Adding Insult to Perjury

David Sirota sums up my views on Condi’s testimony and the release of the Presidential Daily Briefing:

Not only is Bush lying, but he’s making a ridiculous argument: he’s essentially saying that because he did not know terrorists would attack at a specific time, place he is absolved from his gross negligence in failing to ratchet up homeland security and counterterrorism before 9/11. It is like saying that while you know a car accident can kill you and your family, it is OK to not strap yourself and your kids in because you don’t know exactly when and where you might get into an accident.

He’s got some great Then and Now remarks comparing past quotes to current testimony. (psst, Dave – your archive links aren’t workin’)






One response to “Adding Insult to Perjury”

  1. sam Avatar

    After listening to a particular Randi Rhodes show, I’m now stuck on the very moment of 9/11 – how Bush knew what was going on and yet still chose to go into a classroom and read a book to children. I didn’t think much of it until she pointed it out, and now it makes me angry.

    Doesn’t it blow your mind? He went into the classroom knowing, the journalists knew, the Secret Service knew – yet they let him sit there. It is so odd to be because if I’m the Secret Service I’m thinking immediate assassination attempt as well as that only the Executive can give an order to shoot down a commercial airplane. I’ll spin all my conspiracy theories myself but you can’t deny that there was a total stand down of all existing military procedure and policy. From the late notice of the Air Force to letting Bush sit there and read a book to children while thousands of people died – you can’t ignore that policy and procedure was not followed. And as far as we know – nobody has been fired. If you have a few hours – surf the meticulous Complete 9-11 Timeline – it’s absolutely fascinating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *