Condi admitted she "misspoke!" where's the outrage?

[buycitgo]

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles

I think it's from the Post article here, but I can't get access
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html


isn't this outrageous from myriad standpoints?

they go around at EVERY single fricking opportunity, nailing Clarke on his cred, and then they SNEAK to the commission, admit they LIED about one of the very most fundamental aspects of their culpability, and we hear NOTHING about it, other than in this piece

what gives, media HOES?

huh?

shouldn't this be the straw that breaks condicamel's very weak credibility back?

I mean, this is stunning news, isn't it?

or is it just me?

she wants to CHANGE her testimony!!!

imagine what they'd do if Clarke said that

[tom_paine]

1. Only in a Free Country with a Free Press

Currently, we have neither.

[KC21304]

3. Someone here aptly called her " fried Rice".

I think she has outlived her uslessness.

[mouse7]

27. More like "Chicken fried Rice"

Too chicken swear in and testify in public. Her career is fried because of it.

[buycitgo]

6. I mean, come ON! this puts the lie to EVERYTHING she's said

in public, both recently, and in the past

it perfectly demonstrates the NECESSITY of her testifying under oath.

and the commission is complicit here, allowing her to "revise" her statements.

why should THEY believe anything she says, either?

her only defense is gross, utter, complete incompetence

is she SORRY she's such a feckless, useless tool, RESPONSIBLE, through inaction for the DEATHS of thousands of people?

huh?

again, where's the OUTRAGE?

this is the WORST thing that's come out in the entire fiasco, far as I'm concerned

she admits that she LIED....and nobody's talking about it!

[DemMother]

2. I agree

I was looking for this information last night. I think it's very damning.

[montanacowboy]

4. Unfortunately,

no one gives a big rats ass anymore - these cretins can do and say and get away with anything and everything - the mountain of shit is so high that no one even wants to step over it anymore -

and I wonder if the so called "press" (thats a joke) ever wakes up and reports all this stuff - who out there will care?

the American herd is beyond belief - they will take anything - they are cowards and have forgotton their activist roots - if it were up to this bunch, we would still be English subjects

[buycitgo]

7. montana, got something for YOU, from your home state

"His assertions come in his new book, Against all Enemies, which is rocketing to the top of the bestseller lists, and which the Bush administration sees as a serious threat to Bush’s “War President” façade. Clarke says when he told the Bush cabinet that Afghanistan’s al Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11, Bush insisted on finding “any thread” to link the bombings to Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was quoted as having said: “But there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.”

Needless to say, the Bush administration is fighting back with everything it’s got. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney are all on the stump trying hard to discredit the veracity of Clarke’s assertions.

In this grim national debate of “he said, she said,” it has now come down to a question of “Whom do you believe?” In that equation, the Bush team comes up very short, thanks to its almost endless list of lies, distortions, false threats, and ostentatious declarations of victory.

On the other side of the equation, you have the man charged with leading the fight against the shadowy underworld of terrorism by the last four presidents—three of whom were Republicans. At the height of his long and distinguished professional career, why would Clarke suddenly want to engender the well-known wrath of the Bush administration toward its critics? The answer, that Clarke must do this for the good of the nation, rings as true as a clarion bell in the misty twilight of secrecy in which the Bush administration has cloaked our country."
http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=3937

didn't realize there were some non-coolaid drinkers out there

good to know

[montanacowboy]

9. Well there still might be hope

for that old Red State after all - thanks Buycitgo!

[buycitgo]

15. sure......just stumbled upon it after googling her name in their news port

she's SUCH a fricking LIAR, and they let her get away with it all the time

big fat pig had her on MTP the other week, and just kissed it

kissed it hard

oh, nausea

[Solomon]

10. That's the same thing I said too about the Saudi connection.

Why is everybody staying away from it. I don't get it. They do everything right in our faces.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1289146&mesg_id=1289146

I wish they would make her explain publicly how it was that she misspoke. Did she not read the reports before she made that statement? And how many times did she say it. Did she continue this even in front of the commission in her private testimony? That's what I would like to know.

I don't understand why the democrats are not running away with this one. I mean for chissakes, the national security advisor is bleeding in a campaign where national security is the clown's only issue.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

5. ha i see! she misspoke!

so i guess it's alright to misspeak, to them this is not a lie, but a little 'well i meant this' bull! Isn't it amazing that no one cares to make an issue out of cheney's 'out of the loop' comment that directly contradicts condi's, 'he was in every meeting' admission. Geesh, the media sleeps on....:boring:

[The Night Owl]

11. Even worse, Rice's "misstatement" went uncorrected for 3 years!

If Rice misspoke, she could have corrected her statement 3 years ago! 3 years ago. That is how long this cretin has let her "misstatement" go uncorrected.

So, now... Now that everyone is paying attention finally, Condi wants to make changes!

[snippy]

54. She lied again 4 months later. See post 53.

[underpants]

8. Yep it is in there-I guess she wants a do-over

Whoops I misspoke and even though I wasn't under oath I would like to correct the lie I told you.

[buycitgo]

13. really......I just can't stand it anymore

doesn't this go to the HEART of the 911 inquiry

don't they CARE AT ALL about this?

forget that partisan BS

does Kristin Breitweiser know about this?

should those women by TIME's person of the year, or what?

a kudos to Gail Sheehy for carrying their water, as well.

did you see the two NY Observer pieces she did on Sibel Edmonds, and the Clarke/Rumsfeld/911 commission foofraw, with the widows as centerpiece?

[underpants]

17. No I missed those

I'll look into them this weekend. Thanks.

[Skidmore]

12. They think a "mea culpa" will get it over with fast and

this whole mess will be swept under the carpet so they can proceed with campaign business as usual. They are so wrong about this one...many people have died or been maimed or otherwise hurt by this unconscienably (sp) EVIL, or at best, gross incompetence and negligence.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. IF THEY LET CONDI RICE CHANGE HER STATEMENT THEN

THEY BETTER UNIMPEACH PRESIDENT CLINTON!!

[buycitgo]

16. hahahahahahahahahqhahahhahahaha!

Per fricking ECT!

funny, too!

less PO'd for the moment

thanks!

oops, now I'm PISSED again!

[proud patriot]

18. Begala just called Condi "a proven Liar"

hee hee hee hee hee

[Solomon]

19. I can't help but show y'all what I posted recently.

Notice. She wants to change the words I wrote about. Tee Hee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1285914&mesg_id=1285914

[buycitgo]

22. thanks......I've seen that, but haven't checked it out

so many threads, so little etc.

thank god Begala tossed that one out about her lies

NOW, what are they going to DO about it?

dems, I mean

get going, surrogates

HIT the media hoes hard

[buycitgo]

24. whoaaaa! where'd you come up with THIS?

"In addition, you have Barbara Olson on one of the flights. Placed there to get the inside story of the rescue.

The only reason that Condi couldn't imagine planes used as missiles is that SHE WAS TOLD that they were just traditional hijackings."

that's.......extraordinary?

that yours, or did you read that somewhere else

very tinfoily, but does ANY possibility seem too unlikely, given the depths to which these creatures have sunk/will sink in pursuit of power?

very interesting conjecture

[Solomon]

25. I have a fine set of tin foil hats. Check this one out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1289146&mesg_id=1289146

[buycitgo]

28. man, I need another head.....too bad I'm not one of those frogs they found

of course that theory makes sense, particularly when noted that how many of the jackers didn't know they weren't going to land?

what was that number?

was it everybody but the pilots, or what?

haven't followed the intricacies closely

[DoYouEverWonder]

68. Holy Cow!

Now it makes sense why Barbara Olson was on that plane. Another missing link in the chain of events. I never thought that anyone in the BCF wanted to get rid of her, she was such a major asset. And she would have been an even bigger star, if she had survived a traditional hijacking.

[proud patriot]

23. I saw ....Talk about revisionist history

:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

20. No, I misspoke when I said this cabal was corrupt

They are beyond corrupt, they are pigshit personified.

Condi lied. I misspoke. There is a difference.

[LunaC]

21. One glimmer of hope

Now that Clarke has demolished the BushCo propaganda, Condi wants to meet with them privately but still not under oath. In the flurry of news these past days, I heard it reported that the Commission wil require Condi to be under oath if she wants to come before tham again to refute Clarke's charges considering that HE was under oath when he gave his testimony. If this is the case, it sounds like the Commission isn't willing to go along with the Propaganda Game of lies and unsubstantiated smears.

If Condi attempts an official retraction I suspect they'r going to use it against the Regime in the final report.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive."

[buycitgo]

26. where'd you hear about the oath?

haven't heard word one about that

sure hope that's what happens, but they CAN't allow her to do it, as solomon has so aptly perceived in his thread

great thread, btw...making my way through it now

[LunaC]

34. Don't recall which talking head let it slip

but I remember cheering Tweety for destroying the Pug shill over the Bush* WMD "jokes" and then again over the Commission's stance that you can't discredit sworn testimony without also being under oath. Maybe it was Tweety's show....

[buycitgo]

29. CNN LEADS wih PERJURY

uhhhhhhhh, why NO mention of Condi's LIEs at ALL?

!!!!!

[Jane Austin]

59. Don't you think the talking point is perjury

for Clarke today, so that if Condi gets nailed they can whine that Clarke lied, too; so if Clarke doesn't get a perjury rap, Condi shouldn't either?

[Avalux]

62. Question about the word "misspoke"

the definition is:

1. To speak or pronounce incorrectly: The lead actor misspoke his lines.
v. intr.
2. To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly.

Well - which is it Sleeza??????????????

[9215]

30. GREAT CATCH!!

This destroys her other claims about Clarke being wrong.

She's a fackin' liar.

Wait until Sibel Edmonds tells her story!!!

[buycitgo]

35. to me, this collapses their ENTIRE house of cards

they keep braying about her complete rectitude

well, I can think of a word that starts with rect

remember how they always talked about Colonboy's similar unimpeachable character, his utter trustworhiness?

how many times have you heard them mention that since last February?

that mantle has shifted to Condi, IMO, and they're holding fast to it, for as long as they can

by "they," I mean the media, btw

[9215]

45. rectaltude, Colon it all boils

down to the same thing. The are all a**holes.


We just keep cycling this info back to the surface as the reality of the disaster these bastards have caused slowly sinks into the public's conciousness.

[Exultant Democracy]

31. kick, this is very important.

[buycitgo]

36. as I said upthread

the

whole

house

of

cards

rests

on

her

crumbling

credibility
....^....

that's her cred, teetering on top of that carat mark

[troublemaker]

32. No wonder she won't testify publicly!

Bush cannot allow a TV clip of her admitting that was a "misstatement."

[skeptic9]

33. Remember "That statement is no longer operative", from 'All the President's...

... Men'? Nixon's Press Secretary Ron Ziegler evidently would have been much better off had he said "we misspoke" when the press caught them in a blatant lie. He carried that phrase with him to his deathbed. Condi's PR people are on the ball with their "strategic information management". They got her to say she "misspoke" moments before the big lie was about to be exposed widely.

[buycitgo]

37. can you amplify that?

when was it disseminated widely?

just want to be clear on that

are you talking about the lie itself, cause that's been out there for two years

or the fact that it is a lie?

to my knowledge, this WP story is the first mainstream acknowledgment of her going to the commission to respeak, as it were.

please?

[skeptic9]

51. In a few minutes, take a look at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1290044

[David Zephyr]

38. Kick!

[buycitgo]

41. kick the LIES out of em

love the boondocks ...... read it every day

lots of Chicago Tribune readers HATE it, complain in LTTE quite ofen

love that even more

[buycitgo]

39. this just in, thanks to willyt

Rice expected to meet 9/11 commission again
Panel could insist on oath; GOP lawmakers target Clarke testimony

<snip>

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks indicated Friday that it was likely to grant a request from the White House that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice meet with it in private again to rebut criticism about counterterrorism policies.

“The commission expressed its desire earlier in the week to see her again,” Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, told MSNBC.com, adding that a response to the White House could come before or after a meeting Tuesday of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

“I imagine that at some point along the way it will happen,” he said. But he said the “commission needs to discuss” the request that Rice not be required to testify under oath.

<snip>

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195 /

[buycitgo]

40. they damn well BETTER do more than 'discuss" the need for

real, actual testimony

she hasn't TESTIFIED at all yet.

she's been interviewed

that's NOT testimony

pugs/media are trying to make her sound more credible by sleazy marketing/parsing techniques

what else is newa?

[Woodstock]

42. Good link, good article

:kick:

[buycitgo]

44. edward abbey

kicked ASS

neither a countercultural cowboy nor an unprincipled troublemaker, hah

our poor little planet is close to the edge, isn't it?

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Only_a_Little_Planet/0345244699/

ever read any John McPhee?

conversations with the archdruid?

the one about the birch bark canoe

Pinebarrens

wonderful stuff

[frank frankly]

67. a kick for edward abbey

awesome awesome dude!!!

[lolly]

43. Her Request Begs the Question . . .

Why aren't Democrats bringing it home that, the only conceivable reason she could have for insisting on NOT being under oath is that

SHE WANTS TO LIE AND GET AWAY WITH IT!

Really, now, why else would she make this ridiculous request?
Why on earth would they let her get away with it?

[buycitgo]

46. of course

begala brings it up, but I haven't seen anybody else, demwise, and CERTAINLY no media thugs dare muss her process coiff

[grasswire]

48. I think...

...the first rule of politics is playing out quite nicely today. When your enemy is falling to pieces, just stand back and let it happen. Shake your head and say tsk tsk. Time enough on Sunday to follow up Clarke's MTP appearance with some heavy hitting if necessary.

[buycitgo]

52. stop being so.......reasonable!! I need some valium

can't take this lying BS

Fricking Colorado Governor lying his ASS off about the economy on tweety, and he's letting him get away with it, including that PRICK saying we'd have GREATER deficits now if Kerry had been in office!

he let that slide, blathering about dems in the past using debt as percentage of GDP as excuse for huge deficits!

that a DICK!

Lehman coming up, btw, on Condi

will he let him skate, too?

[mellowinman]

47. I've got some outrage right here...

What?

[pinto]

49. I caught that too, the infamous, "I misspoke", ie lied to the committee.

And she doesn't misspeak in public very well....

[onethatcares]

50. it's friday, it's buried in the homes and garden section, and

they'll do this forever.

[snippy]

53. SHE IS LYING AGAIN.

Rice claims that she "misspoke" in her May, 2002 about planes being used as missiles. But in September, 2002 she was aked specifically about that comment on PBS.

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/rice_9-25.html

No claim in this interview that she misspoke.

[buycitgo]

55. do you believe this? I don't

"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."

BULLSHIT

how to find out about this?

is this like those reports she didn't read, buried in the bowels somewhere?

what kind of notice do these fuckheads NEED?

can't wait to see someone look this up

SOME "journalist" out there, GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY ASS!

[snippy]

56. Typical Bush administration lies.

I have not looked yet, but I am sure there are public claims by other administration staff liars that Bush had all the available intelligence.

[Solomon]

57. Don't you all see what happened? It's as clear as day and I been

yelling this over and over ever since she made that stupid statement.
Here in this interview, she is telling the truth. What she means is, they definitely discussed a hijacking plot involving Al qaeda. But the plot they discussed was all about a "traditional" kind of hijacking. In other words, they had specific intelligence and thought they knew what the perpetrators were up to. Someone set them up, by feeding them this information.

None of them, Bush, Rice, Powell, Rummy, had to be in the top loop, the loop that knew what really was going to happen. From the current administration's perspective, they really WERE caught off guard, they didn't know the planes would be missiles because they were told what kind of hijacking it would be. My guess is that Cheney is in the knowing loop.

[KC21304]

58. I believe it. They didn't want to dirty their hands with anything

from that icky-poo Clinton administration. They wanted to start from scratch with their own policies on anti terrorism and Uncle Dick would be taking care of that as soon as he got around to it. You know, after the energy companies were all taken care of.

[RainDog]

63. the Bush administration "plausible liar-ability"

Rice's statement-

"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..."

What she has done here, but McClellan does, what Bush recently did, is make the moment in question SO SPECIFIC that she can deny it and avoid mentioning any OTHER incidents when they were told about something which doesn't EXACTLY fit the time frame or the exact place they choose.

So, "what was presented to the president on Aug. 6" is what she's denying, not the reportedly numerous mentions of SUICIDE hijackings.

Bush did the same thing the other day about terrorist attacks by defining it as "Sept 11 and The WTC" or some such...

Check out the Memory Hole Blog for a list of warnings which, if none of them saw them, you have to wonder what they were doing...maybe divving up the spoils of war with Iraq which they would have one way or another.

[rman]

64. ok, so she misspoke twice.

the words came out all wrong, she ment to say "do".
people make mistakes, right?

/sarcasm

[Oilwellian]

60. This story was on CBS evening news tonight

I don't think it's going away. :D

[AgadorSparticus]

61. how can we keep/get this story kicked in the news???

i'm ready and willing to write some letters. i want to see condi testify publicly. she OWES this to me and the american people.

edit to include: 3.31.04 ---> Air America premiers. i'm feeling better already about condiLIESa. AA could not come at a better time.

[snippy]

69. Write the commission and the Family Steering Committee. and copy the media

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

http://www.911independentcommission.org/contact.html

[AgadorSparticus]

73. thanks for the links.

[peekaloo]

65. kick

[xchrom]

66. clake lies, rice misspeaks

how do the media whores sleep at night?
for that matter how does the american public keep from showing up at the doors of the white house and escorting bushco out?

[9215]

70. Never ceases to amaze.

How does one make such key assertions as Condi has and then casually say that they were "misspeaks". I wonder if she was coached to say that BS about "traditional" hijackings. If so, who coached her?

[Stephanie]

75. Clarke is a Perjurer, even though his story is consistent

He didn't DISCUSS certain questions in the first interview, because he WASN'T ASKED! That's perjury, as per the pugs.

Condi told ONE story in testimony, and now wants the opportunity to recant it and tell another. Was she lying THEN, or is she lying NOW?

[9215]

76. Those critical of Bush must prove their innocence

and have a Christlike character. Hopefully these personal attacks will carry less sway as time goes on and the substance of the matter more.

[alarcojon]

71. Kick

:kick:

[bluedog]

72. was it our MONey

any body ever think that our tax payers money funded this attack??



in May 2001 he gave them money

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

[indigobusiness]

74. Condi'll love me for this...

Condi Denied Cell Next To Martha


Get your honest news here:
http://sludgereport.blogspot.com

[buycitgo]

77. question: did big Ed ask her about this?

anybody care to guess?

[buycitgo]

78. I'm pretty sure he didn't ask her aout this, AND

this HUGE, steaming LIE is getting absolutely ZERO mention, aside from Margaret Carlson, of all people, on Capital Gang Saturday.

after not having seen this thread for a bit, and being too lazy to check, I'm wondering if Begala mentioned it on Friday....did he?

other than that, it's on these google sites.

feel free to do with them what you will, but I think this should be a major, major talking point for any dems out there.

WHY aren't they throwing it back in the faces of the likes of that smugscumprick David Dreier, for one?

here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=rice+misspoke+ben-veniste

only twenty-five links

surprised?

check this
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=richard+clarke+lies

over a HUNDRED THOUSAND links to richard clarke lies

is that amazing, or what?

course, a decent portion of the first page sends you to Clarke-friendly sites, but this is a ratio of what, four THOUSAND to ONE!!!!

that sounds about right, doesn't it, in terms of media coverage for and against Bush?

they're doing their best, and our side does about squat, even when the, uh, TRUTH is so clearly with us

I started a thread about that, too: power of truth vs. power of presidency; others have done similar ones, coming to mostly the same conclusion

4000:1 just about says it all, doesn't it?

[buycitgo]

79. back to the original article.....getting more and more pissed

this has been mentioned a bit, but not much by the people that need to: media AND dem mouthpieces:

THREE contractions that are going largely unnoticed, and need to be DRILLED into the public consciousness

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban;

the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats;

and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html


and what about that CNN, I think, link posted here today about the State Department memo (whatever) CRITICIZING the Clinton admin for personalizing the bin Laden thing too much?

anybody have that one?

[skeptic9]

80. Do you mean this one from 4/30/01?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept

[buycitgo]

81. yes! thanks!

For the second year in a row, the State Department warned that South Asia "remained a focal point for terrorism directed against the United States" and said trends in terrorism continue to shift from the Middle East to South Asia.

........

Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."

jesus....thanks, MEDIA HOES, for ignoring this!

and WAKE UP DEMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRITE the commission. tell them to get off their asses.
SUBPOENA her lying carapace!

[e-mail]

everybody else do this, too!

[buycitgo]

82. don't forget THIS!!!! she's already LIED to the commission.......AND

it has gotten NOT one bit of attention, that I've seen/heard since Margaret Carlson on Saturday

WHY NOT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[9215]

83. KIck

A big boot for a very important and timely topic. Thanks buycitgo for keeping us posted. :thumbsup: