Rice Boils Over! Apparently Condi gets upset when someone makes her boss look like a jackass. Someone like say… oh Bill Clinton.
Condi: What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.
I find it amazing that she has the audacity to contradict facts.
O’BRIEN: Much of his [Dick Clarke’s] indictment against the administration seems to be that he felt or feels that President Bush was wrongly focused on Iraq. He says that he had a conversation with President Bush, told him there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. The president, he describes him as being very single-minded in his purpose, and told him, go find out if there is a connection. Did that conversation ever happen?
RICE: Well, I didn’t—I can’t recollect such a conversation, but it’s not surprising that the president wanted to know if we were going to retaliate, against whom are we going to retaliate? And, of course, Iraq, given our history, given the fact that they tried to kill a former president, was a likely suspect.
Really, even though Dick Clarke, which no one will argue, was the only counter-terrorism expert between Reagan and 9/11, said there was no connection and that Bin Laden was a real threat. But yet Bush still wanted to find a connection. Sounds like busy work for Clarke to me. The same kind administrators, give to those that they would like to fire but can’t, in the hopes the person will leave or quit.
But let me tell you what the president was really worried about in those few days after September 11, the first few days. He was concerned about a follow-on attack. And so, we were doing everything that we could to try and harden the country to deal with borders. He was concerned to reassure the American people. He was talking to his economic advisers about how to get Wall Street back up and running so that the terrorists couldn’t collapse the economy. He was concerned about how to get aviation flying again safely and, in particular, how to deal with Reagan National Airport. He was concerned about against whom we would retaliate.
That’s all fine and dandy, but wouldn’t a lot of that be something to do before the attack? Wouldn’t sealing up the borders be important to prevent an attack? But hey what do I know? I am just a graduate student with plenty of years ahead of me.
I really don’t know what Richard Clarke’s motivations are, but I’ll tell you this: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction, and he chose not to.
WHAT? Am I the only one outraged by this. Maybe you jackasses could have done something about 9/11 if he told you that he thought your terrorism plan was moving in the wrong direction? Un-fucking believable! What about the memo? What about the countless times he tried to meet with you all but was cock blocked because he had to go through a chain of command, and his position was downgraded? What about the meeting you had with Clinton’s adviser? And on and on…
Well enough of my rant. If you don’t want to take my word for it, check out the work Olbermann did: No Comprehensive Strategy huh...
Thanks Crooks and Liars
The bottom line for me is that al Qaeda didn’t have oil and Iraq did, as well as the fact the Saudis didn’t like Iraq so their Bull$hitman had to do something to appease them.
Follow the money.