**Official** Condoleezza Rice - 9/11 Testimony Thread (CkG-Approved)

[CaptnKirk]

20 Aug, 1998

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
20 Aug, 1998

And what did it accomplish?

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well CAD, according to you . . nothing since it wasn't done by Bush.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
who's to "blame"?

That is the focus of 1/2 of the commision, and the Bush haters...

Have any of you considered what different path we would have walked if the
attacks had been simaltaneous. We have read of the 2nd wave of attacks al quaeda
had planned...

Sure could have turned our world upside-down 100 fold to what it was..

We would probably still be picking up the pieces...

Damn sure wouldn't be pointing fingers and assigning blame
to people for not preventing it in the first place...

3 to 4 thousand isn't enough to piss some people off, I guess..

What number would it take? 10 thousand? 40 thousand? 100 thousand?

What is your threshhold?

What number would it take to unite us?

I am afraid we will find out..

I am a religious racist, (1) would have been enough for me to turn the
entire continent of asia upsidedown....

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Passing the buck since 1980.

We are pissed off. We are pissed off at Al-Qaeda for attacking. We are also pissed off at Dubya for sitting on his hands before 9-11. We are pissed off at Dubya for exploiting 9-11 to attack Iraq. We are pissed off that Dubya obstructed the 9-11 investigation and refuses to accept any responsibility. We are pissed off that ignorant Bush fanboys excuse everything he did and attack anyone who questions their beloved ruler.

This message also authorized by the bush fanboys

The media convinces you that you are we..

Actually you are alone, not a force to be reckoned with..

You are a but a voice of 10 in a room of 10,000 silent actions..

You are only here to keep us from forgetting what we have defeated..

Can't excuse what he did do, Can't excuse what he didn't do. Where is the logic in that.?

I mean he hasn't or has done only what congress didn't or did authorize him to do.

We did elect him into office..

We did support him in going after terrorism..

We did task him to come up with the game plan..

We did approve the game plan..

I can live with that..

What are you really pissed about?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Not sure what Kerrey was thinking in that speech. The Khobar Towers attack was traced to Al Qaeda supported by Iran. The USS Cole was assumed to have been Al Qaeda from the start and Hussein never entered the picture. The CIA confirmed it was Al Qaeda on Jan. 27, 2001 yet Bush did NOTHING about it. They didn't want to embolden Al Qaeda by attacking those responsible.

Well, doing nothing did even worse! It showed we could be attacked with impunity!

OK smart guy, lets say Bush did attack Afghanistan to immediately remove Al Qaeda and the Taliban. What do you think the left would have been saying about Bush's "cowboy" look at the world? And then, even IF Bush had attacked Afghanistan - do you think that would have stopped 9/11? No - they were already here and planning/training. Now who & what would you and the left be blaming 9/11 on today if Bush would have gone into Afghanistan before 9/11? That's right - you'd blame Bush for "provoking" the terrorists.

So yeah, it gets a bit tiring to hear the same tired BS from the left when no matter what Bush has or supposedly should have done wouldn't have been right in their eyes. Just more intellectually dishonest political BS from the left - but what's new...

CkG

Considering I was 100% in the Bush camp after his election, I'd have been all for an attack on Afghanistan. Even if I wasn't, an attack was warranted. We certainly had MUCH MORE justification for pre-emptively invading Afghanistan. We had been attacked on our soil, on our embassies, on our military, and almost again on our soil by a group being harbored by the Taliban. Also, the Taliban were committing gross human rights violations. Afghanistan was FAR MORE of a threat to us than was Iraq in 2003. There's no comparison.

We'd have all but eliminated Al Qaeda. Clinton (and Clarke) were wanting to do that before Clinton left office but the Republican bashing of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal left Clinton unable to gain support from the State Dept., CIA, and the Pentagon to accomplish what needed to be done.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Controversial Source adds it's two cents

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Not sure what Kerrey was thinking in that speech. The Khobar Towers attack was traced to Al Qaeda supported by Iran. The USS Cole was assumed to have been Al Qaeda from the start and Hussein never entered the picture. The CIA confirmed it was Al Qaeda on Jan. 27, 2001 yet Bush did NOTHING about it. They didn't want to embolden Al Qaeda by attacking those responsible.

Well, doing nothing did even worse! It showed we could be attacked with impunity!

OK smart guy, lets say Bush did attack Afghanistan to immediately remove Al Qaeda and the Taliban. What do you think the left would have been saying about Bush's "cowboy" look at the world? And then, even IF Bush had attacked Afghanistan - do you think that would have stopped 9/11? No - they were already here and planning/training. Now who & what would you and the left be blaming 9/11 on today if Bush would have gone into Afghanistan before 9/11? That's right - you'd blame Bush for "provoking" the terrorists.

So yeah, it gets a bit tiring to hear the same tired BS from the left when no matter what Bush has or supposedly should have done wouldn't have been right in their eyes. Just more intellectually dishonest political BS from the left - but what's new...

CkG

Considering I was 100% in the Bush camp after his election, I'd have been all for an attack on Afghanistan. Even if I wasn't, an attack was warranted. We certainly had MUCH MORE justification for pre-emptively invading Afghanistan. We had been attacked on our soil, on our embassies, on our military, and almost again on our soil by a group being harbored by the Taliban. Also, the Taliban were committing gross human rights violations. Afghanistan was FAR MORE of a threat to us than was Iraq in 2003. There's no comparison.

We'd have all but eliminated Al Qaeda. Clinton (and Clarke) were wanting to do that before Clinton left office but the Republican bashing of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal left Clinton unable to gain support from the State Dept., CIA, and the Pentagon to accomplish what needed to be done.

Cliffnotes


It was Bush's fault that he did nothing to prevent 9/11, and it was the republican parties fault
that Cliton did nothing to derail 9/11..

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Controversial Source adds it's two cents

I actually kind of liked that article. I was going to post it, myself.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur
Considering I was 100% in the Bush camp after his election, I'd have been all for an attack on Afghanistan. Even if I wasn't, an attack was warranted. We certainly had MUCH MORE justification for pre-emptively invading Afghanistan. We had been attacked on our soil, on our embassies, on our military, and almost again on our soil by a group being harbored by the Taliban. Also, the Taliban were committing gross human rights violations. Afghanistan was FAR MORE of a threat to us than was Iraq in 2003. There's no comparison.

We'd have all but eliminated Al Qaeda. Clinton (and Clarke) were wanting to do that before Clinton left office but the Republican bashing of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal left Clinton unable to gain support from the State Dept., CIA, and the Pentagon to accomplish what needed to be done.

Cliffnotes


It was Bush's fault that he did nothing to prevent 9/11, and it was the republican parties [sic] fault
that Cliton [sic] did nothing to derail 9/11..

It's a much bigger picture than just preventing 9/11. It's eliminating Al Qaeda completely which, as a result, would have prevented 9/11 but also would have prevented the attack in Bali and the recent attack in Spain.

Also, focus could then have been placed on containing Saddam even further or removing him, peacefully.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Well CAD, according to you . . nothing since it wasn't done by Bush.

Well? What did bombing them accomplish? Did it destroy them? Did fuel their hate? (I had to throw that in there for the bleeding hearts apologists) or was it just a tit-for-tat type of situation where we "have to act" because it makes us feel better that we are doing something.

Sure - it probably destroyed their camp and probably killed some of them - that is good but was that it? You see, the whole point is that our policies of before - were to just "do something" instead of fighting the whole thing. This is what I believe Bush was trying to say with his swatting flies comment. Yes, I wanted to splatter some flies about the Cole thing -but looking at it - would that have solved anything besides killing a few of them? Or do you think we should have fought the whole taliban/OBL/Al Qaeda after the Cole incident? In hind sight that might be somewhat easy to answer but would you really have supported the actions neccessary to take out those responsible?

The point that conjur is trying to score political points with is similar to what you are trying to score points on too. He says that since there were no physical actions against Al Qaeda or other Terrorists that Bush was asleep at the wheel and you are trying to say that since Clinton acted against them a few times that he wasn't asleep. That is a very dangerous position to take especially in hind sight. We now know that the tit-for-tat idea really doesn't work and may (in some people's opinion) cause more terrorism so now we are working towards the elimination of the networks of terror -which Bush had directed pre-9/11. So no, I don't buy the BS about Bush "doing nothing" because he didn't strike at something and that Clinton was because he struck a couple times. The approach was shifting to where it needs to go - not only focused on the people - but the network behind them. We can kill OBL but will that stop Al Qaeda? No. If Bush would have gone into Afghanistan would that have prevented 9/11? No.

So sure - keep it up you people on the left - people aren't buying what you are peddling - they are smarter than you think they are.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK smartass - what exactly do you think the reaction of the left would have been to Bush invading Afghanistan before 9/11 had happened? Do you honestly think they wouldn't have bleated the same BS about Bush being a warmongering cowboy?

We'll stop there so you don't get confused...
one issue at a time

CkG

I hardly think your hypothetical situation has anything to do with the topic of this thread -- perhaps you should run along and start your own thread wherein you can bash your straw man all day long?

But what the hell, let's give it a go:

"Bush invading Afghanistan before 9/11 had happened?" Hmmmm . . . Well, that certainly doesn't give me much information to react to. Do you want to flesh out your fantasy scenario a bit more so I can have enough information to react to? Remember, I value the administration's honesty and accuracy more highly than some visceral Neanderthal-like urge to clobber stuff with a big club.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Controversial Source adds it's two cents

I actually kind of liked that article. I was going to post it, myself.

I have to problem with the CSM. Some of the best articles I've ever read come from there.

 

[Tom]

"So no, I don't buy the BS about Bush "doing nothing" because he didn't strike at something and that Clinton was because he struck a couple times. The approach was shifting to where it needs to go - not only focused on the people - but the network behind them. We can kill OBL but will that stop Al Qaeda? No. If Bush would have gone into Afghanistan would that have prevented 9/11? No."


Obviously you cannot know that anymore than I can know that it would have. But as far as myself, you aren't addressing the issue that bothers me the most about the months before 9/11.

And that is the Bush admin stopped doing what Clinton was doing while they came up with a different plan. It would have been a lot better to do both.

And I'm not talking about striking back as much as I'm talking about overall focus on terrorism. I feel that Rice is correct about the FBI structural problems, but that wasn't new, in fact I think it was one of the MAIN reasons Clinton was having the principals meetings, was to try to work around these problems, not because he didn't want the structural changes too, but because there wasn't time to wait for the structural changes.

I don't fault Bush for trying to come up with a better structure, but for not understanding why Clinton was doing what he was doing, as far as the principal's meetings, as a way to overcome the structural problems.

And that doesn't mean I think that if Bush had done both, it would have prevented the attacks, I just think the chances would have been better.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"So no, I don't buy the BS about Bush "doing nothing" because he didn't strike at something and that Clinton was because he struck a couple times. The approach was shifting to where it needs to go - not only focused on the people - but the network behind them. We can kill OBL but will that stop Al Qaeda? No. If Bush would have gone into Afghanistan would that have prevented 9/11? No."


Obviously you cannot know that anymore than I can know that it would have. But as far as myself, you aren't addressing the issue that bothers me the most about the months before 9/11.

And that is the Bush admin stopped doing what Clinton was doing while they came up with a different plan. It would have been a lot better to do both.

And I'm not talking about striking back as much as I'm talking about overall focus on terrorism. I feel that Rice is correct about the FBI structural problems, but that wasn't new, in fact I think it was one of the MAIN reasons Clinton was having the principals meetings, was to try to work around these problems, not because he didn't want the structural changes too, but because there wasn't time to wait for the structural changes.

I don't fault Bush for trying to come up with a better structure, but for not understanding why Clinton was doing what he was doing, as far as the principal's meetings, as a way to overcome the structural problems.

And that doesn't mean I think that if Bush had done both, it would have prevented the attacks, I just think the chances would have been better.

EXACTLY!

That's why Clarke uses that phrase "Shake the trees". He mentions a few times in his book when they had to do that...have a Cabinet-level meeting to wake people up to apparent or even imminent threats.

Those meetings always resulted in action.

Rice exceled at inaction.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by:conjur

Name ONE thing Bush did to combat Al Qaeda in those 8 months.

Just ONE.

They can't. He was spending vacation time at the Ranch.

That also kills the excuse that they didn't have enough "time".

Bush vacation agenda - August 6, 2001

Nope...no mention of combating terrorism in there.

He was too busy worrying about leaving children behind in school and protecting us from all the mass killings of Stem cells, oh the Humanity:

"Most of all some rest and time on the ranch, but there is also a fair amount of work to be done. He has to make his decision on stem cell funding and the White House is debating a fall agenda: not just strategy in dealing with Congress on the patients' bill of rights and spending issues, but also more presidential travel to promote other issues like education.

It is interesting to see the mirror image, if you will, of how this president is viewed at six months and make a comparison to Clinton. Bush has high personal approval ratings, but people have doubts about his agenda and leadership skills if you look at poll data. Clinton's personal approval had fallen considerably, but people were behind his agenda, according to polls then. It is a reminder that things can change a lot over the course of a presidency. "

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's why Clarke uses that phrase "Shake the trees".

Isn't that a Peter Gabriel song? Shaking the tree?

 

[dmcowen674]

I see that Bush is making that Memo public that they claim is not a "warning" but simply a "Historical" document.

It's Historical alright since what was mentioned as a real possibility actually happened under their watch.

4-9-2004 White House Works to Declassify Al Qaeda Threat Memo

White House officials in Washington worked with government agencies involved in the production of the page-and-a-half memorandum to ensure its release would not compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"So no, I don't buy the BS about Bush "doing nothing" because he didn't strike at something and that Clinton was because he struck a couple times. The approach was shifting to where it needs to go - not only focused on the people - but the network behind them. We can kill OBL but will that stop Al Qaeda? No. If Bush would have gone into Afghanistan would that have prevented 9/11? No."


Obviously you cannot know that anymore than I can know that it would have. But as far as myself, you aren't addressing the issue that bothers me the most about the months before 9/11.

And that is the Bush admin stopped doing what Clinton was doing while they came up with a different plan. It would have been a lot better to do both.

And I'm not talking about striking back as much as I'm talking about overall focus on terrorism. I feel that Rice is correct about the FBI structural problems, but that wasn't new, in fact I think it was one of the MAIN reasons Clinton was having the principals meetings, was to try to work around these problems, not because he didn't want the structural changes too, but because there wasn't time to wait for the structural changes.

I don't fault Bush for trying to come up with a better structure, but for not understanding why Clinton was doing what he was doing, as far as the principal's meetings, as a way to overcome the structural problems.

And that doesn't mean I think that if Bush had done both, it would have prevented the attacks, I just think the chances would have been better.

Sure - you can believe what you want if you wish. I don't buy your little scenario about Bush not doing anything and being asleep at the wheel. Clarke's hissy about "shaking the trees" is a pipe dream considering the way the beauracries dealt with things pre-9/11 - which the Bush was trying to change(and that doesn't mean I blame Clinton - it's just the way things were). Also - I don't know how one can claim Bush abandoned everything that Clinton was doing. Did the gov't just stop? The FBI and CIA just stopped because Bush was suddenly in office? Huh? That makes ZERO sense and wasn't the case.
But you people can continue to believe what you want like I said. Whatever helps you sleep at night...

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sure - you can believe what you want if you wish. I don't buy your little scenario about Bush not doing anything and being asleep at the wheel. Clarke's hissy about "shaking the trees" is a pipe dream considering the way the beauracries dealt with things pre-9/11 - which the Bush was trying to change(and that doesn't mean I blame Clinton - it's just the way things were). Also - I don't know how one can claim Bush abandoned everything that Clinton was doing. Did the gov't just stop? The FBI and CIA just stopped because Bush was suddenly in office? Huh? That makes ZERO sense and wasn't the case.
But you people can continue to believe what you want like I said. Whatever helps you sleep at night...

CkG

Shaking the trees helped thwart the millenium/LAX bombing plot. An al Qaeda operation. Or are you conveniently glossing over that?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sure - you can believe what you want if you wish. I don't buy your little scenario about Bush not doing anything and being asleep at the wheel. Clarke's hissy about "shaking the trees" is a pipe dream considering the way the beauracries dealt with things pre-9/11 - which the Bush was trying to change(and that doesn't mean I blame Clinton - it's just the way things were). Also - I don't know how one can claim Bush abandoned everything that Clinton was doing. Did the gov't just stop? The FBI and CIA just stopped because Bush was suddenly in office? Huh? That makes ZERO sense and wasn't the case.
But you people can continue to believe what you want like I said. Whatever helps you sleep at night...

CkG

Shaking the trees helped thwart the millenium/LAX bombing plot. An al Qaeda operation. Or are you conveniently glossing over that?

How exactly was "shaking the trees" used to stop this in your opinion?

CkG

 

[hagg3rty]

"As an aside, I am more interested in why after 9/11 Saddam took a higher priority than Bin Laden. The whys and hows of that is more important IMO. Never see it happen with a Rep congress though "

He wasnt

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: hagg3rty
"As an aside, I am more interested in why after 9/11 Saddam took a higher priority than Bin Laden. The whys and hows of that is more important IMO. Never see it happen with a Rep congress though "

He wasnt

There are 2 competing ideas in the usa on how to adress terrorism.

One is containment, rollback and apeasment..

One is elimination..

Bin Laden is the focus of the first
but just a small piece of the second..

Sadamm is but a small piece of the second..

Iraq is a sizable piece of the second..

Bush has a plan for elimination and all
the pieces have priority within that plan..

Some people are blind to the big picture and
only can see the pieces..

Some people want the plan to fail for political
reasons..

Some people just don't get it..

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch


And that is the Bush admin stopped doing what Clinton was doing while they came up with a different plan. It would have been a lot better to do both.

According to Clarke they were doing both..

Transcript from August 2002 Briefing:

RICHARD CLARKE:

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News - Kerrey faults Clinton inaction - Film at Eleven**

 

[MoFunk]

I just started reading through all this and am not quite finished, just wanted to throw my opinions in here real quick.

Condi did a great job, Kerrey almost cried, I loved it. "That's not fair, that's not fair"!

I firmly believe that is Clinton would have done his job and retaliated with events like the Cole, Khobar Towers and the Embassy bombings, we may not have such a huge issue with terrorism

Clark makes me sick. When he talked about Clintons way of reacting towards terrorism. Here are some quotes...

After a bombing killed 19 U.S. airmen at a barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the Clinton administration struck back by unmasking Iranian intelligence officers around the world, significantly disrupting Iranian-backed terrorism, according to a high-level U.S. official and a former top official who was serving at the time of the operation.

Undisclosed until now, Operation Sapphire took place in 1997. Though the bombers who struck the Khobar Towers barracks were mostly Saudis, U.S. investigators quickly determined that Iranian intelligence officials had trained and organized the plotters. The former U.S. official said Iran was intimidated enough by the U.S. counterspy operation that it stopped targeting Americans after the bombing.

The first public hint of the U.S. operation came last week, when Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism chief for three administrations, told a bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 attacks that the Clinton administration responded ''against Iranian terrorism . . . at Khobar Towers with a covert action.''

Well that is all fine and good, now what does operation sapphire do????? well.......

The U.S. officials who talked about the operation declined to discuss details. But there are various ways to ''out'' intelligence officers from rival services: circulating rumors at dinners and cocktail parties; allowing comments about the officers to be overheard on phones known to be bugged; planting stories in newspapers. CIA officers often know who their counterparts are in foreign embassies. It is more difficult to spot those without official cover.

Well I am glad that the administration (Clinton) knew that spreading rumors at coctail party's would stop terrorism, man they should have disclosed that with Bush!

BAH!!!!!!!!!