On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq. Since then, hostilities and death tolls continue to rise. Tensions between the once dominant Sunni minority and Shia majority also continue to escalate--From the CRS Report For Congress: Iraq Milestones Since The Ouster Of Saddam Hussein, updated June 19, 2007.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves--Edward R Murrow
AOL sucks

Cost of the war

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
ROVE HAS LEFT THE BUILDING
GONZALES HAS LEFT THE BUILDING
BLACKWATER WAS TOLD TO LEAVE THE BUILDING BUT PROBABLY WON'T

Categories

« 2007-01 | HomePage | 2007-03 »

02/26/2007

Hypothetically speaking

Unwillingness to think in the abstract is no virtue,
> 
Politicians don't like to be ask hypothetical questions because they are usually designed by the questioner to provoke entrance into an unknown territory of dubious value for the questioned. Usually, the subtext for a hypothetical can be boiled down to: how far did you think this through before you came to this conclusion?
>
Bush has gone as far as to brand some hypothetical questions as "dangerous."
In a December 20, 2006, press conference, President Bush dodged a question as to whether he'll overrule top military brass if they oppose his reported plan for a "surge" of troops in Iraq.

"That's a dangerous hypothetical," he said, concluding his answer with "nice try."
>
Dangerous? For whom? I can't see any other conclusion to draw except, Bush would overrule his top military if they opposed his strategy. The danger for Bush arises from the possible constitutional showdown over his assumption of unlimited war powers.
>
By not answering the question, Bush has answered the question.
>
Hypotheticals require an extension of thought, at least to the degree that an idea must be examined before it's enacted. Who, in God's name, would oppose that? Of course, the minutiae of unlimited examination, oddly enough, akin to the minutiae generated from wielding unlimited power, contains too many variables and possibilities to manage or contemplate completely, but some degree of examination is necessary and essential, otherwise all courses of action are equally good and or bad.
>

One of the absurd conventions of American politics is the notion that there is something suspect or illegitimate about a hypothetical question. By labeling a question as "hypothetical," politicians and government officials feel they are entitled to duck it without looking like they have something to hide. They even seem to want credit for maintaining high standards by keeping this virus from corrupting the political discussion.

After quoting some examples of question avoidance on the grounds that the questions were hypothetical, Michael Kinsey concludes:

This is silly. Hypothetical questions are at the heart of every election in a democracy. These are questions the voters must answer. Voters are expected to imagine each of the candidates holding the office he or she is seeking and to decide which one's performance would be most to their liking. Every promise made by a candidate imposes two hypothetical questions on the voter: If elected, will this person do as promised? And if this promise is kept, will I like the result? The voter cannot say, "I don't answer hypothetical questions." And voters cannot sensibly answer the hypothetical questions they've been assigned without learning the answers to some hypothetical questions from the candidates.

In January 2007, Blogger LittleBill wrote about the absurdity of the Bush team not answering hypos when:
>
Bush's entire foreign policy platform is built on hypotheticals, all of them very bad for us. If we pull out of Iraq, not only will the terrorists win, but the entire Middle East will descend into chaos, and Al Quaeda, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc., etc., etc. will pursue us back to and inside the boundaries of our country.
>
Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Jim Leher in reference to the possibility that Saddam's WMDs would not be found, unceremoniously replied, "I don't do hypotheticals."
>
Well, Donald, maybe you should have, if, not only for your own legacy's sake but for the good of the country that has worshiped, cherished and made you far more wealthy that your merits alone would ever justify.
>
In fact, many did foresee our inevitable decent into this self-created hell and did demanded answers to their hypothetical concerns, making what we have now all the more intolerable.
>
Now, that the damage is done, and continues to be done, do we seek either retribution or accountability from the ones whose unexamined fantasies led us here? Do we look to those whose positions were specifically created to establish checks, balances and the oversight meant to forestall such calamity?
>
Not hardly, we continue to kill and die on the principle that now our judgment has magically become infallible, unlike pre- 9-11 when we deliberately choose to disregard warnings and threats.
>
Rather, than being the last to admit that we were rendered suckers and fools by an administration bent on war, rather than proving to ourselves and the world that we have enough justice left within ourselves to demand accountability,  we collectively refuse to insist that our concerns, concerns that are no longer hypothetical, be addressed.
>
We have been snatched away by the irresistible gravity of certainty, the easy path of unchecked aggression when, what we need most, is to seek that which only exists when we apply our reason to the hypothetical realm first.  Gene


17:05 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/24/2007

To arms! To arms! The British are leaving, the British are leaving ... (Iraq)

Living in a house divided,
>
Long ago, I heard a story about one on my local union officials, that he was up to his neck in corruption, that he granted favors to certain contractors in defiance of union rules for personal gain.
>
But, that wasn't the story, everyone knew or suspected that that took place on a routine basis, the story was what he said in response to those charges: "First, prove it, and then, do something about it."
>
That pretty much sums up where we find ourselves as a nation today, trying to do something about it. The proof is there, It's been documented, re-documented and re-re-documented, as the Downing Street memo states,  "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," in order to invade Iraq.
>
You can't be a sentient being in America today and not have some degree of understanding of how the intelligence was intentionally manipulated to mislead the American people into war. It's a done deal, Fait accompli. But, because no one except millions upon millions of ordinary people and not the rich and powerful would like to see that other axis of evil: Bush, Cheney, Rove thrown to the wolves, we still have, possibly, the most repressive regime in our history, setting policy, abolishing our rights and still claiming Imperial Writ to do so. 
>
Do something about it ... do something about it ... Blog? Call someone? Write someone? Pray? Go postal?
>
Americans are facing a crisis just when we have allowed ourselves to become the least equipped to deal with one, just when dissension has been equated with treason. Nothing is ever certain or completely defined in politics, everything is in flux and at the whim of those who, for whatever reason, have become our standard bearers.
> 
To do something about it, we have to convince them that it's in their interest to do something about it. We do not elect leaders. We elect representatives and they only represent us when we make our positions clear and the consequences of not complying with them severe.
>
One voice, as in, the American people have spoken with one voice, cannot be denied.   Gene

11:25 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/23/2007

Mea Culpa with photos

After careful consultation and evaluation, meetings with advisors, publicists and doing a a thorough statistical analysis of the last six years of the Bush administration: his cabinet, intelligence agencies and the myriad of agencies run by appointees under his direction, I have concluded that I cannot in good faith run for president.  Based on a comparative analysis it has been decided that my talents and abilities would be best applied to other areas. I am overqualified in light of what the American people have come to expect in their President. I am human.   Gene
medium_Katrina_4.jpg
 
medium_Iraq_1.jpg
medium_Abu_Ghraib_1.jpg
medium_Jeff_Gannon_AKA_James_Guckert.2.jpg
medium_Katrina_3.jpg
medium_20060508132609990007.2.gif
medium_20060508111509990001.2.gif
medium_Iraq_2.jpg
medium_Katherine_Harris.2.jpg

20:20 Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this

So, it's come down to this?

I've had it and because I've had it, I'm formally announcing my candidacy for President.
>
Now, I can finally use those hundreds of millions that I have lying around in old bank accounts and I can use them wisely. What could be wiser than electing me?
>
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not all that sharp, in fact, according to the knife in the drawer analogy, I'm best pals with the dullest knife. But, a dull knife is still a knife and can be sharpened even though we've been trying to sharpen Bush's anological knife for 6 years with little success. So, I'll also be the first to say, I'm not Bush.
>
I'm not a George 1, or 2, and I'm not a Jeb. I'm not a Laura or a Barbara. I was possibly a Jenna once but that's ancient history.
medium_Jenna.jpg
There are a lot of things that I'm not and a lot of things that I am.
>
If that isn't a convincing argument in itself; I never voted for a tax increase, I never voted to go to war, I never voted in the Senate or the House period. I'm the outsider's outsider. I'm so far outside, I'm inside and if you vote for me you'll be voting for someone willing to turn the present system, inside-out.
>
For my base, I admit, I'm going to say stupid things, hell, what do I know? But I ask you to look beyond the stupid things I say and do, just like you did for Bush.
>
And, for the record, you'd love to have a beer with me. I'd buy and spend all the grocery money to make sure we had lots of cheap laughs. Just don't go ordering some snobby ass imported beer brewed by Bavarian Monks or some such shit.
>
Some say I'm inexperienced, that I have a police record, that I dodged the draft, that I jumped on the disability band wagon as soon as I had the chance. I say, even though that's all true, so? What's yer point? I have a good wife and if I get the country in a world of shit, which I'm bound to do, I'll just ask her to fix it up, it's always worked before and I personally know a lawyer, Bill, are you in or out?
>
I probably won't find Osama either. Hell, I don't even know where the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is except that it's between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that only proves that I'm a true American. Americans don't need to know geography, we can barely spell it.
>
And, I sleep a lot. But that's not a negative thing. Ask anyone.
>
I'm the people's candidate. I'm like you. Or, more likely, like your no-account brother-in-law. But it's the no-accounts among us that make up this great, no-account world, this great, no-account economy and our even greater, no-account, accountability.
>
I'm just a squirrel trying to get a nut and I ask for your support.   Gene, your next President
medium_Face_stuffing_squirrel.jpg

07:25 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/22/2007

Hitting Home

From Daily Kos: State of the Nation:

The Costs of War

by mcjoan

Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:50:07 PM PST

As of today, 3,150 American men and women have died in Iraq. The deaths have been felt in communities all over the country, but nowhere has the impact been greater than in rural areas, where opportunities are limited and the military has a strong hold. The military draws disproportionately from rural areas, and rural areas disproportionately suffer the losses of war.

Nearly half of the more than 3,100 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq have come from towns like McKeesport, where fewer than 25,000 people live, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. One in five hailed from hometowns of less than 5,000.

The Census Bureau said 56 percent of the population in 2005 lived in towns under 25,000 and in unincorporated areas, but it could not provide the number of people living only in communities of less than 25,000. The 2000 census showed 16 percent of the population lived in unicorporated rural areas.

Many of the hometowns of the war dead aren't just small, they're poor. The AP analysis found that nearly three quarters of those killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.

Some are old factory towns like McKeesport, once home to U.S. Steel's National Tube Works, which employed 8,000 people in its heyday. Now, residents' average income is just 60 percent of the national average, and one in eight lives below the federal poverty line.

On a per capita basis, states with mostly rural populations have suffered the highest fatalities in Iraq. Vermont, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, Louisiana and Oregon top the list, the AP found.

McKeesport is across the river from my house. It was once a bustling city. I remember transferring busses there when I was an apprentice electrician on my way to apprentice school at Penn State University. Those memories are of a time and place that have long since vanished, memories when we made steel, coke, aluminum, the highest quality industrial products in the word, when we were the 3rd largest corporate headquarters in the world.

Today, McKeesport is a ghost town, a place without a financial engine to drive it. The poor, the black, the disenfranchised wander amongst the ruins of a once proud, vital place. Going into the military is now akin to reaching out for a better life, just like going to work at the steel mill once was. The cynic in me says that's how our military wants it to be, they, ultimately, need to offer less to attract people without a future. They provide what every person wants and needs: a sense of place, purpose and stability while they lovingly teach them to kill Manchurian candidate style.

In a land where war has become our major export it all makes sense.  Gene

15:19 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/21/2007

Follow the pack or perish

The Hyena party,
medium_improved_hyena_picture.jpg
For a party that prides itself on rugged individualism a la, Daniel Boone and individual achievement a la, Bill Gates, the republican party has become, the last, worst repository for "group think" and "group act."
>
Though our default as a society we have cowardly allowed people who would normally be shunned for their viscousness and contempt to be become legitimate spokespersons. The most esteemed careers, these days, for conservative nut jobs has become the daily regurgitation into the mouths and ears of loyal, robotic listeners in order to congeal their messages of war, hate and intolerance.
>
It's nothing new to be cowed into a hole by an aggressive establishment that sees itself as the epitome of human creation or evolution, but what is new, is our indifference to it. We aren't supposed to love the military or trust it. We aren't supposed to love fear and war.
>
Whether we love it now, is debatable, but our actions have been to embrace the message or at least, passively let others refute it once it becomes clear that we may be putting our own character into question by opposing it.
>
Most Americans lack the time, the patience and the where-with-all to confront the daily, debilitating assault against our real values; live and let live, minding our own business, doing unto others as we would have done to us, and I understand. But, these are extraordinary times.
>
We have been herded into comfortable pens, inundated with sensory stimuli, alcohol, drugs, sports, simple minded pursuits to await the next assault on our humanity, our constitution, or on any oil rich, mid-eastern country that won't play ball with an empire whose soul obligation is to further it's military advantage and to hell with the intangible benefits of a good and just society.
>
For a pack of Hyenas that sanctimoniously preach faith, the only faith they exhibit is the faith in what can be held, faith in the here and now. We have allowed a perversion to take place, the attributes that man was created to seek: reason, understanding, trust and love have been supplanted by the lust for unlimited power and greed.
>
Rather than resist the inclination, we have proudly journeyed into the dark side of man's nature, the animal side where the ripping and tearing of flesh, the howl of the beast fills our eyes, ears and stomachs.  Gene
>
>
P.S. Hyenas come in many forms: 
medium_illustrated_hyena.2.jpg
medium_Hannity.2.jpg
medium_he_s_with_stupid.jpg
 

16:55 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

This touched me

From Yesterday's Pittsburgh Tribune-Reiview letters section,
>
Editor's note: The following e-mail was sent by 1st Lt. Robert Grabowski of the U.S. Marine Corps to his mother Denise Grabowski in Jeannette. Robert, 25, grew up in Jeannette and has been training the Iraqi army since Thanksgiving 2006.

This may be a little sappy, but I just wanted to show a side of this war that you don't see on the news.

Today I was sitting and talking with an old Iraqi lieutenant colonel. He is very smart and speaks really good English, so sometimes I just stop by his office to shoot the breeze. Somehow we got on the topic of patriotism and what it takes to be dedicated to a cause.

He began describing to me how dangerous his home in Baghdad was. He told me that he couldn't even go outside his house without fearing for his life. He is raising a family in a city that is torn by war and his neighborhood is particularly dangerous, especially for an Iraqi army officer.

Then he went on to say that he was receiving death-threat text messages on his cell phone that basically said: "Quit the army or we will kill you."

The Iraqi colonel's response was one of the most amazing things that I've experienced so far over here. He said to me, "I don' t care if they kill me. I know that I am doing the right thing and I know I am a good man. If they kill me I know that God will be on my side and that is all that matters."

He went on to say the only thing he would be sad about if they kill him would be his family being without a husband/father. There were tears in his eyes. That is courage.

This country is full of people just like this colonel. There are privates in the Iraqi army who go without food, pay or a warm or dry place to sleep just to serve their country. Not to mention that death is around every corner for the average Iraqi soldier. All that the people of this country want is a peaceful home in which to raise a family, just like us. They are true patriots who deserve freedom and peace a hell of a lot more than half of the people in the U.S.

Don't let the media fool you. There are good people in this country.

Robert Grabowski
Iraq

07:15 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/19/2007

Our cowardly war

American Idol, Jerry Springer, Iraq, Iran it's all the same,

YouTube is rife with videos depicting our troops performing like animals and laughing, in obvious joy, at their debauchery. I'm not posting links, they're easy enough to find just like the random acts of cruelty that we endure either personally or by reading about them in our daily papers.

The superficial question is, why post them? A steady diet of select propaganda can only leave a false impression for the easily impressed while the more perceptive understand that it's ALL propaganda, and in this case, a trumped up lie that relies on our compliance through ignorance. The converse is, and there was never a better example than Abu Ghraib, we need to know as Americans, what is taking place in our name.

What is taking place in our name? That question, may one day, long after the conventional wisdom has weighed the bad against the good, be answered. For now, the answer is a long slog, down a dark, deadly road away. In the meantime we are left with snapshots of contrived pranks and senseless violence featuring heroes and villains, Fox News and Cheney pouring lies into our heads, we have an industry that relies on uncovering what meager truth exists and at the same time, works tirelessly to obscure it.

It's our collective 24-7 reality show that only the unlucky, the patriotic and the morbidly curious will ever get to see first hand, the rest of us are left to watch the clips and read what is said either in support of empire or in support of our fleeting humanity.

For me, one thing is abundantly clear, if it were on OUR doorstep, if it were here, we would want it to stop. We wouldn't be armchair heroes with the luxury to change the channel whenever boredom or indifference set in. We would weep and cry, the little pranks that the occupiers played would be devastating to us. The big pranks that their leaders played would be measured in blood and tears. We, all of us, would pray for peace and want it to end.  Gene

14:05 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

02/17/2007

It's not just a success ... It's a "DAZZLING" success!

Iranian Cultural & Information Center

America, wouldn't you feel better about invading Iran if only Iraq wasn't such a bummer? Iraq has been one pain in the ass hasn't it? Well, we're going to make that pain go away. Your ass will be so happy that, as Chevy Chase, aka Clark Griswold, said to Beverly D' Angelo, aka Ellen Griswold in the movie "Vacation", "You'll be whistling 'Zippity Doo Da' out of your assholes!"

Put a happy face on your ass, America, and ... start whistling!

First we have, Ol' Snake Eyes, oops, I mean, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, in Baghdad, Rice Visits Baghdad to Support Joint U.S. and Iraqi Security Effort - washingtonpost.com:

BAGHDAD, Feb. 17 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Saturday and hailed early signs of success in a U.S.-Iraqi operation to quell sectarian violence in the embattled capital. But she cautioned that longer-term prospects would depend on how the Iraqi government uses its "breathing space" to promote political reconciliation and economic progress.

Damn right, she's hailing those early signs! It's her job to be an early sign hailer! Violence quelled? Breathing space? Political reconciliation and economic progress? I'll bet she's even seen early signs that the "the heartbreak of psoriasis" may soon be ameliorated in Iraq.

And then, the other biggie, the NYT has this:

BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told President Bush on Friday that the increased effort to provide security in Baghdad had gone exceedingly well so far, Mr. Maliki’s office said in a statement. The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.”

Hey, way-TA-go Team_America_-_America_Fuck_Yeah! Condi and al-Maliki! Fuck Yeah! I'm starting to pucker my ass right now! Here it comes ... Zippity Doo Da ... oops, I shit.

Well, anyway, (I'll clean up later) since Iraq is as good as a done deal and now we have a bunch of ass-kicking military guys hanging around in the Middle East doing nothing, yearning to install democracy somewhere, anywhere ... fast. AND, billions upon billions of borrowed dollars to burn ... HEY! Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
Why don't we invade Iran today? 
Plenty of ammo heading their way
Missiles and rockets there in the bay
>
Mister Rocket Launcher on my shoulder

It’s the truth it’s actual 

Everything is satisfactual

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay

Let's make that little mother fucker, Ahmadininejad pay

Gene, longing for the peace train to take me home again, even if the conductor is of Middle Eastern decent, like Jesus was, or a converted Muslim, aka, Cat Stevens ...

20:25 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

Ol' Snake Eyes

medium_snake_eyes_3.jpgmedium_snake_eyes_3.2.jpg
 
This is either the most obvious lie told by Condoleezza to date, or, she was totally, utterly incompetent when she headed The National Security Council from 2001 - 2005. 

"I have read about this so-called [2003] proposal from Iran," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday [Feb, 7, 2007] referring to reports in The Washington Post and other publications last year. "We had people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you,' lots of people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you.' But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, * 'We're ready to recognize Israel.' . . . I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing."

I'm not alone in my assessment, Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who worked for her back in 2003, when Iran offered to negotiate with the White House over a large spectrum of issues has written NO QUARTER: Getting It Right on Iran, and had this to say about Rice in an Interview with Keith Olbermann, Feb. 17, 2007 Crooks and Liars » Countdown: The Administration Who Cried Wolf:
>
Olbermann: Secretary Rice testified last week she had never seen the overture from Iran in '03 for talks with the U.S.- it would have perhaps provided assistance regarding Iraq. Once again, is this just blatant, head first, ram-it-through-the-wall kind of misinformation being passed off by the administration; are they just denying something that's obviously true?

Johnson - It's one of two things, Keith. Either it's incompetence, and we saw an element of that with her handling of the information prior to 9/11 or she has a medical problem, perhaps early onset Alzheimer's. You know, I can't figure it out.

Her assertion that she never saw the documents in question is patently absurd. Why that would be true is fodder for even greater speculation:

  • Maybe she didn't want to see it.
  • Maybe the administration's mind was made about Iraq and Iran from the bitter start.
She clearly knew of the 2003 Iranian proposal and dismissed it with some gibberish about the international community and how our position is somehow stronger now because we ignored Iraq's negotiation offer. In a June 2006 interview with NPR she referred to it: NPR : Condoleezza Rice: 'It's Now Up to Iran' (to listen, click on the speaker icon and her acknowledgment of the 2003 proposal is within the first couple minutes of the interview.)
>
"What the Iranians wanted earlier [2003] was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran ... Now it is Iran and the international community, and Iran has to answer to the international community. I think that's the strongest possible position to be in."

According to Rice's schizophrenic logic, even thought she claims she never saw the document, Rice disputes claim of Iranian diplomatic overture - CNN.com:

Rice told Congress [on Feb. 7, 2007] she does not remember seeing the 2003 Iranian proposal, which suggested Iran was ready to discuss its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel.

There's overwhelming, ** readily available evidence refuting Rice's contentions. She's feeling the heat that her lies have generated but rather than coming clean, that this administration had its sights set on, at the very least, bullying Iran, and at the very most, waging war, she kills the messenger by saying he didn't fulfill his obligation to deliver the full Import of the proposal to her. Rice disputes claim of Iranian diplomatic overture - CNN.com:

Rice was asked about such criticism from a former National Security Council aide, Flynt Leverett.

"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about, quite frankly," Rice said. "Maybe I should ask him when he came to me and said, 'We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it."

Even thought Rice summed up what the memo said in the above, June 2006, NPR interview, dismissing it with disdain, and just recently has said she didn't even remember seeing it, in the end it's all Flynt Leveratt's fault for not grabbing her by the collar and making her understand how important it really, really was. That's what to look for in a National Security Council chief, someone that lies, gets caught, and then blames someone else for enabling her in the first place. Her history is replete with lies, primarily about *** pre 9-11 intelligence.

Why do we have an administration that is content with telling us such obvious lies about their true intentions? How much worse can they make them look than they already do by getting constantly caught and tripped up by their pathetic cover-ups?

Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush, if you come clean with what you really want, I suspect that you'll have the same percentage of Americans that support you now, support you then, and the same gutless congress set to chase its tail for the same, next, two years.  Gene, feeling sick ... again

 

* According to the above Washington Post article, discussions with Israel were on the table in the 2003 proposal that she denies ever seeing. 

** swissinfo - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran, POLITICS: Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel, In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue

****

  • In her public testimony before the 9-11 commission, Dr. Rice stated: “I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.”
  • In May 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”  (05.16.02)
  •  Dr. Rice: “[W]e received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists.” (03.22.04)

The facts:

  • Dr. Rice admitted privately to the 9-11 panel that she had “misspoken” when she said there were no prior warnings, but then proceeded to repeat this claim in public.
  •  Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."
  • Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes.  The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.” 

     

13:05 Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

All the posts