Chicago Trib (RW) details Rice contradictions on front page!

great article today, highlighting what's already been beaten to death here, but's getting very little discussion anywhere else, especially in one place

this is the kind of story that need much wider exposure....send it to whomever you think might benefit

in the story, Thomas Kean says Clarke was "a good witness, and very, very imporant...." Watch out, Condi. Kean also dismissed whiny pugs
claims of Clarke's own contradictions, saying "'not that great a difference, a difference of emphasis' in Clarke's retellings of events privately and publicly."

here are the major contradictions the Trib lists.....and can you imagine what's lurking out there that we DON'T yet know about?

this should be SO entertaining:

Rice, in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on March 22, claimed that Bush had a plan to take military action against Al Qaeda before Sept. 11.
But Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, under questioning by the commission, said that a military plan was not put in place until "after the horror of 9/11."

Rice also claimed that Bush was engaged so deeply on the issue of terrorism that he had personally requested a CIA briefing on the threat posed by Al Qaeda, which he received in August 2001 at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The CIA, however, later said that it had acted on its own in preparing that report.

Rice has given several accounts of Clarke's role in developing a plan to combat terrorism.
In her Washington Post article, Rice said Clarke did not turn over a plan to the new administration when it first took office.
She later said publicly that Clarke did turn over a plan but that it consisted of ideas that "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."

Her description changed again in an interview with NBC, during which she said that
Clarke had not only turned over a plan but that the Bush administration "acted on those ideas very quickly."

Rice also contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed in a radio interview that Clarke had been "out of the loop" on terrorism issues in the Bush White House even though he was supposed to be Bush's top adviser on such issues.
"I would not use the word `out of the loop,'" Rice later told reporters. "He was in every meeting about terrorism."

Rice has already had to correct at least one substantive claim she made about Sept. 11, commission member Richard Ben-Veniste has said.

Rice once defended Bush by saying, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." But the commission has been told that Clarke and intelligence officials talked about terrorists using airplanes in an attack.

Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, said Rice told the commission in private that she had misspoken in claiming that the possibility was never discussed before Sept. 11.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0404010292apr01,1,6001685.story?coll=chi-printnews-hed

this is a valuable source, cause the Trib is NOT a liberal rag; indeed, their oped page is about as wingnutty as the WSJ. Their chief guy, Bruce Dold, is a wormy little snot, who writes prissy, logic-impaired bits, and revealed himself the other night on Lehrer to be a smug, self-righteous, ill-informed (or mendacious---take your pick), propagandist for the junta......almost as offensive as that bow-tied cretin from the SanDiego paper.

Point is, this can't be dismissed as the ravings of some leftwingnut outlet, like Counterpunch, Time, Newsweek, etc. ha

(I hate it when Republicans do a better job of denoucing themselves than Democrats do of renouncing Republicans.)

that point

I know people who discount everything I tell them, because of the sourcing

they HATE it when I tell them to check the Trib, cause they know it's solidly right wing

what they don't know, however, is that there's a very similar disconnect between their editorial page and hard news to that of the WSJ

they often come up with news stories that directly contradict what's written on the op-ed pages I love that.

and here's an excellent example of documentation trumping idiotic, groundless hero-worship: a wingnut blog taken over by people with facts, most of which have been cited here. pretty funny

http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/002403.html

you can skip a lot of the first commentary; it has stuff like "Rice/Coulter for president!"

someone called ''jman'' shows them what's what toward the end