PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Video: War Criminal Condi: 'Al Qaeda Is A Greater Threat Than Nazi Germany, And ...


KILLER_CLOWN
05-12-2011, 11:03 PM
Video: War Criminal Condi: 'Al Qaeda Is A Greater Threat Than Nazi Germany, And Waterboarding Isn't Torture'

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijEED_iviTA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijEED_iviTA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Earlier we saw this enjoyable exchange at Stanford as Rice was called a war criminal by righteous protesters...

So we decided to go deeper into the heart of the beast with this clip.

Video - Condoleezza Rice chats with Stanford students - April, 2009

* "Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland."

* "We did not torture anyone."

When Condi can't answer the student's questions, she changes the subject and tells the kid:

* "Do your homework next time."

Well Condi, here's some homework for YOU. Meet Kahlid El-Masri. Want to claim he wasn't tortured? Actually, Condi knows he was tortured. Here's the Wikileaks cable to prove it.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hh-877s01U?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Hh-877s01U?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

http://dailybail.com/home/video-war-criminal-condi-al-qaeda-is-a-greater-threat-than-n.html

Fishpicker
05-13-2011, 03:14 AM
Condi should have second guessed that 'Bin Laden determined to strike' memo.

mikey23545
05-13-2011, 03:49 AM
Wow...If Rice is a war criminal, what does that make Obama for ordering the murder of an unarmed man?

whatsmynameagain
05-13-2011, 05:28 AM
Wow...If Rice is a war criminal, what does that make Obama for ordering the murder of an unarmed man?

Osama had two arms you fucking idiot!

mlyonsd
05-13-2011, 07:19 AM
Wow...If Rice is a war criminal, what does that make Obama for ordering the murder of an unarmed man?

The difference is he didn't suffer.

BucEyedPea
05-13-2011, 08:46 AM
Wow...If Rice is a war criminal, what does that make Obama for ordering the murder of an unarmed man?

A man who ordered an extra-judiciary assassination of a suspect who never admitted to doing 9/11 afterall, which the FBI website on him also claims. Remember, since we still have not declared being in a legal state of war, which allows the tools of war to be used, all our laws are still in place.

Jaric
05-13-2011, 08:52 AM
A greater threat than Nazi Germany?

I knew that bitch was retarded.

Bowser
05-13-2011, 09:12 AM
Wow...If Rice is a war criminal, what does that make Obama for ordering the murder of an unarmed man?

Rosie O'Donnell? Is that you?

RNR
05-13-2011, 09:28 AM
Osama had two arms you ****ing idiot!

He had two legs also I might add~

mlyonsd
05-13-2011, 09:31 AM
He had two legs also I might add~Technically until we see the pics we don't know that.

RNR
05-13-2011, 09:32 AM
Technically until we see the pics we don't know that.

You just will not take anyones word for anything :harumph:

Jaric
05-13-2011, 09:37 AM
He had two legs also I might add~

Allegedly...

mlyonsd
05-13-2011, 09:39 AM
You just will not take anyones word for anything :harumph:

Ha. Read an account from a Senator yesterday that saw the pictures. Said his brain was coming out of his left eye socket.

Too quick.

listopencil
05-13-2011, 09:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

National Security Strategy of the United States

The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a document, the National Security Strategy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States), published on September 17, 2002.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-7)</sup> This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.<sup id="cite_ref-NYT_Opinion_20030413_8-0" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NYT_Opinion_20030413-8)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-NYT_Opinion_20020922_9-0" class="reference">[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NYT_Opinion_20020922-9)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-MotherJones_Gitlin_200301_10-0" class="reference">[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-MotherJones_Gitlin_200301-10)</sup> It was updated in 2006<sup id="cite_ref-NSS_March2006_11-0" class="reference">[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSS_March2006-11)</sup> and is stated as follows:<sup id="cite_ref-NSS_March2006_sectionV_12-0" class="reference">[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#cite_note-NSS_March2006_sectionV-12)</sup>


<table style="margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; border-style: none; background-color: transparent; width: 489px; height: 309px;" class="cquote"> <tbody><tr> <td style="color<img src=" border="0" alt="" title="angry" class="inlineimg">
</td> <td style="padding:4px 10px;" valign="top"> The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act </td></tr></tbody></table>

listopencil
05-13-2011, 09:45 AM
For comparison:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monroe_Doctrine


The Monroe Doctrine is a policy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas) would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention (however, the wording referred to the entire Western Hemisphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere), which actually includes much of Europe and Africa). The doctrine was introduced by President Monroe when he was enraged at the actions being executed around him.<sup id="cite_ref-res_0-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monroe_Doctrine#cite_note-res-0)</sup> The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas) were not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America) countries were on the verge of becoming independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_wars_of_independence) from the Spanish Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire). The United States, reflecting concerns raised by Great Britain, ultimately hoped to avoid having any European power take over Spain's colonies.<sup id="cite_ref-Herring.2C_George_C._1776.2C_pp._153-155_1-0" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monroe_Doctrine#cite_note-Herring.2C_George_C._1776.2C_pp._153-155-1)</sup>
The US President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_president_of_the_United_States), James Monroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe), first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address) to Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States) and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt), Calvin Coolidge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge), Herbert Hoover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover), John F. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy), Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) and others.
It would have been nearly impossible for Monroe to envision that its intent and impact would persist with only minor variations for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control (thus ensuring US national security). The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.<sup id="cite_ref-Brit1_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monroe_Doctrine#cite_note-Brit1-2)</sup>

RNR
05-13-2011, 09:45 AM
Ha. Read an account from a Senator yesterday that saw the pictures. Said his brain was coming out of his left eye socket.

Too quick.

Well then it is safe to say he had two eyes but no longer does~

mlyonsd
05-13-2011, 09:46 AM
Well then it is safe to say he had two eyes but no longer does~
No, that just means he had at least one eye socket.;)

Dave Lane
05-13-2011, 09:51 AM
Rice, if a nitwit, was at least a not "evil" in my opinion. Mistakes happen but i'm sad for the guy taken that it took that long to correct.

RNR
05-13-2011, 11:47 AM
No, that just means he had at least one eye socket.;)
Conspiracy nut~