Rice to New York: "Suck it!"
And by it I mean Toxic Air and by Suck I mean breathe it thinking you are fine.
From the New York Post!
By SUSAN EDELMAN, HEATHER GILMORE and BRAD HAMILTON
September 24, 2006 -- Condoleezza Rice's office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was "safe to breathe," internal documents show.
Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council - "the final decision maker" on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.
Scientists and lawmakers have since deemed the air rife with toxins.
Early tests known to the EPA at the time had already found high asbestos levels, the notes say. But those results were omitted from the press releases because of "competing priorities" such as national security and "opening Wall Street," according to a report by the EPA's inspector general.
The chief of staff for then-EPA head Christie Todd Whitman, Eileen McGinnis, told the inspector general of heated discussions, including "screaming telephone calls," about what to put in the press releases.
The notes come from a 2003 probe into public assurances made on Sept. 16, five days after the 9/11 attacks. They tell how a White House staffer "worked with Dr. Condoleezza Rice's press secretary" on reviewing the press releases for weeks.
Whitman said through a spokeswoman Friday that she never discussed her press releases directly with Rice. She also defended her collaboration with the White House.
Now-retired Inspector General Nikki Tinsley told The Post her auditors tried to question the head of President Bush's Environmental Quality Council, but "he would not talk to us."
Calls and e-mails to Rice were not returned.
---------
When Whitman was asked about this the interviewer didn't push to the real question, "Who told you to lie in the press release about the quality of the air?"
Answer: Condi Rice
So now all the first responders and people with 9/11 lung disease, you know who to direct your ire to. Send those medical bills to Condoleezza Rice's office.
One person has died because of the toxic air. Now can we say, "Rice lied, people died?" or do we need to wait for a few more deaths?
I know how people parse words to the press. Now someone needs to ask Rice about this and please, please, please be prepared with a follow-up to her bullshit answer.
Oh and I had this before Atrios! But blogger failed me.
From the New York Post!
By SUSAN EDELMAN, HEATHER GILMORE and BRAD HAMILTON
September 24, 2006 -- Condoleezza Rice's office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was "safe to breathe," internal documents show.
Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council - "the final decision maker" on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.
Scientists and lawmakers have since deemed the air rife with toxins.
Early tests known to the EPA at the time had already found high asbestos levels, the notes say. But those results were omitted from the press releases because of "competing priorities" such as national security and "opening Wall Street," according to a report by the EPA's inspector general.
The chief of staff for then-EPA head Christie Todd Whitman, Eileen McGinnis, told the inspector general of heated discussions, including "screaming telephone calls," about what to put in the press releases.
The notes come from a 2003 probe into public assurances made on Sept. 16, five days after the 9/11 attacks. They tell how a White House staffer "worked with Dr. Condoleezza Rice's press secretary" on reviewing the press releases for weeks.
Whitman said through a spokeswoman Friday that she never discussed her press releases directly with Rice. She also defended her collaboration with the White House.
Now-retired Inspector General Nikki Tinsley told The Post her auditors tried to question the head of President Bush's Environmental Quality Council, but "he would not talk to us."
Calls and e-mails to Rice were not returned.
---------
When Whitman was asked about this the interviewer didn't push to the real question, "Who told you to lie in the press release about the quality of the air?"
Answer: Condi Rice
So now all the first responders and people with 9/11 lung disease, you know who to direct your ire to. Send those medical bills to Condoleezza Rice's office.
One person has died because of the toxic air. Now can we say, "Rice lied, people died?" or do we need to wait for a few more deaths?
I know how people parse words to the press. Now someone needs to ask Rice about this and please, please, please be prepared with a follow-up to her bullshit answer.
Oh and I had this before Atrios! But blogger failed me.
7 Comments:
Clearly national security conerns were more important. What are you some murika hating commie pinko fascist or soemthing? ;-) /end snark
Now someone needs to ask Rice about this and please, please, please be prepared with a follow-up to her bullshit answer.
We won't hold our breath on that one now shall we? Unless of course we can sneak in to the presser or get press pass as easiy as Jimmy Jeff? ;)
Nothing surprises me anymore. Meanwhile, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are distracting progressive-leftists at precisely the wrong time.
how much more proof do we need that everyone in this admin lies? seriously. what the hell is it going to take for us to do something? a friend of mine told me that she doesn't read blogs because all we do is talk. she is right. not sure what we should do- but talking isn't changing anything- progressive or not. we have to find some leaders and do something.
oh I agree. Doing something is important. Actually I'm working on a project right now that will be able to be re-purposed for political action.
But the interesting question is WHAT kind of activities are effective enough to actually count? We have protests and they are considered "focus groups". We write letters and they are ignored as those "angry" leftists. (As if we didn't have the right to BE angry)
We try and get the vote out and we find out that it has been suppressed, made difficult or our legit voters purged (Thanks Kathrine!) or even rigged. (but we don't have the hard, hard proof that will hold up in a court of law...yet)
So the question is what method is the most effective way to get these people out of power?
My money is on the law. I want our smartest lawyers to PROVE that they are breaking the law. When it is a CRIME to lie, we should then prosecute. Of of the tricks they use is claiming National Security for everything and executive privlidge for others. If the broken laws are hidden no one knows. And if they can say that the broken law is questionable using lingusitic games, we are screwed.
That is why I was SO upset with the recent change in the law about how we define torture and war crimes.
If they break the law and then we catch them they know they can go to jail. They know that too, so they will CHANGE the law. Which is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Of course we can't talk about armed insurrection until something happens that REALLY can't be ignored like oh I don't know someone getting a BJ in the White House. Now THAT would be worthy of impeachment (snark.)
oh I agree. Doing something is important. Actually I'm working on a project right now that will be able to be re-purposed for political action.
But the interesting question is WHAT kind of activities are effective enough to actually count? We have protests and they are considered "focus groups". We write letters and they are ignored as those "angry" leftists. (As if we didn't have the right to BE angry)
We try and get the vote out and we find out that it has been suppressed, made difficult or our legit voters purged (Thanks Kathrine!) or even rigged. (but we don't have the hard, hard proof that will hold up in a court of law...yet)
So the question is what method is the most effective way to get these people out of power?
My money is on the law. I want our smartest lawyers to PROVE that they are breaking the law. When it is a CRIME to lie, we should then prosecute. Of of the tricks they use is claiming National Security for everything and executive privlidge for others. If the broken laws are hidden no one knows. And if they can say that the broken law is questionable using lingusitic games, we are screwed.
That is why I was SO upset with the recent change in the law about how we define torture and war crimes.
If they break the law and then we catch them they know they can go to jail. They know that too, so they will CHANGE the law. Which is EXACTLY what they are doing.
Of course we can't talk about armed insurrection until something happens that REALLY can't be ignored like oh I don't know someone getting a BJ in the White House. Now THAT would be worthy of impeachment (snark.)
Not doing something is certainly a problem. Thats the problem with the democratic party today. Lots of talk- no action. Any democrats vote against the war in Iraq? I think most democrats are against the war but I don't see them throwing out those officials. It's the same problem on the right.
I'm not sure I'd bet on the law though. Clinton committed perjury in the eyes of most people but legally he didn't (since the Jones lawyers forgot to legally define sex). Therein lies the rub with our civil laws. Common sense has no place in it. if you can get a copy checkout "Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom"
牙醫,植牙,矯正,矯正牙齒,批發,皮膚科,痘痘,中醫,飛梭雷射,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,痘痘,肉毒桿菌,seo,關鍵字行銷,自然排序,網路行銷,自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,部落格行銷,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,牛舌餅，婚紗，台中婚紗,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,腳臭,高雄婚紗,街舞,小產,雞精,性感,辣妹,雷射溶脂,雙下巴,抽脂,瘦小腹,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,淨膚雷射,清潔公司,居家清潔,牙周病,牙齒矯正,植牙。
Post a Comment
<< Home