sebanaj
Prince
Rice is thinking in the size of her waist, and people come with questions!
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Condoleezza Rice Testimony
- Thread starter Vanadorn
- Start date
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Yes! Let's go back before the comission started and see what he has to say about Bush and Al-Qaeda. Let's examine Clark's statement. 2002: Bush changed Clinton-era policy of rollback of Al-Qaeda to elimination. 2004: Bush did nothing about elimination Al-Qaeda. It looks like someone has two stories that contradict each other. Hmm.
Oh please, Sharpe. I know you are capable of much better than this. Let's not let the level of debate sink to that of Congress for crying out loud. The press conference he gave was as a White House spokesman for a sitting President; his testimony before the 911C was as a private citizen and long-time government employee.
Suppose a Clinton spokesman [the equivalent of Fleischer or McClellan] was recorded as publicly and categorically denying the Monica affair while the scandal was still brewing. After Clinton is impeached, the aide quits the government, writes a tell-all book, and testifies before the Congress about what he knew about Clinton's affair. Oh oh! Looks like we have conflicting testimony!
Which would YOU believe, Sharpe? Surely even YOU can see the underlying biases?Too bad Rice didn't have a well-timed book to promote! She'd be raking it in with all this free press!
How else is Clarke supposed to make what he knows common knowledge? License the declassified documents as luxury toilet paper? Seriously, I'd love to hear your suggestions!
Perle and Kristol, two neocon luminaries, have both made quite a bit of money by selling post-911 books about the "new enemy" and how to use traditional neocon tactics to "defeat" him. Is anyone outraged? No! In the media market, a book just happens to be the best way to get an information-heavy viewpoint out there. TV is for talking points and propaganda, and nobody but we political nuts watch C-SPAN or stay up to date with Congress.
Meanwhile, while we pundits blather, CAP already has a fact-checking list measuring Condi's testimony against declassified documents. Link-heavy, which is good, for those of you who consistently use the "oh no! a liberal site!" excuse to avoid reading anything. And this is only with DECLASSIFIED and public documents. Imagine how badly she would be lying if we could access all the classified docs.
I mean, come on, even Fineman is pretty down on this.
Pontiuth, anybody who payed any sort of attention to the news during the 90's knew that there was an Islamic group that had declared war on the US. They attacked the WTC in '93. Clinton fired missles at their bases in '98 in retaliation for attacks on our embassies after the Taliban refused to hand Bin Laden over. The USS Cole was attacked in November 2000, again by members of this group. The second attack on the WTC could just as easily have happened on Clinton's watch as well as Bush's because nobody was really taking them seriously.
EmpireofVirtue
Warlord
Condie was as example of bravery today. She had everyone against her, it really looked like a soviet trial. And she stood up against all of them. If that's the case, it's because she was telling the truth.
KaNick
Deity
Double post
KaNick
Deity
Please, you just don't want to admit that the your beloved Administration could be falable.
EmpireofVirtue
Warlord
This is a liberal lie. You have no proof of what you're asserting. Why do you consider that Clarke guy knows better what Condie knows than she knows herself ? She has been brilliant today. I'm proud of her.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
For example, these sources with vague comments about a major attack...why weren't they tracked down and people interrogated for information? We learnt nothing really about what people were doing to combat terrorism prior to 9/11 in the Bush adminstration.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
For example, these sources with vague comments about a major attack...why weren't they tracked down and people interrogated for information? We learnt nothing really about what people were doing to combat terrorism prior to 9/11 in the Bush adminstration.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
A liberal lie? Isn't that redundant?
Those of us interested in having an actual debate would do well to follow the links higher on this page - or to review the transcripts of Condi's testimony themselves. Easily available online - as are Clarke's.
Those of us who like to copy and paste from www.gopteamleader.com memos are free to start their own thread. God Bless America!
Those of us interested in having an actual debate would do well to follow the links higher on this page - or to review the transcripts of Condi's testimony themselves. Easily available online - as are Clarke's.
Those of us who like to copy and paste from www.gopteamleader.com memos are free to start their own thread. God Bless America!
KaNick
Deity
And people were accusing me of being partisan
.She may have been brilliant if you were more concerned with the Administration looking good than any truth getting out.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
And then there are those of us who don't yet know how to follow links. For your especial convenience:
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."
FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."
FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]
CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."
FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."
FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."
FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously and inaccurately denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]
CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."
FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]
CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."
FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."
FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."
FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."
FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]
CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."
FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]
CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."
FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."
FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously and inaccurately denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]
CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."
FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]
CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."
FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
And how would that have prevented 9/11. thousands of planes take off daily in the U.S (not to mention incoming flights), how could they have pinpointed those four planes?
KaNick
Deity
You don't need to stop the planes, they weren't in Al Queida last I checked. You only need to stop the person. I admit that I do not know all of the workings of various law enforcement agencies, but I am confident in them enough to believe that if they were put on high alert at least one plane would have been saved, if not all of them.
GrandAdmiral
Deity
This hearing only encourages pre-emtive measures because everyones gonna wanna cover their a** now. There is no sure way to prevent these attacks. Sooner or later one will get through and the only way to cover youself is to act like your doing a whole lot of something which is a waste of resources and could start wars. If it was necessary to invade Afghanistan after the attack then the only preventetive measure would have been to invade before hand and I gaurantee most of the people complaining would not have supported that.
GrandAdmiral
Deity
A needle in a haystack and at the time there wasn't enough public and political support to commit the resources and procedures necessary to prevent this. For all you know there could have been little back up terrorists waiting to take their place.
KaNick
Deity
That "needle in the haystack" theory is still up to debate. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want until the commision give their conclusion. We knew of Arab people who were taking courses in aviation that did not ask to learn about take of or landing, something to go off.
I found the testimony to be rather uneventful. I found a lot of passing the buck around "Well, the FBI didn't do this and the CIA never talks to the FBI. I had nothing to do with this!" Which is what I expected. If I were able to ask a question, after she did say that the FBI and CIA dropped the ball and it wasn't her responsibility with those agencies...I would have asked "Dr. Rice....what exactly IS your responsibility? I mean, what have you done to get those agencies working? Is that not your job description? What did you do to help the process?" I wonder what the response would have been.
Also, what I found a little disturbing was around that "silver bullet" remark. It sounds as if unless they had a foolproof way to kill off the threat in one blow (the definition of a silver bullet), they were content to just let it go. As for not having a specific threat....well, what are the chances that you'll get something that says they will strike some place with this weapon at that time? And what are the chances of that being right? I know if I got something like that, you can at least take some measures such as increasing airport and seaport security, putting extra police or whomever is needed around landmarks and bridges and tunnels.
Now, it's probably not true that they didn't do anything...but that remark sure looked bad to me.
Also, what I found a little disturbing was around that "silver bullet" remark. It sounds as if unless they had a foolproof way to kill off the threat in one blow (the definition of a silver bullet), they were content to just let it go. As for not having a specific threat....well, what are the chances that you'll get something that says they will strike some place with this weapon at that time? And what are the chances of that being right? I know if I got something like that, you can at least take some measures such as increasing airport and seaport security, putting extra police or whomever is needed around landmarks and bridges and tunnels.
Now, it's probably not true that they didn't do anything...but that remark sure looked bad to me.
Most disturbing part to me was that the panel members seemed to be talking more than Rice did. I thought they wanted HER testimony, hear what SHE had to say, not hear themselves speak.
Shouldn't be surprised, though. That's about all this commission has done since its inception. Speech-making on TV, very little fact finding.
Again, it has been a shamefull and utter waste.
Shouldn't be surprised, though. That's about all this commission has done since its inception. Speech-making on TV, very little fact finding.
Again, it has been a shamefull and utter waste.
Similar threads
