Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ben-Veniste with Tweety....."shaking the trees"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:07 PM
Original message
Ben-Veniste with Tweety....."shaking the trees"
talking about all the intel that was ignored

tweet being skeptical about dots being connected

showing clip of Condi's infamous "I don't think that anybody could have predicted.....airplane as a missile"

hahahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. then, Clarke's Atlanta Olympics clip, which is off point, actually
why not Kristen Breitweiser, with the post-its, showing the double digit number of examples of JUST such things being reported
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ben-Veniste: "Condi will modify her statement"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. This how she explained it once before.
This was in an interview on PBS in September 2002, four months after she made the statement.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me close by asking you a couple of questions about the joint inquiry into the pre-9/11 intelligence failures because you just referred to the attack without warning.

You had said back in May, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."

Now, as you know, the joint inquiry found otherwise; they found there was a lot of historical evidence that, one, terrorists planned and were capable of attacks in the U.S. - and two, that they talked a lot about using airplanes as weapons. Given everything that has come out, do you still believe that the attacks were unpredictable?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Yes, I do still believe that the attacks were unpredictable. Look, the 1998 reports that apparently some intelligence analysts looked at and made an analysis that perhaps al-Qaida wanted to slam planes into buildings were simply not made available to the Bush Administration.

We weren't here in 1998, and I think you have to look at the fact that this was among a host of other intelligence analyses that suggested that car bombs and attacks against nuclear plants, and other means of terrorism were more likely.

But the fact is when I spoke in May about what was presented to the president on August 6, it is absolutely the case that what was presented to the president and what was analyzed for him and what was analyzed throughout the administration was traditional methods of hijacking - in fact that the hijacking might be to try and win release of al-Qaida prisoners or something like that.

There wasn't any mention or analysis of people slamming planes into buildings; it simply wasn't there.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec02...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds like they're gonna bash Clarke later
Lisa Myers will talk about how good a "Witness" Clarke really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. he was pretty good
now comes thompson and tweety will be his repug self on condi's side and against clarke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Night Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thompson said that the president and vice president are big boys...
Thompson said that the president and vice president are big boys and can take care of themselves. Well, gosh... If they can take care of themselves, then why does Smirk need Cheney at his side when testifying. How dumb do they think we are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. heh....too bad Clarke couldn't be there to SMACK his ass again
he REALLY handed it to Thompson that day, and showed what an utterly incompetent lawyer Thompson is

that was classic: this snip only captures a little of the flavor, and plays it down AFA just HOW pathetic Thompson's performance was

wish I could find a better example

James Thompson entered the ring with a swagger, holding up a copy of Clarke's new book in one hand and a thick document in the other. "We have your book and we have your press briefing of August 2002," he bellowed. "Which is true?" He went on to observe that none of his book's attacks on Bush can be found anywhere in that briefing.

Clarke calmly noted that, in August 2002, he was special assistant to President Bush. White House officials asked him to give a "background briefing" to the press, to minimize the political damage of a Time cover story on Bush's failure to take certain measures before 9/11. "I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to play down the negative aspects," Clarke said, adding, "When one is a special assistant to the president, one is asked to do that sort of thing. I've done it for several presidents."

Nervous laughter came from the crowdor was it from the panel? The implication was clear: This is what I used to do andthough he didn't mention them explicitlythis is what Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley are doing now when they're defending the president.
.......

In the second round of questioning, Thompson returned to the August 2002 press briefing. "You intended to mislead the press?" he asked, perhaps hoping to pound a wedge between the media and their new superstar.

"There's a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about," Clarke replied. Someone in his position had three choices. He could have resigned, but he had important work yet to do. He could have lied, but nobody told him to do that, and he wouldn't have in any case. "The third choice," he said, "is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts. That's what I did."

Well, Thompson asked in a bruised tone, is there one set of moral rules for special assistants to the White House and another set for everybody else?

"It's not a question of morality at all," Clarke replied. "It's a question of politics." The crowd applauded fiercely. To invoke another sports metaphor: Game, set, and match.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097750 /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. heh.....B-V is backing off Tweet question about her lying
Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 06:13 PM by buycitgo
something from a Pincus article about CIA meetings, or something, and whether a specific one was called.....he's going to answer that stuff in the hearings, heh

going after Clarke in next two segments: Jim Thompson, who had his ASS handed to him twice by Clarke, and somebody else, who will discuss how good a witness Clarke is

David Gregory, before this, after saying Clarke has credibility problems (didn't say WHY, or WHAT, of course), detailed that his TESTIMONY has held together quite well. what a DICK, stretch.

got to spread the slime, then verify that Clarke is telling the TRUTH!

move over, Wolf, got room for another hoor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC