NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh Condi, you got some 'splaining to do (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1317441600&en=5b272a2b4775a9e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

As you may recall, in the pushback against Bill Clinton's appearance on Fox News and then later against Bob Woodward's new book, Secretary of State Condi Rice said that the Clinton administration hadn't left the Bush administration a plan to deal with al Qaeda, and further, "told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks."

Well, the State Department--which Rice runs, remember--says differently.
Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. Woodward’s reporting.

Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodward’s account.

Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.

According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the Central Intelligence Agency had collected pointing to an impending Al Qaeda attack. But both current and former officials took issue with Mr. Woodward’s account that Mr. Tenet and his aides left the meeting in frustration, feeling as if Ms. Rice had ignored them.

Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.

“Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. “We certainly would have followed that up.”

Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Atttorney General John Ashcroft.

But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.

“Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing,” he said. “I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me.”

The dispute that has played out in recent days gives further evidence of an escalating battle between the White House and Mr. Tenet over who should take the blame for such mistakes as the failure to stop the Sept. 11 attacks and assertions by Bush administration officials that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and cultivating ties to Al Qaeda.
What's sadder--that Condi thinks it's incomprehensible that she wouldn't remember such a meeting or that she didn't remember it?

What's sadder--that Condi thinks it's incomprehensible that she wouldn't remember such a meeting or that she didn't remember it?

That people who ought to care will simply let their eyes glaze over before blithely resuming cheerleader practice.

That people who ought to care will simply let their eyes glaze over before blithely resuming cheerleader practice.
And that this thread will repeatedly scroll to the bottom while we make small talk in hopes that someone else will notice it and comment. :p

Remember that, according to Condi, Clinton only left them with a "list of ideas" and "actionable points" presumably set out in some kind of chronological order, but no plan.

And that this thread will repeatedly scroll to the bottom while we make small talk in hopes that someone else will notice it and comment. :p

Don't kid yourself, Nazz - they know it's here, they might even read part of it - but no way in Hell are they going to post on it (at least not while you're online, anyway). In the next hour or two, I will expect to see a) a sudden flurry of threads on NSG of little or no consequence, b) three or four gravedug threads, and c) several entries (if any) on this thread made by a fresh crop of sockpuppets.

And of course, you and I keeping things ticking over. Unless I've spent too long typing, in which case I might hit 'submit reply' and have egg all over my face. Such is NSG. Here goes - over to you, Nazz!




Edit: Damnit, Iztatepopotla - now I gotta go wash my face clean...

Don't kid yourself, Nazz - they know it's here, they might even read part of it - but no way in Hell are they going to post on it (at least not while you're online, anyway). In the next hour or two, I will expect to see a) a sudden flurry of threads on NSG of little or no consequence, b) three or four gravedug threads, and c) several entries (if any) on this thread made by a fresh crop of sockpuppets.

And of course, you and I keeping things ticking over. Unless I've spent too long typing, in which case I might hit 'submit reply' and have egg all over my face. Such is NSG. Here goes - over to you, Nazz!




Edit: Damnit, Iztatepopotla - now I gotta go wash my face clean...Nah. Many's the time I've posted a thread and been convinced it was dead, gone to bed and come back the next morning to see it four pages long.

But you're probably right about this one.

*is looking forward to seeing Deep Kimchi "refute" this*

:p

*is looking forward to seeing Deep Kimchi "refute" this*

:p

Oh, it'll be easy.

Story in NY Times.

NY Times = liberal trash, completely not true, makes up stories to undermine US foreign policy, doctors/stages photos (and, therefore, all evidence), hates Israel, loves Hezbollah and anybody who believes it is as bad as the muslims etc.

Repeated until he's bored (could take a while).

*is looking forward to seeing Deep Kimchi "refute" this*

:p

The White House has a liberal bias.

lollerz

The White House has a liberal bias.

Well, the State Department, but you've got the right idea. ;)

Could tell by the way she denied it. Not news to me.

Could tell by the way she denied it. Not news to me.Sounded a lot like her "no one could have imagined someone would use jumbo jets as weapons," didn't it?

Sounded a lot like her "no one could have imagined someone would use jumbo jets as weapons," didn't it?

Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about that?

Oh, it'll be easy.

Story in NY Times.

NY Times = liberal trash, completely not true, makes up stories to undermine US foreign policy, doctors/stages photos (and, therefore, all evidence), hates Israel, loves Hezbollah and anybody who believes it is as bad as the muslims etc.

Repeated until he's bored (could take a while).

The truth is often hard to take. That Bush and his people are lying is so obvious but people choose to be blind about it or just make excuses for them. I'm sure that any TV news organization would not run with this or at most will simply make a passing reference it.

Then again there is supposively a liberal bias in the media so I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about that?

Sure did, which is what I immediately thought when she said that back in 2001.

Sure did, which is what I immediately thought when she said that back in 2001.

Isn't Tom Clancy like a semi-expert on the subject of terrorism?

Could tell by the way she denied it. Not news to me.
You'll like this. (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/incomprehensible.html)

Isn't Tom Clancy like a semi-expert on the subject of terrorism?

He did write a book where a terrorist crashes an airplane into Congress while the President was giving the State of the Union address.

You'll like this. (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/10/incomprehensible.html)

But... the word was "inconceivable".

But... the word was "inconceivable".

Not when we're talking about Condi.

I work far too much to reply much, but any contribution can help. It's so sad how people will create apologies to deny the truth. The truth being that some times your government does not have your best interest in mind. That they are beholden to people with power and money and that's what they care about most. The poor die in wars and the rich make profits off of them. It's been this way since the days of monarchies. Oh well, the meak shall inherit the Earth right? I'd like to hope the truth will prevail, but it seems like there's a apins for everything. People are even spinning this Foley thing. Are you Fing kidding me? Anything of a sexual nature with amoinor is at very least endangering the welfare of a child. Their arrogance will be their downfall. :mp5:

Not when we're talking about Condi.

Ok, just making sure. Accuracy with the Princess Bride is a little important you know. :)

So what exactly are you proposing that Condi lied about? A meeting with Tenet?

*is looking forward to seeing Deep Kimchi "refute" this*
Oh..oh...oh..can I try?
Choose one or more of the following:

"This is old news."
"This happened 5 years ago. Why are we still bothering about this?"
"Can't do nothing about this now, so why drag it up now?"
"This is just yet another attempt by the Liberal Media to discredit a senior GOP member just before the elections. It's pathetic!"
"Bringing this up now just plays into the hands of the terrorists. By undermining the Bush admin, you're helping al Qaeda."
"Even if they did do something bad previous, we can't change direction now. We need to stay the course"
"lalalalalalala...I have my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you!"
"This is all Clinton's fault"


The Bush admin apologist's handy list of excuses to trot out when faced with uncomfortable reality.

Isn't Tom Clancy like a semi-expert on the subject of terrorism?

Compared to the current executive branch of the US government, yes.

Didn't Tom Clancy write a book about that?
So did Stephen King (Running Man).
Shame we don't have either of those two heading US anti-terrorism policy. They couldn't do any worse than what we've got now.

And since we're in the middle of this Foley incident, this will get no play whatsoever. :headbang:

What's sadder--that Condi thinks it's incomprehensible that she wouldn't remember such a meeting or that she didn't remember it?

oh condoleeza
do you get the fucking joke? (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=652176844)

Sure did, which is what I immediately thought when she said that back in 2001.

Oh c'mon, who needed the fictional example of "no-one could have conceived"?

Especially when just a couple of months prior to 9-11 (July 2001 to be exact) defences against just that eventuality were put in place at the G-8 Summit in Genoa.

When they put "missile batteries at the airport to counter any terrorist threat. " (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,524209,00.html)

Why were they put there?

Because Egypt sent the word out that they had heard of a plot by Al Qaeda to use aircraft as a weapon and passed that info along to the G8 and world security aparatuses (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/26/MN199667.DTL)

But nahhhhhhhhhhhhh, the national security advisor wouldn't be in the loop on issues of security at an event her boss was attending right?

Or getting briefed as part of the world security aparatuses on received threats about possible terrorist attacks?


Nah.




Not when it was such a globally inconceivable idea!!!!

The house of cards really is coming down, isn't it? Lies are starting to overlap and after so many people have been thrown under the bus, there's only so many more to take the blame. I only hope I can watch this administration collapse in an atmosphere in which one can enjoy popcorn.

So what exactly are you proposing that Condi lied about? A meeting with Tenet?

She lied about having no information that would have told her that she ought to have aggresively pursued Osama Bin Laden. The whole "we were not given a plan by the Clinton administration," thing. She lied about that.

But top marks on finding #7 on Demented Hamster's list before he even posted it.

Well if it isn't half obvious 'something' is going on.

Of course they'll lie! The only two things a government representative has to do are:

1, survive till the next media conferance.

2, ensure an overall increase in their popularity.

Why do you all hate freedom so? :(

[fill in the lie]
I'd probably more shocked if someone proved Condi or Rumsfeld or whoever told the truth.

Why do you all hate freedom so? :(
D'oh!
That should be on my list, as #9.
I knew I missed one.

I think the Bush administration is surpassing the former Berlusconi cabinet in the "shameless lies" sector.

So...she knew.

She knew, and she later lied about knowing.

Why?

Hmm..maybe becuase she knows one of the following are correct:

1. She lied to cover up one of the grossest acts of negligence in the history and security of America.

2. The Bush administration purposely did not take the the appropriate actions, in order to benefit from mass political support, gained after 9/11.

So..either everyone is right, and Bush and Co are INDEED complete fools...

OR...this was all part of a plan, to gain national support, in the effort to invade and occupy Iraq, to secure oil futures.

Wich one is it?

D'oh!
That should be on my list, as #9.
I knew I missed one.

You also forgot "Yeah.... But Clinton got a blowjob!!!!1one"

and

"The democrats would have lied even worse"

So...she knew.

She knew, and she later lied about knowing.

Why?

Hmm..maybe becuase she knows one of the following are correct:

1. She lied to cover up one of the grossest acts of negligence in the history and security of America.

2. The Bush administration purposely did not take the the appropriate actions, in order to benefit from mass political support, gained after 9/11.

So..either everyone is right, and Bush and Co are INDEED complete fools...

OR...this was all part of a plan, to gain national support, in the effort to invade and occupy Iraq, to secure oil futures.

Wich one is it?

Thats a tricky one, can a phone a friend?

Thats a tricky one, can a phone a friend?

No..but I'll give ya 50/50!

:)

So...she knew.

She knew, and she later lied about knowing.

Why?

Hmm..maybe becuase she knows one of the following are correct:

1. She lied to cover up one of the grossest acts of negligence in the history and security of America.

2. The Bush administration purposely did not take the the appropriate actions, in order to benefit from mass political support, gained after 9/11.

So..either everyone is right, and Bush and Co are INDEED complete fools...

OR...this was all part of a plan, to gain national support, in the effort to invade and occupy Iraq, to secure oil futures.

Wich one is it?

I really have to hope that it's number 1, because at least it's understandable.

I really have to hope that it's number 1, because at least it's understandable.

It's got to be. No one could be that cynical.

Trilby63;11762265']It's got to be. No one could be that cynical.Oh, I've learned never to underestimate the capability of human cynicism, especially when there's this level of power at stake, but still, I have to hope it's number one.

Yeah, I just... *sigh*... I'm not surprised at all by their lies anymore. Not a bit. I've come to expect them, no, I've come to believe that they're lying before it even comes to light that they've done it.

I can't think of one single thing that came out of that administration that I've trusted.

Fuck Condi. Question-dodging bitch. I bet she won't even accept a return interview considering the last one she gave WAS A LIE.

*is looking forward to seeing Deep Kimchi "refute" this*

:p

With his "master debater" skillz...

However while there are muslims to be bashed, I feel this one will slip by.

Oh..oh...oh..can I try?
Choose one or more of the following:

"This is old news."
"This happened 5 years ago. Why are we still bothering about this?"
"Can't do nothing about this now, so why drag it up now?"
"This is just yet another attempt by the Liberal Media to discredit a senior GOP member just before the elections. It's pathetic!"
"Bringing this up now just plays into the hands of the terrorists. By undermining the Bush admin, you're helping al Qaeda."
"Even if they did do something bad previous, we can't change direction now. We need to stay the course"
"lalalalalalala...I have my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you!"
"This is all Clinton's fault"


The Bush admin apologist's handy list of excuses to trot out when faced with uncomfortable reality.

You win the thread. :)

One of the filthy bush hacks lying? whodathunk

She lied about having no information that would have told her that she ought to have aggresively pursued Osama Bin Laden. The whole "we were not given a plan by the Clinton administration," thing. She lied about that.

No, she didn't. Clinton may have told her something along the lines of "Osama is a bad guy -- we need to go after him." That's certainly not a comprehensive plan. Clinton basically copped out when it came time to offer a comprehensive plan, but managed to cover his ass by arranging some sort of meeting with details that were already known by the Bush administration. Clinton is the liar here, not Condi.

No, she didn't. Clinton may have told her something along the lines of "Osama is a bad guy -- we need to go after him." That's certainly not a comprehensive plan. Clinton basically copped out when it came time to offer a comprehensive plan, but managed to cover his ass by arranging some sort of meeting with details that were already known by the Bush administration. Clinton is the liar here, not Condi.I'll give you this much--you're persistent. Not terribly accurate or intelligent, but certainly persistent.

And that this thread will repeatedly scroll to the bottom while we make small talk in hopes that someone else will notice it and comment. :p

At least you got someone in here arguing. None of the Bush supporters will touch my latest Rumsfeld thread.

No, she didn't. Clinton may have told her something along the lines of "Osama is a bad guy -- we need to go after him." That's certainly not a comprehensive plan. Clinton basically copped out when it came time to offer a comprehensive plan, but managed to cover his ass by arranging some sort of meeting with details that were already known by the Bush administration. Clinton is the liar here, not Condi.

as someone who doesnt know a great deal about US polemical politics, can someone answer me this.

do the right EVER admit they are wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?

I gotta say, you do know about the communists in the state department, right?
Condi wasn't given a plan, she was given an elaborate euphamism for a plan.

At least you got someone in here arguing. None of the Bush supporters will touch my latest Rumsfeld thread.

I don't know that you can call what MTAE's doing "arguing," but I see your point. ;)

as someone who doesnt know a great deal about US polemical politics, can someone answer me this.

do the right EVER admit they are wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?

No, they do not.

See, they claim a monopoly on being right because it's in their name. They are the "right", so therefore, etc.

So, if a rightwing politician says that "nuclear" is pronounced "nuke-u-lar," then that is how their entire party and all rightwing media reporters will pronounce it, even if they never did before. If a rightwing politician thinks "lunch" is spelled with a "z," you better believe it will be spelled that way, somehow, on the menu at the Capitol Hill cafeteria for as long as the Republicans hold both houses.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW10-04-06.jpg

I don't know that you can call what MTAE's doing "arguing," but I see your point. ;)

Do you have any "proof" that "Clinton" gave the "Bush" administration a specific "plan" for "combatting" terror and "Al-Qaeda," or do we just have to take Clinton's word for it? After all, Clinton's word isn't worth that much -- and he got extremely defensive on that topic in an interview. It seems he's lying...again. At least he's not under oath this time, so that's a plus.

No, she didn't. Clinton may have told her something along the lines of "Osama is a bad guy -- we need to go after him." That's certainly not a comprehensive plan. Clinton basically copped out when it came time to offer a comprehensive plan, but managed to cover his ass by arranging some sort of meeting with details that were already known by the Bush administration. Clinton is the liar here, not Condi.

Several members of Bush's staff, including Bush himself, have repeatedly mentioned that they recieved a full dossier on Bin Laden, and Al-Qeada, and even former General Clark, (you may remember him, he made a weak run for President)
...says Bush was fully informed by the Clinton Administration, that Osama and Al-Qeada were going to be Americas number one concern of national security.

...But...that this information was almost unilaterallly ignored, and attention was instead directed at Iraq.

Big surpise..

Do you have any "proof" that "Clinton" gave the "Bush" administration a specific "plan" for "combatting" terror and "Al-Qaeda," or do we just have to take Clinton's word for it? After all, Clinton's word isn't worth that much -- and he got extremely defensive on that topic in an interview. It seems he's lying...again. At least he's not under oath this time, so that's a plus.

Sure do, but it won't matter. I could have screen shots of the actual plan itself, dated and time stamped, along with video of the meeting Condi Rice just denied being involved in and you'd still claim there wasn't sufficient evidence to meet your rigorous standards. You know why?

Because you're a lying, reality-denying, self-serving douche who wouldn't know the facts if they pulled their respective dicks out and slapped you in the face with them.

Sure do, but it won't matter.

I would be much indebted to you if you could actually post this proof. I'll decide for myself whether I am willing to accept it or not.

None of the Bush supporters will touch my latest Rumsfeld thread.

i've always found that trait fascinating. it's as if they know on some level that their ideas and the people they support are completely undefensible, and generally utter crap. so they just avoid situations where it would become too obvious for even their own delusional minds to deal with. but this doesn't stop them from vocally supporting those same crap ideas as soon as they think its safe again.

it's like they know that they are shameful excuses for human beings, but rather than take that shame and try to change, they just disappear for awhile and come back as bad as ever.

i suspect a similar dynamic is at play with all those republicans who keep going on about their 'libertarian' leanings.

i've always found that trait fascinating.

To which thread are you referring? If there is an actual premise to debate, I will most likely do so. If it is just an anti-Rumsfeld rant, I'd rather not get involved in a liberal orgy.

i suspect a similar dynamic is at play with all those republicans who keep going on about their 'libertarian' leanings.

These day, a libertarian Republican is almost as oxymoronic as a Zionist Nazi.

i've always found that trait fascinating. it's as if they know on some level that their ideas and the people they support are completely undefensible, and generally utter crap. so they just avoid situations where it would become too obvious for even their own delusional minds to deal with. but this doesn't stop them from vocally supporting those same crap ideas as soon as they think its safe again.

it's like they know that they are shameful excuses for human beings, but rather than take that shame and try to change, they just disappear for awhile and come back as bad as ever.

i suspect a similar dynamic is at play with all those republicans who keep going on about their 'libertarian' leanings.

If they aren't desperately claiming to be "libertarians" or "centrists", they're sitting perched atop the political fencepost claiming that the political Left and Right don't even exist. As I've pointed out in the past, come election time - when faced with that voting booth - their true colours will come out, even if behind a curtain, and they'll just go ahead and vote Republican anyway.

And as far as NSG goes, they'll just find a slew of fluffle threads to bide their time with, or they'll start comparing their fantasy handguns to each other - or maybe come up with yet another cloyingly sickening self-congratulatory, "Who's the most fabulous something-or-other" thread.

So it goes.

These day, a libertarian Republican is almost as oxymoronic as a Zionist Nazi.

i found it interesting to watch a couple of 'libertarian' republicans i know in rl try to defend the bush regime, while being prodded by me about their proclaimed devotion to liberty at key points. they refused to accept that approving of the state being able to disappear people and torture them, etc. had any relevance to their 'libertarian' bona fides.

The house of cards really is coming down, isn't it? Lies are starting to overlap and after so many people have been thrown under the bus, there's only so many more to take the blame. I only hope I can watch this administration collapse in an atmosphere in which one can enjoy popcorn.

People are stupid. I don't care if the "house of cards" gets fifty stories high, in California, with hurricane speed winds blowing, and Godzill rampaging about, it will never fall. The general populace will believe any line of crap that is spewed to them by who they see as an authority figure. Does not matter where you lie on any political spectrum, all people are quite susceptable to the most unbelievable lies.

As Goebbels said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

I'll let you think about it.

i found it interesting to watch a couple of 'libertarian' republicans i know in rl try to defend the bush regime, while being prodded by me about their proclaimed devotion to liberty at key points. they refused to accept that approving of the state being able to disappear people and torture them, etc. had any relevance to their 'libertarian' bona fides.

That's Republicans for you. *sighs*

I'll give you this much--you're persistent. Not terribly accurate or intelligent, but certainly persistent.
Dribble....forward pass.....SLAM DUNK!! :D

However while there are muslims to be bashed, I feel this one will slip by.This all is just a show!

Them muslims have hi-jacked an aeroplane in Turkey -see, that's an arab countrey. Them hijackers want the Pope to say he is sorry... or adopt them... we just dunno yet. Them muslims=evil. You folks were just about to forget it!

As Goebbels said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


That's all rather dependent on the frankly unreasonable assumption of a populace uniformly unfamiliar with by-now long-established methods of disseminating propaganda, though isn't it?

You think anybody who's taken a community-college course on Media Studies is going to be fooled by Goebbels' old bag of tricks? Get real, man - that was over sixty years ago. More than enough time for a keener awareness to filter through into the mainstream. This is why exceedingly few people out there are cutting Dubya and his cronies much, if any slack these days. The White House reeks.

Anybody strategizing from Goebbels' old playbook is going to have their work cut out for them.

i've always found that trait fascinating. it's as if they know on some level that their ideas and the people they support are completely undefensible, and generally utter crap. so they just avoid situations where it would become too obvious for even their own delusional minds to deal with. but this doesn't stop them from vocally supporting those same crap ideas as soon as they think its safe again.

it's like they know that they are shameful excuses for human beings, but rather than take that shame and try to change, they just disappear for awhile and come back as bad as ever.

i suspect a similar dynamic is at play with all those republicans who keep going on about their 'libertarian' leanings.

People have built-in blinders. It is far easier to accept something, completely and fully, than it is to actually question everything. Once one questions everything, they find that they do not live in Happyland, with gum-drops and lollie-pops, but instead in a dreary, depressing world full of violence, death, and disease. This fact is a hard one to come to terms with, and is difficult to deal with. Ask any single person their thoughts on death. You will receive, most of the time, one of two answers: Heaven, or a refusal to address the concept of death.

Basically, people like to remain blissfully ignorant because it is their desire to remain blissful. If they cannot dispute an idea, it is better for them to ignore-they need not confront it, and remove themselves from their false, happy, reality, to what is truly real-a world of nothing more than miserable.

That's all rather dependent on the frankly unreasonable assumption of a populace uniformly unfamiliar with by-now long-established methods of disseminating propaganda, though isn't it?

You think anybody who's taken a community-college course on Media Studies is going to be fooled by Goebbels' old bag of tricks? Get real, man - that was over sixty years ago. More than enough time for a keener awareness to filter through into the mainstream. This is why exceedingly few people out there are cutting Dubya and his cronies much, if any slack these days. The White House reeks.

Anybody strategizing from Goebbels' old playbook is going to have their work cut out for them.

Yes. Yes I do. Human nature is still human nature. No class is going to change that.

People are extraordinarily ignorant of what is really going on. It is quite easy for the government to completely lie to the people, because the people are willing to believe what they perceive to be an all-knowing authority. The idea that those who have the ability to control every aspect of your life could decieve you is unsettling, so thus it is in our nature to come to a more blissful, and "better" reality than what is really going on.

Contemporary example:

Saddam was involved in 9/11. The current administration hammered this so hard into people, that there are still many people(even on this very board) who believe Iraq is about 9/11.

Hell, look at the Iraq war in general for a perfect example. It has taken this idea of propaganda and hammered it home.

So the question is, if this type of propaganda is obsolete, then why is still being used today? Because it is not obsolete. All propaganda relies on human nature. Human nature is not changed by 60 years, nor by any class.

Now, I'm not saying that "Republicans are Nazis!!!!", I'm just pointing out what one of the most brilliant propagandists of the 20th century had said(Although he was deplorable, he was a brilliant propagandist).

Do you have any "proof" that "Clinton" gave the "Bush" administration a specific "plan" for "combatting" terror and "Al-Qaeda," or do we just have to take Clinton's word for it? After all, Clinton's word isn't worth that much -- and he got extremely defensive on that topic in an interview. It seems he's lying...again. At least he's not under oath this time, so that's a plus.
Heck, Bush and Cheney did not even want to be held to any truth/lie or did you forget that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

While President Bush and Vice President Cheney did ultimately agree to testify, they did so only under several conditions:

They would be allowed to testify jointly;
They would not be required to take an oath before testifying;
The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers;
These notes would not be made public.
The commission agreed to these conditions, and the President and Vice President gave their testimony on April 29.

They could hold hands and lie!! How special!!

Remember that, according to Condi, Clinton only left them with a "list of ideas" and "actionable points" presumably set out in some kind of chronological order, but no plan.

And they say that Democrats _have_ no ideas! :headbang:

And they say that Democrats _have_ no ideas! :headbang:

Hmmmmm. I wonder what Condi's definition of a "plan" is anyway...

No, she didn't. Clinton may have told her something along the lines of "Osama is a bad guy -- we need to go after him." That's certainly not a comprehensive plan. Clinton basically copped out when it came time to offer a comprehensive plan, but managed to cover his ass by arranging some sort of meeting with details that were already known by the Bush administration. Clinton is the liar here, not Condi.
Congratulations, you just hit #8 on my list:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11761379&postcount=25

Feel free to go for any of the other 7 there.

Hmmmmm. I wonder what Condi's definition of a "plan" is anyway...
Condi's Plan:

Get up in the morning, walk the dog and allow it to shit on everybody elses lawn.

Drive to the office humming Hail to the Chief

Arrives at office checks the gun in her draw and does a couple of 'shrooms.

Immediately after makes a press announcement about WMD:

"we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Coffee break, and a couple more 'shrooms.

Meet with Tenet and ignore impending threat ('shrooms are really taking affect).

Lunch: couple of cocktails and braised pork with mushroom gravy

Back to the office....couple of 'shrooms to take the edge off and try to remember what she had done in the morning, shrugs

Looks over Clinton's plan dealing with terrorists, laughs, places report in circular file

Coffee: just one 'shroom....going home soon

Issue threat to Iran: Iran "should think about the fact that the international community has other means still at her disposal," Ya mean like usable nukes?

While visions of mushroom clouds danced in her head.

Drives home humming Star Spangled Banner.

:D

Do you have any "proof" that "Clinton" gave the "Bush" administration a specific "plan" for "combatting" terror and "Al-Qaeda," or do we just have to take Clinton's word for it? After all, Clinton's word isn't worth that much -- and he got extremely defensive on that topic in an interview. It seems he's lying...again. At least he's not under oath this time, so that's a plus.


The Clinton plan, Time reported, was drawn up after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. In the wake of that bombing, Time said, White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke put together "an aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda." Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, "the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan." It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, "everything we've done since 9/11."

Time said Clarke presented the "strategy paper" to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. "We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office," Time quoted an unnamed former Clinton aide saying. "That wasn't going to happen." Instead, Berger — who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism — urged Rice, the incoming national-security adviser, to take action. But the new administration didn't follow that good advice. The Clinton proposals, Time reported, "became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials

The Clinton plan, Time reported, was drawn up after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole. In the wake of that bombing, Time said, White House anti-terror chief Richard Clarke put together "an aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda." Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, "the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan." It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, "everything we've done since 9/11."

Time said Clarke presented the "strategy paper" to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. "We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office," Time quoted an unnamed former Clinton aide saying. "That wasn't going to happen." Instead, Berger — who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism — urged Rice, the incoming national-security adviser, to take action. But the new administration didn't follow that good advice. The Clinton proposals, Time reported, "became a victim of the transition process, turf wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials
Cue the "Time is an untrustworthy liberal rag" response from whatever Bushco person happens in here next.