SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (128989)4/12/2004 8:42:59 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Losing Touch with Reality

commondreams.org

<<...Predictably, Dr Rice's first objective was to protect the president from criticism. But she failed to satisfy those watching her testimony that the received image of the pre-9/11 White House - that it barely feigned interest in foreign affairs - was inaccurate. Her exchange with commission member Richard Ben-Veniste was particularly revealing, over if she had told President Bush there were al-Qaida cells in the US, after that information had been passed to her by Mr Clarke. To say - as Dr Rice did - "I really don't remember whether I discussed this with the president," should be called the Reagan defense, after the former president repeatedly used the phrase "I don't recall" in an inquiry into the Iran-Contra scandal. What is questionable is whether that is a credible defense from someone reputed to be the smartest person in the White House.

The idea that President Bush was fully briefed about al-Qaida, and that the White House understood that it "posed a serious threat to the United States", simply does not ring true. That feeling is supported by the fact that both the administration and Dr Rice were more interested in pushing for a pointless missile defense shield in the months before September 11. To say that a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" did not warn of an impending attack, according to Dr Rice, suggests the administration has begun to lose touch with reality...>>



To: Bilow who wrote (128989)4/12/2004 2:38:22 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Are you really related to Norman Finkelstein? He's a piece of work, that guy.



To: Bilow who wrote (128989)4/12/2004 2:40:47 PM
From: NightOwl  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
SI Felony!!

Where? When? How? WHoo?

As I read the esteemable TOU a "falsehood" is only actionable if it's in reference to the author's personal info as provided within the application...

...Unless, of course, it concerns an association of the finest lawyers money can buy. <Hoo?><Hoo?>

0|0