Reply #93: VERY Big

[SquireJons]

IMO...

I was thinking about Rices testimony earlier today and I was wondering if any part of it might catch her in a lie. She was very careful about what she said, and stuck mainly to slogans ("no silver bullet") and staunch adherence to a vague party line that "terrorism was very important to shrub." Most of what she said was so bland that she could never be caught in a lie.

But then she got defensive, and that was the part I was thinking about. When asked the name of the briefing, she hesitated, then was asked again for the name, which she straight faced said was "Bin Laden Determaned to Attack inside the U.S." But then she rushed to undermine the seriousness of the briefing by saying that it contained only historical data. That part made me think "hmmmmmm."

Why would a presidential briefing contain only historical data? (maybe because the guy getting the briefing is so stupid that... oh never mind)

With the release of this story (which seemed timed to me), Ms. Rice, our National Security Adviser seems to be caught in a BIG FAT LIE - on TV - in front of a national audience - and under oath.

Even better, this directly implicates bush, because he was told of a substantial amount of what occurred on 9/11 over a month before it actually happened - And He Did Nothing!

It also underscores and highlights all of the lies and spin that came out of the administration immediately after the attack (i.e. "who could have ever guessed that terrorists would hijack a plane and fly it into buildings" - apparently lots of people were worried about that very possibility, according to this article.)

This is HUGE!

Die you disgusting nest of soulless motherf#c&ers... I want to watch you burn.