISTORY in it, LOL!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove You keep making claims you can't prove. Is your name "curveball"? Where is your info that Shenon, a NYT reporter, has a political axe.
I don't hate Condi. I pity her. I think she got caught in a very hard squeeze. If she shows the guts to tell the truth in her book about the Bush years, I just might come to admire her.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Do your own homework! It's not my fault you've been spewing a bunch of disinformation and I've had to get the truth out. Look it up! Nat'l Archives! Shenon heads the Daily Beast-- another arm of the Democrat Party as is the NYT. Every sane person knows these are highly liberal biased. Condi doesn't have anthing to prove. It's you who should rethink your life. There was no "warning"-nothing actionable-right symantics. Condi told truth. You call her liar for it. TRASH!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Sorry that intelligence thing didn't work our for you, dude. I suppose you haven't got a clue why.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Again resorting to namecalling. That's really telltale. So is removing another's post you surely find to be too revealing in proving your falsehoods. In effect, censoring. In effect, showing fascist disposition. I've stuck with truth, you resort to lashing out at person. Typical conservative seeking pragmatism vs liberal reliance on irrational emotion and HATE. LOL. So sad and pathetic. I understand the hate hate for the sake of hating. But since I can, I expose it!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove You deny reality. Under oath Condi made claims that are clearly not true.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts. Fact: if there was actual legitimate actionable warning, intel communities could have prevented 9/11- they didn't need Condi herself to go out there and stop them, lol. Fact, if Condi lied under oath as you libel, she'd have been convicted of it, lol. Clinton was found guilty, lol, and he was president, lol...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove You have a difficult time distinguishing facts from your own unjustified conclusions based on unidentified and unquestioned assumptions.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Look who's talking, lol. Fair-minded folks can see for themselves where more truth lies in this debate, if you don't continue to censor the rest of what I wrote. If you do, oh well. It's you who will have to face consequences of a corrupt self...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Fair-minded folks will see that Dr. Rice made statements under oath that she can not possibly have believed to be true, and they will see your denial of those facts as hysteria on your part.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Oh, so now you know Condi's mind! LOL. You sure are some piece of work. Keep on namecalling / deflecting. Doesn't change the truth. You simply cannot prove as in a court of justice that Condi lied. All the sources you reference, anyone with an ounce of investigativeness, can discover are quite liberal biased. Moreover, you also have on your homepage that 9/11 was inside job. Go on. LOL. Keep on your oh so popular, patriotic and loving track. LOL. What a joke...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove It is proven conclusively that Condi's claim was not true that the memo was not a warning. According to the 9/11 Commission, the CIA authors of the memo believed it "represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." They thought it was a warning. Are they liberally biased? I don't have on my homepage that 9/11 was an inside job. I never use that lame-brain slogan.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Who's lying now? You uploaded to your homepage some guy trying to convince collapse of 9/11 towers had to have been set up. Can you please stop evading truth? Can you? Show some civility? Now you'll probably censor this post or delete said upload of yours or both. Wouldn't surprise me. Did 9/11 Commission call Condi "a liar." Don't think so. "They thought"? Like I said. Your libelous, hateful claim couldn't stand in any court of justice. Only other haters agree.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The 9/11 Commission did not call Condi a liar because the Commission did not assign blame and because the Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, was a friend of hers and he forced the Commission to downplay Richard Clarke's charges against Rice. The authors of the PDB thought it was a warning. Any reasonable person would think it was a warning.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney "Any reasonable person would think it was a warning." -That is your opinion. That is not fact. Again, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to your own facts. Clearly I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, and I'm a 10-year intel community veteran so I speak not just reasonable but with actual experience hence credibility, that the PDB was not a real warning without actionable intel which even Veniste conceded. "Liar" libel is simply disgraceful...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Any reasonable person would think that a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that spoke of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US was a warning. Actionable is not the issue. She said it was not a warning. It was a warning. The 9/11 Commission wrote that the authors wished to communicate that "the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." Communicating a current serious threat is a warning.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney The point is it was nothing new in specific. Intel community and rest knew Osama wanted to attack in U.S. since 1997. Again, not new 'warning.' No specifics. Nothing actionable. It is the issue. Condi did not lie. It was historical and general. Again, no specifics, no real leads, nothing to exactly act on. Not actionable. Even the partisan Veniste conceded so. Wonder why can't you? You feel simply stuck with your narrative? Too proud to take back libelous hate?
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The warnings to the embassy in the UAE were new. Surveilance of federal buildings and preparations for hijackings were specific. The memo, as its authors said, was a reminder that the threat was currents and serious. Your quibbles about actionability and specificity would be irrelevant even if they were true (and they're not) because they do not change the fact that the memo was a warning and she lied under oath in claiming it was not a warning.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney About the two so-called 'specifics' of the PDB you cite- They're quickly proven unrelated and unsubstantive to 9/11. The UAE call only mentioned pursuing 'explosives in US'- no revelation there. 'Surveillance of federal buildings'?- FBI discovers they're just tourists. The PDB was history of US threat since 1997, not imminent warning- nothing actionable, which is key. Check the Nat'l Archives I've repeatedly cited if you truly seek truth. Baseless libel and hate is bad.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove I am getting really tired of you inventing your facts. You don't know how wide or how deep the UAE warning went, and neither did Condi unless she asked some questions. How do you know those were just tourists at the federal buildings? The authors of the PDB said it was intended as a reminded of a current and serious threat. That is an imminent warning. In addition, the CIA warned on 5/30 and 7/10 of imminent al Qaeda attacks. Your defense of a perjurer is irrational.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Looks like you still haven't checked out the Nat'l Security Archive docs which I've cited. They are facts. You whining that they are not does not change the fact that they are facts. Good grief! Lol. It is apparent you insist on your hate and smear rampage despite evidence that debunks your accusation. The UAE call and tourists taking pics in NY were clearly unrelated. Let that rest, will ya? While you're at it, you ought to let rest that the PDB was the 9/11-warning.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove I read Blanton's page years ago. Do you have a point? Nothing you say changes the fact that the PDB was a warning, its very title was a warning, Condi lied about that under oath, and there is evidence that the document was in fact 11-1/2 pages and not 1-1/2 pages as we've been told.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney The point I've made is clear and simple. The PDB was not a warning; it was a historical account of Osama's desire to attack the U.S. since 1997 to that point in time. Nothing in PDB was actionable or revealed plan for 9/11. That's empirical fact. You can deny it, but at expense of your own credibility. what you've done is taken the PDB out of context and presented it in such way to try to make a liar out of Condi who said, in truth, IN CONTEXT, PDB was not legit warning.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The PDB talked about preparations for hijackings. That relates to 9/11. Condi did not say "it was a warning but it was not actionable." She did not say "It was a warning but it was not legit." She said it was not a warning, and that was a lie under oath.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You understand how someone can see your presentation as grasping at straws, stretching symantics to the extreme, or flat out coming to false conclusion out of thin air, right? In order for someone to buy your conclusion, he or she would have to ignore Condi's sensible explanation of how it was NOT a "warning," SYMANTICALLY- in context of national security, it contained historical and generic activities of terrorists, NOT anything ACTIONABLE. You CHOOSE to see it as a "lie."
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove There were specifiic and actionable warnings of current and specific threats: preparations for hijackings, planned attacks in the US, and surveillance of federal buildings. The authors of the report said it was intended as a reminder of a current and serious threat. It was thus a warning. For you to repeat Condi's lies endlessly does not make them any less of a lie.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney It all comes down to what Condi said. It wasn't a warning of 9/11 because nothing in the PDB ever was or ever will be connected to 9/11, hence it wasn't a warning to 9/11. That's the whole point. 'Preparations for hijackings' was not specific to 9/11. 'Planned attacks in U.S.' was not specific to 9/11. 'Surveillance of federal buildings' was not specific to 9/11. The PDB was historic to current info, a 'reminder' of threat, as you say. But even you can't tie to 9/11...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" had nothing to do with the attack five weeks later? So who do you think did the attack?
Al Qaeda "Preparations for hijackings" had nothing to do with al Qaeda hijackings five weeks later? The PDB was a reminder of a current threat.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Keep on. You continue to prove Condi's and my fundamental point- aside from what was already understood- that since 1997 Osama wanted to attack in US- you're acting as if it was some kind of new revelation-- no one got from that PDB actionable warning of specific 9-11 attack, ergo, not an actual warning of 9/11, which you and witchhunters would have liked Condi to say. Instead, she said what ANYone else with the intel have said- they couldn't have derived 9/11 fm that PDB.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The PDB was a reminder that there was a current, serious threat. Most people would regard such a reminder as a warning. Condi lied to the 9/11 Commission and the the widows when she claimed the memo was not a warning. Deriving 9/11 is not the issue. Condi's lie is.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney "Deriving 9/11 is not the issue"?! It was THE issue, hence the 'commission.' But you seem to believe it was to create a local conservative Repubican villain, like Ben-Veniste was clearly intent on. You also seem to believe that- oh, America knew Osama wanted to attack in U.S., since 1997, so POOF, of course U.S. could know exactly who, what, when, where, how of ALL possible attacks. Absurd! Have your hateful post. Fair-minded folks know Condi did not "lie" about 9/11...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Condi said the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks in the US. Its authors said the purpose of the memo was to remind its readers of a current and serious threat. That's a warning. Condi lied.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney What you don't seem to understand, which Condi and other analytical, fair minds do, is the NUANCE that, within the PDB, there was no ACTIONABLE warning, thereby it NOT being a SUBSTANTIVE 'warning' to those in national security arena. She knew all the contents of the PDB, including its provocative title and still had the intellectual honesty and courage to steadily articulate in midst of committee and victims' families what it was- NOT an actual 'warning.' She's a LADY.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove I'm sick of your repetitive lies. What was actionable was finding out "Who is preparing for hijackings? What more do you know about attacks using aircraft? What do we know about bin Laden supporters in the US planning attacks?" Condi claims she can't remember if she discussed al Qaeda cells in the US with the president. Condi's alleged ladyhood is beside the fact of her status as a perjurer and war criminal. The memo was a warning, and she lied about it under oath.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney You can repeat like broken record that Condi lied and is a war criminal all you want. Who knows- it might just make you feel good about yourself. Does not make it TRUTH! But know this- Condi IS a lady- meaning she's NOT a villain- and she is FREE and HAPPY, because she deserves to be- leaders don't believe what you purport. Neither do most people. I guess you know you're FRINGE, right? Extreme, at that. You heard her open, VOLUNTARY testimony. She had nothing to hide.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove You live in a fantasy world. Her claim was not true, and she said it under oath. She certainly had something to hide: warnings from the CIA 5/30, 7/10, and 8/6. Cofer Black said "We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." Rice's testimony can be considered voluntary only in that she was desperate to respond to Richard Clarke's charges about her incompetence. She responded with lies.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Ah. So now you're resorting to citing Cofer Black's HYPERBOLE! Haha. Yeah. HE hadn't a reputation to try to protect, being CIA's counterterrorism chief and all. Hahaha. Wow. Really?! You're really grasping at straws. That's the difference- Condi and Bush didn't point fingers; they stuck with FACTS, whereas Cofer HAD to, LIKE YOU, conjure up a SCAPEGOAT! The FACTS are, that even Tenet and Cofer and Ben-Veniste DO NOT deny, there WAS NO ACTIONABLE 'warning' of 9/11.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Condi didn't stick to facts. She lied under oath. The memo's authors said it was intended as a reminder of a current and serious threat. That's a warning.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney The PDB was 'REMINDER' that SINCE 1997, it was understood that Osama desired to attack within US- NOT an ACTIONABLE warning. YOU can be reminded of constant threat of people that just HATED you so much that they desired to, for example, KEY your vehicle. You can be WELL aware of this, take all foreseeable precautions, but unless you're privy to when, where, by whom, and HOW, can you HONESTLY say that, IF/WHEN it actually HAPPENS, you were given SUBSTANTIVE 'warning'???!!!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Furthermore, by your logic, since US leadership has been aware of Al Qaeda's / Islamic terrorists' intent to attack in US, is all leadership, WORLDWIDE even, therefore 'NEGLIGENT LIARS', which you accused Condi of, in ALL the attempted attacks on US since, most of which would have killed many hundreds if not for the perpetrators' ineptitude to actually EXECUTE blowing up the bombs they snuck through security?! Could YOU, with all the 'REMINDERS', have thwarted EVERY attempt?
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The issue is not what I would have done. The issue is Condi's lies under oath.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Surprise, surprise. DEFLECT, deflect. It's absolutely, FUNDAMENTALLY the ISSUE! You wouldn't DARE put yourself in Condi's position, YET you're QUICK to unfoundingly ACCUSE her of being a NEGLIGENT LIAR, when you KNOW as does ALL else involved, there was IN FACT NO SUBSTANTIVE, ACTIONABLE 'warning', just an up-to-date, historical 'reminder', as you've had to CONCEDE- NO 'dots' to 'put together', hence, NOT, SYMANTICALLY, a 'warning', as Condi stated. Case closed. Peace.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove Cute tactics you use. Accuse me of deflecting, and so change the subject to me. I didn't just accuse Condi of lying, I proved she lied. She said the memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside in the US.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney The commission was on 9/11! The PDB DID NOT warn of particular 9/11 attack but only that, since1997, that terrorists desired to attack within US. Info within the PDB did NOT warn - the who, what, where, when, how of ANY specific attack. Accordingly, Condi stated that the PDB did not warn.... ABOUT 9/11! Apparently you cannot (or WILL not) GRASP the DISTINCTION! But what matters is most Americans are fair, which is why Condi's canididness has and WILL NEVER convict her!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove The PDB warned that bin Laden's people were preparing for hijackings and were planning attacks inside the US. It must be placed in the context of dire warnings 5/30 and 7/10 from the CIA. Bob Woodward says that the two alleged hijackers that were known to the CIA and had lived with an FBI informant bought ten airline tickets for 9/11. Your claim that Condi was candid is absurd. She lied under oath. You live in a world of illusion.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Condi WAS candid because even though she knew she would be unfairly treated, she VOLUNTARILY testified to commission. She didn't HAVE to. You say she 'NEEDED' to clear her name, but you nor anyone can prove she's guilty. She could just WRITE about it, which she is ALSO doing, it appears. You like to cite that intel community seemed to have all the pieces to put 9/11 together. IF SO, WHY DIDN'T THEY! PLAINLY, the intel DIDN'T warn, SPECIFICALLY, of 9/11, OBVIOUSLY!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - Why send me an email? I am appalled by your video and your theory. The Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind. And so you promote your misguided theory believing the worst kinds of things. This seems more like a plot of a fiction novel than anything grounded in the truth. You are manipulating words and facts to paint a specific non-fact based assumption which is of course, that our government is evil beyond comprehension.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 If a simple thing like lying under oath is "evil beyond comprehension" you must have a problem with comprehension. I'm not manipulating anything. Condi said the PDB was not a warning. Anyone who reads it can see that it warns of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US. She lied.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - I made my statement. For you to think it was an inside job is just ignorant. To imply that Rice knew specifics about 911 beforehand is both ignorant and vicious.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 I didn't say anything about an inside job. I said Condi lied under oath. No wonder you have comprehension problems if you keep larding simple facts with grand theories.
Of course the lard has its function--it shields you from the simple truths. You and your friends can sit around telling each other "It was not an inside job and therefore Condi didn't lie."
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - Yeah and you and your friends can sit around wasting your lives on nonsense instead of contributing something worthwhile to society. What a life you lead, trying to make people look bad who are actually trying to accomplish something in the world. Talk about lard. Your fantasy world of everyone being evil shields you from the simple truth, you don't have direction so you waste your time in fantasy land. And I'm sure you never lie. Yeah right.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 Accomplish? Condi? What she accomplished was the executive failure that permitted 9/11 to happen, the degradation of American moral principles through the adoption and tolerance of torture policies, and the lies that sold to the American people a needless war that cost 1.3 million innocent Iraqi lives.
Condi lied under oath to the victims of her willful criminal negligence. I don't have to try to make her look bad. She looks bad. I just shine a light on it.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - The only thing you are shining a light on is your own ignorance. The Iraqi war? What? Taking down a dictator that murdered half a million of his own people? Oh yeah that is a terrible crime. I sure from your perspective, it would have been better to let him continue until the number of murdered Iraqi citizens reached millions, like Hitler. Congress, both left and right, agreed based on the intelligence that the war was the right call. Grow up and do something worthwhile.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 Invasion of a country that is no military threat to you is a War Crime both under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN. The 1.3 million death estimate comes from scientific studies done by a respected British research group, Opinion Research Business. Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that Condi lied under oath to the faces of the victims of her criminal negligence.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - OPB is basing its figures on a poll it conducted. Hardly scientific data. Just like you. A poll to stir people up based on their opinions. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in 15 of the 18 governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007. The idea you have that American soldiers just slaughter people for the hell of it is disgusting and appalling.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 Excuse me moonbeam. Polls are scientific data. The fact is, American soldiers slaughter people for fun. There have been many many incidents.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - Many incidents? How many? Opinion polls are not scientific data. How do the opinions of a hand full of people determine how many actual casualties there were? Secondly that poll contradicts all other real scientific data. Funny I see you attack Americans but apparently it is okay with you that Hussein murdered at least half a million of his own people. Some conscience you have. Oh I see. It is just about hating the evil Americans.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - The purpose of the war was to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction which they repeatedly announced they had based on collective intelligence. The war was supported by congress and 35 additional countries at the time.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 The purpose of the war was to make Bush a wartime president and make journalists afraid to write news that reflected poorly on him, it was to make a ton of money for Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater, and other Bush cronies, it was to prevent Saddam from selling oil for Euros, which would threaten the strength of the dollar, and to seize the oilfields and take the oil off the market to raise the price. Congress authorized military force. They never declared war.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Bush did the right thing, by maintaining control sadly using military force and making the US stronger econamically, for some wusses military action wasn't the best choice but this wouldn't be the strongest country in the world if wusses had complained about war and expansion Since WWI, which they did but who gives a crap about wusses right? vietnam and and korea wars kinda screwed us up thou
youdontamuseme 1 year ago
@youdontamuseme
I know Bin Ladin is your father in "no" law , muah ah ah ah ah ah ah !! fucking bastard !!
mouloudidou 10 months ago
@moonglow5x5 35 countries? of them 35 countries you could fit 33 inside of california.
DrucciSchemer 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 Erm, 'based on collective intelligence'? You mean the made up documents from the Uk which were proved to be false/fabricated? We all went to war on a LIE, after the people running the USA slaughtered their own people. Doubt this? Go look it up, all the evidence you need is out their nowadays.
Their day will come. 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT WILL PREVAIL.
boohoo1902 1 year ago
@boohoo1902 - Intelligence??? Wow I bet that is something you wish you had. People like you just want to believe the worst about Americans. You have no actual access to information. So go spew your hatred of Americans to someone else, not me. Why don't YOU look it up instead believing crap and hate mongering when you have nothing. THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO AGENDA. IT SIMPLY STANDS FOR ITSELF.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Yup. They will be tried one day, once the stupid American sheep wake up.
mit26chell 1 year ago
@moonglow5x5 @punxsutawneybarney. There was not dec. on war, just giving shit for brains a badge and a gun. Larry Wilkerson, "They didn't give a shit about al quaeda...they cherry picked intel for iraq." Wilkerson, cheif aid to whom? The administration outed a CIA agent and a network of spies to cover up their lies. Let's not forget why they did it to Valerie Plame-I would bet punx knows w/o having to search. Whistleblowers from the cabinet on down. bush can't leave US because of arrest.
walkermydawg 10 months ago
@walkermydawg - I guess you aren't too big on critical thinking. Bush was a real president, unlike the progressive/socialist we have now. Don't respond. I am bored with this nonsense.
moonglow5x5 10 months ago
@punxsutawneybarney - There are conflicting reports on actual Iraqi deaths. You just spout off numbers without any actual facts. Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009.The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths).
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney - Associated Press stated that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009. This number is per the Health Ministry tally of 87,215 covering January 1, 2005, to February 28, 2009 combined with counts of casualties for 2003–2004, and after February 29, 2009, from hospital sources and media reports.
moonglow5x5 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney HERE'S EVIDENCE TO DEBUNK THIS VIDEO'S WHOLE ASSERTION!! FIND The President's Daily Brief By Thomas S. Blanton Updated April 12, 2004 at THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE website. The page has many links to get context and OBJECTIVITY to debuk this 'lie' claim. Blanton, himself, I don't give credit for necessarily being objective, but the links he posts lead to info, docs, that, again, show how the PDB WAS NOT ACTIONABLE, NO SPECIFICS, HENCE NOT A 'WARNING'! AMEN! HA!
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
She's a classic example of when people of color go bad and will identify witrh their oppressor because he happens to be signing their paycheck. She'll realize she was just USED one day. Condi's sins will catch up to her.
GeorgiaIsOnMyMind 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
condi needs a bullet , along with Bush Rummy and Big Dick !
klnine 1 year ago
@klnine What Condi knows can put W, Cheney, Rummy, and Addington in jail for life. What's needed is that she spill it.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
This evidence has been public knowledge for a long time. This is the first time I've actually seen it.
Thank you.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rice were all pathetic incompetents, asleep at the wheel.
goog2k 1 year ago
I'd love to be around, say; 50 years from now.. when the "Untold Truth" is uncovered-
Throughout history, it has been the construed, or misconstrued.. as is SO evident here. The absurdity, is the fact that it will still have no meaning to the victims...
invincable4ever 1 year ago
Anyone that takes this cut up video and believes without question that Condi responded the way she did, in different ways, about the exact same document probably wouldn't make a very good journalist. Ever heard of "taken out of context?" Moreover, does everyone think summer 2001 was only time terrorists wanted to murder Americans (only time admin.s read those types of PDBs)? Oh, and no Dems read the same briefs, just Repubs. Any discerning mind can see the clear hypocrisy and partisanship.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@TruthDroveCove I agree, no one should believe a heavily-edited video like mine. In the writeup I have provided links to the transcript of Dr. Rice's statement, and to the text of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, and anyone who is interested can check for themselves whether I have taken Dr. Rice's lies out of context. "This was not a warning" is pretty emphatic--kind of like "I did not have sex with that woman". Hard to take out of context.
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney As I suspected, the transcripts simply support my points. First, interviewer Democrat Ben-Veniste can clearly be seen as disrespectful, bullying and attempting to villainize Republican Rice- the interruptions and trying not to allow her to complete her responses, particularly to what he purports as fact in his questioning- already a sign of corrupt partisanship. Specifically, Rice has to clarify that the historical report in the PDB was by Bush's request, not new intel.
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney Given the fact that the PDB was more a historical account of terrorist theats dating back to 1997, the title "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States" only iterates what was long already known in the intel community, I venture to say even the civilian community, at that. There were, in fact, no new revelations or actual actionable intel contained therein. And, in fact, Rice gets Ben-Veniste to concede, "We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on..."
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney So, while it's savvy to juxtapose Rice stating the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" by her stating that "it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States," it is, in fact taken out of context. Conveniently ommitted was her line just before that- "It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information." Having been in Air Force intel for 10 years, I get the difference between historical and actionable...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago
@punxsutawneybarney But I don't think it requires 10 years of intel community experience to discern the difference between 'historical' and 'actionable,' but giving it a chance at objective analysis would be a refreshing prerequite. So, the whole premise of this video that Rice lied is, in fact, the lie. So, nice try. People are not stupid, but some will choose not to delve very far into further research, unfortunately, likely to the detriment to their getting to the truth v. propaganda...
TruthDroveCove 1 year ago