Condi sez the outgoing Clinton staff never briefed her. With Clinton's reputation and his legal status as an impeached president, who would believe his former staffers?
2006-10-02 04:55:21 · 17 answers · asked by Jim from the Midwest 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush has been pretty dishonest himself...Plus as condi said once before...in her famous words...." The title was too vauge" while refering to the documents they ignored right before 9/11...yet now bush blames the CIA..blah blah whatever...I don't trust anyone in the govt...they are all liars.
2006-10-02 04:59:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Despite your assertions and the administration's denials so far what Woodward has written is true. For whatever reason the biggest bombshell that has received little media coverage. George Tenet met with Condi Rice and then Rumsfield and Ashcroft in June 2001. This was more than two months before September 11th. At first Condi and Rummy tried to weasel their way out of it saying they did not meet with him, but records show it is true their was a meeting. So they have been lying for 5 years that they did not get any forewarning that Al-Quaeda was going to attack.
2006-10-05 11:46:58 · answer #2 · answered by Frank R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry for you - Woodward is not lying
Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: October 2, 2006
Oct. 2 — A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.
The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, 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.
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.
2006-10-02 21:53:14 · answer #3 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bob Woodward might not necessarily be lying about the President, just not relaying the whole truth, maybe. Each political party has a lot to lose this election. Coming from a Democratic background, I am amazed at the lengths the Democratic leadership will go to try and gain public approval of their party. With leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the useless Ted Kennedy, they find themselves on that iceberg of greed and disinformation, hoping they can peddle enough
doubt to disrupt the American voting block. They have no platform to stand on and surely have no principles. The problem is though, the Republicans do not have anything to really brag about either. In eight years, there has been no significant changes in the economy. The whole world is just about at war, and every day Americans are losing more and more of their "God" given rights to special interest groups who know not God and try and devour those who do.
2006-10-02 12:14:01 · answer #4 · answered by rexallen 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Richard Clarke briefed her and he was part of the Bush administration too. Stop blaming your illegal acts on the Clinton administration. Bush was asleep at the wheel and the country suffered. Bush lied and people died and are still dying.
2006-10-02 12:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by P P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So Woodwards first two books are okay because they supported Bush but the second he dares say a bad word against the bastard you people are all over him and saying hes a liar.
Well its clearly obvious that nothing changes.
2006-10-02 12:08:07 · answer #6 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
sorry that won't work this time - he has recorded interviews to prove his facts.... 60 minutes stressed this last night...the producer listened to tapes to prove this....guess they don't want bush to get another good reporter fired like he did Dan Rather! With members of both parties jumping ship why does it make much difference anymore?
Seems the republicans have their own Monica Lewinsky now except instead of an adult being involved it's children!
The only important issue to me is what each party plans to do to rid our country of illegal immigrants..I'll vote accordingly!
2006-10-02 12:05:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Given the Bush administration's track record on "truth" telling, I'm inclined to believe Woodward.
2006-10-02 11:57:12 · answer #8 · answered by brian2412 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Um, the impeachment failed, and Woodward's book is validated by former bush staffers.
2006-10-02 11:58:47 · answer #9 · answered by corvuequis 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Condi can't even remember George Tenet telling her of the Al Qaeda threat in 2001. Tell me, why does she lie?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
2006-10-02 12:02:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋