digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

‘I Don’t Know What We Were Supposed To Preemptively strike in Afghanistan'

thinkprogress.org — On CBS’s Face the Nation, a perplexed and stunned Rice said, “The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact.” Rice then said, “I don’t know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps somebody can ask that.” Watch it

Who dugg this?

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

12 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What could we have done in Afghanistan in July 2001?

    Hmm. I wonder if we could have used the same UAV technology Clinton is now maligned for supposedly not using against Al Qaeda while he was in office... I wonder if we could have launched missiles as Clinton was maligned for launching against targets our intelligence found were terrorist-related.

    How can anyone blame Clinton for anything and yet still let these jokers off the hook when they did NOTHING.

    Oh, I keep forgetting the "But Clinton" argument only works when it's to get Bush off the hook.

    Condi Rice is either completely incompetent, or a traitor. Take your pick. But at this point, once the facts are out there, keeping known incompetence in power is the same as treason.

  • jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Secretary Bamboozleeza strikes again. Would you care for some Cream of Mushroom-Cloud Soup madame? It's served in our finest aluminum tubes... goes well with our featured specialty: Pork fillets stuffed with Lies.

    "We were fighting terrorists? Afghanistan is a country? The CIA does what now? Are you asking me these questions because I'm black?"
  • shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Apparently preemption was pre-9/11 thinking. How does Condi still have a job?
  • CyberSally, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think she still believes Iraq is at fault for 9/11.
  • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I think a better question might be why no one in the Bush administration has been brought up on charges of treason or at least impeached. There really is overwhelming evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs, was not connected to 9/11 in any way (Bush himself admitted this) and wasn't an imminent threat. The trail of corruption goes so far up the ass of the government that it can see teeth.
  • strictly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This whole administration is criminal and incompetent. They should all be tried for war crimes and imprisoned.
  • wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dunno, Osama bin Laden maybe? He was a well enough known terrorist cell leader before 9-11, that his name was mentioned on the TV series "The West Wing". If a script writer for NBC knew which names to toss out as "a threat to America" before 9-11, shouldn't the then national security advisor? Or did you not watch that show cause if its liberal leanings?
  • FarhadA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Did the Bush or any one of his high ranking officials EVER mentioned OBL before 9/11 publicly? Did Ms. Rice ever discussed this issue?

    And if these are not true, why did Powel travel to the countries surrounding Afghanistan asking them for help in a possible incoming war against the Taliban regime in June-July 2001?

    She is the woman who have lied about almost everything. Does anyone remember her testimony about the "who would have thought they would use airplanes to attack us"? when she then said "“I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States.'”?

    Come on, she is a pathological lier.
  • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But Clinton didn't do nothing. He threw missile after missile at Bin Laden, but everyone said he was trying to wag the dog off of the whole Lewinsky thing. The big difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton didn't get distracted from his swron duty to his country every time someone jingled their keys.
  • doctorfungi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17 years of doing nothing is worse than 7 months of doing nothing.
  • kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1what the FLICK do you know?!
  • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2"How can anyone blame Clinton for anything and yet still let these jokers off the hook when they did NOTHING. "

    Clinton had 7 years since the first WTC attack? Bush was in office 7 months?

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.