Condoleezza Rice

on Feb 03, 2005

I doubt it. Condi's got a credibility gap the size of a stockpile of missing WMDs. She lied for W. then, she'll lie for him now. She's just learned that deceit and unquestioning loyalty will be rewarded over the truth. What does she have to change for?

on Feb 03, 2005

on Feb 03, 2005

I doubt it. Condi's got a credibility gap the size of a stockpile of missing WMDs. She lied for W. then, she'll lie for him now. She's just learned that deceit and unquestioning loyalty will be rewarded over the truth. What does she have to change for?

I love how you throw unsubstantiated accusations around. Do you like people calling you a liar or a coward? If you are one, I guess not. If you are not, then it probably stings. Think about that before you falsely accuse others of your own sins.

4

sqrrldrw

on Feb 03, 2005

Wow, you're an angry little one aren't you?

5

Dr Guy

on Feb 03, 2005

Wow, you're an angry little one aren't you?

So you are saying you are not and that it stings to be called a liar? Or that you are a liar? Your choice since you cant have a rational debate without name calling.

6

sqrrldrw

on Feb 03, 2005

I have no problem with questioning whether or not Condi's a liar. It seems pretty clear to me that as National Security Advisor, she dropped the ball on 9/11 (see August 10th Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within U.S.) as well as on the Iraq war (NO WMDs found in Iraq).

You have no problem calling other people names when they're debating a point - mine being that Condi's credibility in my mind is absolute zilch given the WMDs. Yet, when I say that I'm instantly accused of making "unsubstanciated accusations." Guess what, they aren't that unsubstanciated. She said there were WMDs, there weren't. She had access to intelligence implying that Bin Laden was planning to attack the U.S. A month later he sucessfully did. She had access to information on the Millenium plot to blow up LAX and that it was tied to bin Laden. Bin Laden had once before attempted to destroy the World Trade Centers, she knew that too. Now, if she was competent, wouldn't it have made sense to at least put the World Trade Centers and LAX on alert after getting that PDB?

So no, I have no problem calling her a liar or questioning her ability to do her job.

I love how so many right wingers have no problem making outlandish accusations about Democrats (Swift-Boat lies anyone?), but the minute someone questions the ability or integrity of a Republican, the person making the question is a liar or guilty of defamation - ridiculous. So make your point.

7

Dr Guy

on Feb 03, 2005

You have no problem calling other people names when they're debating a point - mine being that Condi's credibility in my mind is absolute zilch given the WMDs. Yet, when I say that I'm instantly accused of making "unsubstanciated accusations."

You called her a liar. Being wrong is not lying. I called you to task for that and then you attacked me. You are so far gone you cannot see the difference between making a wrong call and out right lying, but then I guess your hero is Boxer who was shown to be an outright liar. Now,like the poor debater you are, you are switching tactics and calling into question her competance. Yet you never backed up your malicious attck of her being a liar.

Now you are claiming the Swifties lied, so you are again trying to switch the subject to divert attention from your own incompetance. You are truly a pot calling a kettle black, but you cant see the kettle is silver, not black, and you are bereft of facts and debating skills. Except to label and name call. You appear to be competant at that in an incompetant fashion.

8

sqrrldrw

on Feb 03, 2005

I think my point is that I believe she had the intelligence to know that she was lying.

Scott Ritter, American born U.N. inspector that was in Iraq searching for WMDs after Gulf war I, said there were no WMDs.

Elbaradei of U.N. IAEA said there were no WMDs.

Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.

The American Ambassador to Niger said the claims of yellow cake were false.

I think she knew. You're right, I shouldn't have said she was incompetent. She's just a liar.

9

Dr Guy

on Feb 03, 2005

I think my point is that I believe she had the intelligence to know that she was lying.

Scott Ritter, American born U.N. inspector that was in Iraq searching for WMDs after Gulf war I, said there were no WMDs.

Elbaradei of U.N. IAEA said there were no WMDs.

Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.

The American Ambassador to Niger said the claims of yellow cake were false.

I think she knew. You're right, I shouldn't have said she was incompetent. She's just a liar.

I never commented on your statement calling into question her competance, which given your views on iraq you are entitled to, altho I must say she dwarfs yours. And the people you quoted never said there were NO, just that there were none found and more time was needed to verify them. So by your logic, you are either incompetant, or a liar. For your sake, and from your postings, I would gather it is the former.

And the ambassador to Niger never commented on the Yellow cake, which has since proven to be true (not that he got it, but as alleged he was trying to). That was Joe wilson, a former state department flunky with an axe to grind, and he was later proved to be incompetant and a liar.

So you quote incompetants and liars as your basis, and you quote them incorrectly. And you still have not retracted your false allegation, or provided any iota of proof to back it up, just false allegations. Guess that makes you the liar.

10

Daiwa

on Feb 03, 2005

I'm afraid sqrrldrw stopped reading once his/her prejudiced mind saw what it wanted to see. And since when is rewarding loyalty in politics "unprecedented"?

It is sad when principled disagreement becomes lying in the (blinded) eyes of some on the left. Makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion.

Cheers,
Daiwa

11

drmiler

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply #8 By: sqrrldrw - 2/3/2005 11:09:30 AM
I think my point is that I believe she had the intelligence to know that she was lying.

Scott Ritter, American born U.N. inspector that was in Iraq searching for WMDs after Gulf war I, said there were no WMDs.

Elbaradei of U.N. IAEA said there were no WMDs.

Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.

The American Ambassador to Niger said the claims of yellow cake were false.

I think she knew. You're right, I shouldn't have said she was incompetent. She's just a liar.

You didn't read or watch the news much did you. She made a call based on information that was given. At the time EVERY intelligence agency in the world believed that he had WMDs. In hindsight we know better. So it's NOT lying. It's called misinformation or disinformation.

12

Dr Guy

on Feb 03, 2005

You didn't read or watch the news much did you. She made a call based on information that was given. At the time EVERY intelligence agency in the world believed that he had WMDs. In hindsight we know better. So it's NOT lying. It's called misinformation or disinformation.

And if being wrong on occassion is lying, I dare say every man woman and child on this planet are pathological liars almost every day!

13

NJforever

on Feb 03, 2005

it was to signal disappointment in Bush’s unprecedented habit of rewarding unabashed loyalty

Just about everybody does that. The Spoils System. One of the few things Andrew Jackson did that I dislike.

14

Moderateman

on Feb 03, 2005

Reply #9 By: Dr. Guy - 2/3/2005 11:22:25 AM
I think my point is that I believe she had the intelligence to know that she was lying.

Scott Ritter, American born U.N. inspector that was in Iraq searching for WMDs after Gulf war I, said there were no WMDs.

Elbaradei of U.N. IAEA said there were no WMDs.

Hans Blix said there were no WMDs.

The American Ambassador to Niger said the claims of yellow cake were false.

I think she knew. You're right, I shouldn't have said she was incompetent. She's just a liar.

add shrillery clinton, hanoijohn kerry and ted{gimmee nusher drinkie} kennedy to that list were they all liars too?

15

sqrrldrw

on Feb 03, 2005

Scott Ritter said there were no WMDs in Iraq. He also pointed out that the alumninum tubes that Bushie, Condi, and Colin were raging about were incapable of being used in nuclear weapons production. Which turned out to be true. Along with the fact there are no WMDs in Iraq.

I also wouldn't call the Pope, and millions of people across the world that protested going to war absolutely no one.

Kerry, Hillary's and Teddy's faults are that they wimped out and would stick by their beliefs when it mattered, and that is sad. It is a sad commentary on the "democratic leadership" that they couldn't find their backbone.

Is it so difficult to believe that Condi would lie to push an agenda? Is it so tough to think that she didn't know? There was a preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that Iraq had destroyed their weapons program.

Also, I'd hardly call Joe Wilson a liar. His and his wife's lives have been placed at great risk by someone within the State Department that choose - either intentionally or not - to release the name of his wife and the fact that she is a CIA operative. That coincidentially happened just weeks after he reported that the Niger yellow cake was bunk.

What about the head of counterterrorism Richard Clarke? He also said that Iraq had no ties to bin Laden or WMDs? There was evidence everywhere. It was simply ignored.

Last post for a while, heading out of town tonight. Have a good weekend everyone!