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

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News - Kerrey faults Clinton inaction - Film at Eleven**

A quote from the above

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said he believes Clinton should have launched a military strike against al-Qaida following the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (news - web sites) that killed 17 sailors.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said on ABC's "Good Morning America.

There is also a TON of proof that Clinto was handed pointing out who was responsible for Khobar Towers. There is also proof who carried out the Embassy Bombings. Clinton did NOTHING with any of those. See the trend?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News - Kerrey faults Clinton inaction - Film at Eleven**

A quote from the above

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said he believes Clinton should have launched a military strike against al-Qaida following the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (news - web sites) that killed 17 sailors.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said on ABC's "Good Morning America.

There is also a TON of proof that Clinto was handed pointing out who was responsible for Khobar Towers. There is also proof who carried out the Embassy Bombings. Clinton did NOTHING with any of those. See the trend?

Uhh Oh...MoFunk found the P&N Forum:Q Just remember - this forums stays here and the otherone stays there. I see you are a neo-con(or you will be dubbed one soon enough) so just an FYI - take anything dave posts here with a heavy dose of tinfoil
Good to see you here

Now as to the info on the Towers and Embassy bombings - didn't we bomb Sudan or somewhere in response to one of those? I can't remember off the top of my head...but then again I have a headache

CkG

 

[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.

nope,,,,,

Before 9/11 pre-emptively invading a sovergn country would not have been an option
The events of present time prove that. Remember the Dems are still in
grief about the election and there inability to steal it.. No-way would this happen

Secondly the united nations had jurisdiction over the problems in Afghanistan..
Same old problems..If Cliton had started the ball rolling in 98 it would have been
98 +12 years to get to the same point we were with Iraq right before we invaded
Iraq.

There is an extreme comparison between the two

Openly Giving aid to terrorists, and so many more
but this is the only one that needs mentioned.

Islamic Fundamentalism is a way of life taught to the participants from birth.

The complete leveling of Afghanistan in the Cliton presidency
would have only eliminated the portion of the fundamentalist
that were receiving their military training at the time. Would have
done nothing to adress the other *99.5%*

Clitons Goals were rollback, not elimination.

He would have to choose the same route as Bush to
take the elimination Route.

Isn't it amazing the similarity of the choices
the two had to make..

Thing is Cliton was given the choice several times....

Bush only needed a single invitation to dance
and OBL, if he is still among the living, is still
sh!tting all over himself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

It wasn't just "shaking the trees" which stopped it, rather it was that plus the gov't putting itself on the highest level of alert and driving that message down through every domestic agency. Read about some of the plots disrupted around the millenium here.

I'm also going to post right below this the transcript of an interview w/ James Steinberg who was deputy U.S. national security adviser during President Bill Clinton's second term and was a member of the counterterrorism working group that met daily in the White House situation room in December 1999.

 

[DealMonkey]

As I said previously, it wasn't solely shaking the trees which enabled the U.S. to thwart various terrorist plots tied to the millenium, it was a top-down driving of the message that something was going to happen and everyone in every agency was tasked with being extra alert and passing on any information no matter how seemingly irrelevant. Just like with 9/11 they were aware something was going down soon, however they didn't have a time, place or means.

Fortunately, the Border Patrol stationed at the Canadian border got the message.

PBS.org - Interview w/ James Steinberg

In the months leading up to the millennium, were the U.S. security forces on alert? Had there been warnings, threats of terrorist activities against the United States?

We were on a very high state of alert in the period going up to the millennium. We had both general concerns, given the fact that there were a number of high-profile events that were going to be taking place around the millennium that would inherently be attractive targets to terrorists, and we also had some relatively specific information, not precise hours or precise locations but some pretty good indications that some known terrorist groups were thinking very seriously about millennium terrorist activities. And the closer we got, the more specific evidence we began to have, not only about terrorism in the United States but also about potentially U.S.-related targets outside the United States.


So how did you react when Ahmed Ressam was arrested in Port Angeles? How did the U.S. government respond?

I think there were a number of elements to the reaction. One, we were obviously pleased that the alertness of the Border Patrol there had uncovered this, because it was something that was very dangerous and which we had no specific warning about ever crossing at that place. And then the interest focused on "Who was this person? Who was he connected to? What were the targets? How did it come about that he was there with such a dangerous set of materials that threatened our safety?" ...


Steinberg was deputy U.S. national security adviser during President Bill Clinton's second term and was a member of the counterterrorism working group that met daily in the White House situation room in December 1999. He recalls the preparations taken for the expected millennium terrorist attacks, and the response of U.S. security to Ressam's arrest. (Interviewed June 2001)



When he was arrested, did that trigger a specific reaction? Were there meetings at the White House about this?

... There were ... already ongoing meetings of the principals, the Cabinet-level officials. Because we had, in addition to this incident, we had had specific information which was uncovered about a terrorist plot in Jordan that would have affected American interests there. So we were already meeting regularly at the highest levels and operational levels to prepare and coordinate these responses. So the same group, which consisted of the secretary of state, the [national] security adviser, the director of FBI, the director of Central Intelligence, the attorney general, and others, met almost immediately thereafter to go over what we knew about this, how we should handle it in terms of how we should talk to the American people about it ... should we encourage or discourage people from attending millennium activities. At this point, it had tremendous consequences in terms of our responsibilities not only to track down the source of this attempt but also what kind of guidance we should give the American people....


How would you characterize what you decided in those meetings? Presumably you didn't want to cause a panic.

We didn't want to cause panic, but we also had a responsibility to the American people. ... Our normal practice is when you only have general threats, it's hard to say stay home and hide under your bed. We urged people to be attentive to their surroundings, but we felt that in the absence of the specifics, credible evidence of a specific threat, that we would not want people to feel that they could not attend [New Year's] activities. ...

You clearly don't want to be intimidated by terrorists, but you also have an absolute responsibility if you have reason to think that there is a specific risk. ... So there is always a balance between providing full information. There is also a concern that you don't want to tip off people who might otherwise be involved when you want to try and track them down. So you're not only trading off a question of panic versus adequate warning, but a desire to preserve some kinds of operational details, because you don't want potential co-conspirators or collaborators to know what you know about this particular attempt. So there was certainly some information which we felt was relevant to our investigative efforts, but not necessarily to the public's need to know, that we wanted to keep quiet in terms of our ability to try and track down other members of the operation.


So what do you think are the lessons of the Ahmed Ressam case?

Well I think that one, we do have to take seriously that the United States could be at risk of terrorist attacks here, that there are a number of ways in which that could come about and there are a number of individuals and groups who have as an objective to try to bring terrorism home to the United States itself. Second, it shows the critical importance of intelligence, that this is a very shadowy world of people. We've learned as we have examined this, both before the Ressam case and certainly we have learned a great deal since, about the various networks and the relationships between different groups which may not be under complete centralized control, but do have links with each other, and the need to understand them and the need to have strong international cooperation to deal with it. ...


Do you sense that the Canadian government's attitude toward the terrorist threats changed with the Ressam case?

I do. I think that it was a bit of a wake up call. I think that any government feels responsibility to its citizens, but I think there is also a sense of obligation to other governments. Seeing the possibility that Canada can be used as a stage and base for terrorist operations in the United States may make the government of Canada recognize that it had an international responsibility as well as a domestic responsibility to take this seriously, and that while there are important challenges relating to civil liberties and the kind of society that we all want to live in, ultimately we will not be able to live with the kinds of freedoms and openness that we want if we simply ignore the possibility that this is going to be taken advantage of by those who want to use terrorism to undo what we believe in.


You know officials in Canada and in the United States have portrayed the Ressam case as a law enforcement success story, as a triumph of Canada-U.S. cooperation. Is that the way you see it?

I think it's a more mixed picture. I certainly think that leading up to it it's not a triumph. I think that there were reasons to think that the government of Canada had some information about the potential risks of these groups that wasn't exploited as it might have been. And I think, as I said, the enormous credit [goes to] the Border Patrol and the customs people for intercepting Ressam. We didn't have good tactical intelligence, at the time, of that possibility. ... We were fortunate that Ressam was intercepted and that the level of cooperation and coordination grew dramatically following that. So certainly, in terms of the follow-up to Ressam's arrest, I think that it is a positive example and I hope it becomes a model for going forward.


There was a lot of luck involved in catching this guy?

There was considerable luck involved. ... It was not an intelligence success. It was not a case where, because of good intelligence practice, counterintelligence, counterterrorist practice, that we had identified individuals and were able to track them and then intercept them. And I think an important lesson will be, and was taken, is what did we know, what did the government of Canada and the U.S. government know, what should we, might we have [done beforehand to lessen] the risk that such a person should be able to operate and get as far as he did? ...


Do you worry that Canada has become a safe haven for terrorists?

I don't think Canada is a safe haven for terrorists. And I think Canada has admirable values about being an open and tolerant society. It's a challenge that we all have, because there's a tendency to try and stereotype or to think that individuals of particular ethnicity or national backgrounds may be more risk. But I think it is important, at the same time, that you don't target individuals because of their ethnicity or their background, but if you have reason to believe that they have connections to organizations, it's following those organizations. I think what we have tried to do in the United States is not to target individuals but to look at the kinds of organizations and structures and people's links to those organizations that support terrorism. So we have legislation that has been passed over several years that allows us to designate organizations as foreign terrorist organizations to restrict their fundraising, to take action against their actions in the United States, and I think that's the real lesson here. I think in order to preserve an open society you have to be able to target organizations and networks that seek to undo it. ...


What was your previous knowledge of the GIA? Was it an organization that the American security apparatus was very concerned about?

I think there was a mixed reaction. On the one had the GIA is one of the most active terrorist organizations in the world, a very effective, very focused and very ruthless organization. But I think it was puzzling that we had no particular previous evidence that the GIA was targeting the United States or U.S. entities -- they were largely operating in the context of the conflict in North Africa, particularly in Algeria. And we knew that it had links to other terrorists organizations, but they tended to be links for financial support for their other activities related to Algeria rather than targeting the United States. And what it led us to ask ourselves was the question of whether this was the GIA that was operating here or whether these were people who were linked to the GIA because of particular interest in Algeria.


Apparently Mr. Ressam went to Afghanistan for training in what we call the terrorist training camps there, and he had addresses in his phone book that are connected to bin Laden's organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What do you make of that connection?

I think it is part of a pattern that we've seen. As I said, it's not simply a question of an individual belonging to one particular organization with one particular target, whether it's the GIA in Algeria or the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in Egypt, but rather a kind of loose network of people who have common affiliations, common training, common association, frequently linked to Afghanistan, which sort of becomes a pool of individuals who may be available to be involved in terrorist operations elsewhere in the world. ...


What is the assessment of the American government here? Is there a terrorist attack expected? Is it only a matter of time before one of these guys slips through the border? How is that characterized by the American security apparatus?

I think the better way to think of it is that there is an ongoing risk and ... that one has to take very seriously that people, obviously, have tried before and they will try again and therefore we need to have the kinds of tools in place to make it that much less likely that they will succeed.

I think that the level of concern in general in the turn of the millennium was one of the most high-impact situations we have had to deal with because of the very concrete sense of the direct risk to Americans' lives. And I think with the interception of Ressam that became all the more dramatic, because it went from a general sense that the risk was heightened during this period to a known concrete effort and implicit evidence that this was not to be the act of a single individual, and so the danger that there were others connected with it. ... The Ressam interception really demonstrated something that we had believed, which was that there was a high probability that somebody would try to take advantage of this period of time, and then we had the concrete evidence that that generalized sense of risk was actually justified.


Were you on duty on New Year's Eve? Was everyone holding their breath?

Everyone was on duty on New Year's Eve. And I think because of the excellent work that was done between the time Ressam was arrested and tracking down those who we believe were involved in it, I think we had a higher degree of comfort than we had in the first hours and days after we found Ressam. Nonetheless, I don't think anybody took it for granted, and I think that people were enormously relieved within about 24 hours afterwards that we had been successful in thwarting all that was there. ... I think that the good news from our perspective is, when this happened, I think the government of Canada took very seriously the fact that Canada had clearly been a part of a staging for this attack and that there was a need to, in a very dramatic and quick way, to address anything that could be found about Ressam and his associates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

It wasn't just "shaking the trees" which stopped it, rather it was that plus the gov't putting itself on the highest level of alert and driving that message down through every domestic agency. Read about some of the plots disrupted around the millenium here.

I'm also going to post right below this the transcript of an interview w/ James Steinberg who was deputy U.S. national security adviser during President Bill Clinton's second term and was a member of the counterterrorism working group that met daily in the White House situation room in December 1999.

Oh, right...you mean the "alert" border agent....who's agency wasn't exactly on "alert" or specifically looking for threats. gotcha - I guess "shaking the trees" means getting lucky.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
As I said previously, it wasn't solely shaking the trees which enabled the U.S. to thwart various terrorist plots tied to the millenium, it was a top-down driving of the message that something was going to happen and everyone in every agency was tasked with being extra alert and passing on any information no matter how seemingly irrelevant. Just like with 9/11 they were aware something was going down soon, however they didn't have a time, place or means.

Fortunately, the Border Patrol stationed at the Canadian border got the message.

Uhhh....that's exactly Clarke meant by "shaking the trees". Have you not read his book?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News - Kerrey faults Clinton inaction - Film at Eleven**

A quote from the above

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said he believes Clinton should have launched a military strike against al-Qaida following the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (news - web sites) that killed 17 sailors.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said on ABC's "Good Morning America.

There is also a TON of proof that Clinto was handed pointing out who was responsible for Khobar Towers. There is also proof who carried out the Embassy Bombings. Clinton did NOTHING with any of those. See the trend?

Clinton *did* want to attack.

He had problems getting authorization from the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Dept. They were all worried due to the Republican pressure and clamoring of "Wag the dog" during the Lewinsky scandal. There's not one thing in the fight against Al Qaeda that Clinton did not approve.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

It wasn't just "shaking the trees" which stopped it, rather it was that plus the gov't putting itself on the highest level of alert and driving that message down through every domestic agency. Read about some of the plots disrupted around the millenium here.

Bad Link??

Several days after the millennium celebrations, President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, announced that in the weeks before the New Year, law enforcement had disrupted terrorist cells "in eight countries and attacks were almost certainly prevented." He didn't give details, but FRONTLINE has compiled the following list from intelligence sources and press reports:

This one looks like Jordanian police get the credit

Acting on tips from U.S. authorities, Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists, including blowing up a large hotel in Amman, Jordan. A key member of this cell escaped but was later captured and is now serving a life sentence in Jordan. He was Raed Hijazi, a Boston taxi driver and American citizen who trained at bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and who has recently been linked to the Sept. 11 attackers.

Looks like this one wasn't prevented

Five armed members of the Harakat ul-Mujahidin organization (HUM), an Islamic militant group based in Kashmir, hijacked an Indian Airlines plane with 155 passengers. One passenger was killed. The plane was held by the hijackers one week in Afghanistan before the hostages were freed in exchange for the release of imprisoned pro-Kashmiri militants held in India. The hijackers were allowed to escape to Pakistan. HUM is on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. It is ideologically linked to Al Qaeda because one of its leaders signed Osama bin Laden's anti-America fatwah.

Looks like the terrorists screwed this one up

Terrorists failed in a planned attack against the American warship USS The Sullivans while it was refueling in Yemen. Information about the plot came from a suspect arrested after the successful attack on the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000. The suspect told Yemeni investigators an attack months earlier -- and almost identical to the Cole bombing -- had failed when the first assault boat became overloaded with explosives and sank. The attack was planned to be timed to the millennium.

Thats it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
As I said previously, it wasn't solely shaking the trees which enabled the U.S. to thwart various terrorist plots tied to the millenium, it was a top-down driving of the message that something was going to happen and everyone in every agency was tasked with being extra alert and passing on any information no matter how seemingly irrelevant. Just like with 9/11 they were aware something was going down soon, however they didn't have a time, place or means.

Fortunately, the Border Patrol stationed at the Canadian border got the message.

Uhhh....that's exactly Clarke meant by "shaking the trees". Have you not read his book?

No I haven't. Even though I misunderstood what he meant, I still got it right.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Oh, right...you mean the "alert" border agent....who's agency wasn't exactly on "alert" or specifically looking for threats. gotcha - I guess "shaking the trees" means getting lucky.

CkG

How do you know the border patrol wasn't looking for threats? You got something to back that statement up? Yes, of course they got lucky, that doesn't mean a top-down directive to be extra vigilant along with other directives to report anything and everything up through the command chain wasn't in effect.

 

[heartsurgeon]

He had problems getting authorization from the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Dept

Whaaaaaaa? He's the frickin Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States....HE GIVES THE PENTAGON ORDERS, the Secretary of State services at HIS PLEASURE, he could have picked up a phone (he already demonstrated the ability to multi-task...phone call, simultaneous b.j.) and ordered miltary action.

you wear me out. you win. i'm not going to post anything anymore in response to your posts.

for this post, and every subsequent one in the future..i register my disapproval and disagreement in advance.
please refer to this post whenever Conjur posts a comment.

 

[conjur]

ok...authorization is obviously the wrong word...agreement, cooperation, etc.

I've had a few Guinness...my brain's not quite working as it should and typing is a bit hard I(i've hit backspace about 20 times so far on this post alone!)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Oh, right...you mean the "alert" border agent....who's agency wasn't exactly on "alert" or specifically looking for threats. gotcha - I guess "shaking the trees" means getting lucky.

CkG

How do you know the border patrol wasn't looking for threats? You got something to back that statement up? Yes, of course they got lucky, that doesn't mean a top-down directive to be extra vigilant along with other directives to report anything and everything up through the command chain wasn't in effect.

It should be pretty easy for you to back up your assertion that the gov't put itself on the highest level of alert and driving that message down through every domestic agency and that's why this Customs guard was alert - no?

Rice's testimony:

It's also the case that I think if you actually look back at the millennium period, it's questionable to me whether the argument that has been made that somehow shaking the trees is what broke up the millennium period is actually accurate _ and I was not there, clearly.

But I will tell you this. I will say this. That the millennium, of course, was a period of high threat by its very nature. We all knew that the millennium was a period of high threat.

And after September 11th, Dick Clarke sent us the after-action report that had been done after the millennium plot and their assessment was that Ressam had been caught by chance _ Ressam being the person who was entering the United States over the Canadian border with bomb-making materials in store.

I think it actually wasn't by chance, which was Washington's view of it. It was because a very alert customs agent named Diana Dean and her colleagues sniffed something about Ressam. They saw that something was wrong. They tried to apprehend him. He tried to run. They then apprehended him, found that there was bomb-making material and a map of Los Angeles.

Now, at that point, you have pretty clear indication that you've got a problem inside the United States.

I don't think it was shaking the trees that produced the breakthrough in the millennium plot. It was that you got a _ Dick Clarke would say a lucky break _ I would say you got an alert customs agent who got it right.

And the interesting thing is that I've checked with Customs and according to their records, they weren't actually on alert at that point.

So I just don't buy the argument that we weren't shaking the trees enough and that something was going to fall out that gave us somehow that little piece of information that would have led to connecting all of those dots.

In any case, you cannot be dependent on the chance that something might come together. That's why the structural reforms are important.

I guess if you don't believe Rice you can go try to see for yourself if Customs were on alert at that point.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm not sure what I believe at this point . . . did Clarke address the matter specifically? Honestly, it does sound like a lucky catch made at the Canadian border, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an initiative put into play by the administration. Perhaps they put this guy Ahmed Ressam on a watch list or something. I guess I could spend an @ssload of time researching it, but I don't really feel like it right now.

 

[MoFunk]

[/quote]Uhh Oh...MoFunk found the P&N Forum:Q Just remember - this forums stays here and the otherone stays there. I see you are a neo-con(or you will be dubbed one soon enough) so just an FYI - take anything dave posts here with a heavy dose of tinfoil
Good to see you here

Now as to the info on the Towers and Embassy bombings - didn't we bomb Sudan or somewhere in response to one of those? I can't remember off the top of my head...but then again I have a headache

CkG[/quote]
Hey CKG! I agree, keep them separate! I can't wait to start getting dubbed, so let me help.....
I am a registered INDEPENDENT, but I am leaning more and more to the RIGHT every day!
I believe in GOD, I go to CHURCH every Sunday and think that we are ONE NATION UNDER GOD
I am however not a turn the other cheek kind of CHRISTIAN so the thought of the "peaceful" ISLAM trying to kill me makes me want to KILL them first! Yes I am being sarcastic about the peaceful part. I mean come on, have you seen parts of the Qur'an? WOW! I guess I am an infidel and should be killed. Also did you know that a large number of Mosques in the USA were funded by Saudi's King Fahd Ben Abdel Aziz? Hmm, he?s a nice guy with no ties to terrorist, oh no! Oh, even though he has been pissing me off with a lot of the junk he is pulling like letting illegal immigrants come over at will, and get paid to do so. Oh wait I am sorry, ?undocumented workers?. Wait, I like Arnold Schwarzenegger?s wording, ?criminal aliens?. Anyway, even with all that, I support BUSH because I feel that KERRY will not rest until the USA is DESTROYED by terrorists!

Oh and to answer your question, yes Clinton sent over some missiles, but if memory servers, it was the night before the Lewinsky trial, Hmmmm?? Like item #19 of this page Things You Have to Believe to Be a Democrat Today

Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."

Anyway?.FLAME AWAY LIBS

In case you did not notice I am in a feisty mood tonight, but I have had enough fun on another board and I am going to bed.

Wait another random thought, I watched a little bit of Leno tonight and he had tarantino on talking about Kill Bill Vol. 2, and the commercials for it talk about all the thumbs up it is getting, and it makes me a bit confused. The story about the crucifixion of Christ is a gory blood lover?s movie, and Kill Bill is art? Hmm, must be the same group that thinks peeing in a jar with a cross in it is art as well.

 

[conjur]

A good analogy I read is that of a business environment.

You have clerks and analysts. Clerks pass information up and take information sent down and act on it. Rice was the chief analyst for national security but she treated her job as that of a clerk. She'd take information and throw it into a memo and forward it to Bush. Well, Bush likes short, face-to-face meetings and doesn't like reading reports. When Rice was getting information that was too vague, she failed to analyze the situation and launch an investigation to find more detail and more specific information. And, given the severity of the situations to which she was being informed, that amounts to gross incompetence.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Uhh Oh...MoFunk found the P&N Forum:Q Just remember - this forums stays here and the otherone stays there. I see you are a neo-con(or you will be dubbed one soon enough) so just an FYI - take anything dave posts here with a heavy dose of tinfoil
Good to see you here

Now as to the info on the Towers and Embassy bombings - didn't we bomb Sudan or somewhere in response to one of those? I can't remember off the top of my head...but then again I have a headache

CkG[/quote]
Hey CKG! I agree, keep them separate! I can't wait to start getting dubbed, so let me help.....
I am a registered INDEPENDENT, but I am leaning more and more to the RIGHT every day!
I believe in GOD, I go to CHURCH every Sunday and think that we are ONE NATION UNDER GOD
I am however not a turn the other cheek kind of CHRISTIAN so the thought of the "peaceful" ISLAM trying to kill me makes me want to KILL them first! Yes I am being sarcastic about the peaceful part. I mean come on, have you seen parts of the Qur'an? WOW! I guess I am an infidel and should be killed. Also did you know that a large number of Mosques in the USA were funded by Saudi's King Fahd Ben Abdel Aziz? Hmm, he?s a nice guy with no ties to terrorist, oh no! Oh, even though he has been pissing me off with a lot of the junk he is pulling like letting illegal immigrants come over at will, and get paid to do so. Oh wait I am sorry, ?undocumented workers?. Wait, I like Arnold Schwarzenegger?s wording, ?criminal aliens?. Anyway, even with all that, I support BUSH because I feel that KERRY will not rest until the USA is DESTROYED by terrorists!

Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."

Anyway?.FLAME AWAY LIBS [/quote]

I don't think you'll get flamed, you're already too scared as it is. I'll make you a Tin Foil Hat too

 

[MoFunk]

Scared? I do not think so. Just realistic.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Scared? I do not think so. Just realistic.

Well "Realistically" we have already seen what the Dub can and cannot do. Therefore you are "scared" to expect better and/or feel Kerry or no one else can do better than the Fearless Liar. We should all Expect better than what we have gotten and not gotten over the last 4 years.

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News**

Rasmussen Reports polling (oh, the irony) following Condoleezza Rice?s testimony before the 9-11 Commission finds that 71% of Americans followed news stories of the Rice testimony somewhat or very closely and they approve of Condi?s performance two to one:

Among those who were following the story closely, Rice was viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 28%.

Rice?s numbers are far better than those for Richard Clarke, the former Clinton and Bush official whose testimony two weeks ago kicked off a media frenzy. Following yesterday?s testimony, Clarke is viewed favorably by just 27% of voters and unfavorably by 42%.

**Film at Eleven**

 

[conjur]

Well, you can thank the Bush Administration's two-week smear campaign against Clarke for those low numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/rice.poll/index.html

Compared with two weeks ago, fewer Americans now think the Bush administration failed to do all it could to prevent the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, but nearly two-thirds think the White House had no strategy to take out al Qaeda prior to the attacks, according to a poll released Friday.

CNN/TIME magazine conducted the telephone poll Thursday night, after national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Forty percent of the 1,000 Americans polled said that the administration, based on the information it had, could have done more to stop the terrorist attacks, compared with 54 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28.

Thursday's poll, however, gave a resounding "no" -- 60 percent -- to the question of whether the administration had an al Qaeda strategy before the events of September 11, 2001.

Forty percent of those polled disagreed with Rice that restrictions on law enforcement authorities played a role in the government's failure to detect the plot, although 33 percent said such restrictions were partly responsible.

Rice herself snagged a 41 percent favorable rating in the poll, but another 43 percent said they weren't familiar enough with her to have an opinion -- and a rather sizable 32 percent had heard nothing at all about her testimony to the commission.

Only 20 percent told pollsters they'd heard a great deal.

Rice won the credibility race against former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke -- who testified that the White House had ignored warnings about Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization. Forty-three percent of the poll's participants said they were more likely to believe Rice, as opposed to 36 percent naming Clarke.

Still, 21 percent weren't sure, and it was the 72 percent of Republican respondents who put Rice over the top.

Fifty-three percent of Democrats believed Clarke over Rice.

 

[nutxo]

Well, you can thank the Bush Administration's two-week smear campaign against Clarke for those low numbers.

LOL

Its a plot!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Well, you can thank the Bush Administration's two-week smear campaign against Clarke for those low numbers.

LOL

Its a plot!

Most certainly is.

They were more worried about defaming Clarke than they were with getting Rice to testify and releasing all of the Clinton administration documents.

 

[Shuxclams]

Well if enough people cover the FACTS without the spin then you would get the idea that Condie Lied or misrepresented facts. Clearly the PDB states elements of attack... not "historical data" as she related.

CRAWFORD, Texas(On vacation again) (Reuters) - At the demand of the 9/11 commission, the White House made public on Saturday a classified intelligence document from a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that told President Bush (news - web sites) of al Qaeda plans to attack the United States with explosives or hijack airplanes.

The document, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States," was likely to intensify the election-year debate in Washington over whether the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented in spite of Bush's insistence that the U.S. government did everything it could to head them off with the information on hand.


The page-and-a-half memo, requested by Bush to find out the extent of the al Qaeda threat domestically, told the president of desires by al Qaeda to attack the United States dating to 1997.


The report said it had not been able to corroborate some of the "more sensational threat reporting," such as a report in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of those responsible for the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center.


But the document saidthe FBI (news - web sites) had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."


National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) insisted in her public testimony to the 9/11 commission last week that the memo contained mostly historical information and did not warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

ATTACK WITH EXPLOSIVES


Her account could be contradicted by the fact that the memo included information from three months beforehand that al Qaeda members were trying to enter the United States for an attack with explosives. HELLO!!!!!!


"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA (news - web sites) and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," the document said.


The document gave neither a time nor a suspected target for such an attack. It was based on a May 2001 intelligence report that suggested bin Laden followers wanted to cross from Canada into the United States.


It said bin Laden had implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that he would "bring the fighting to America."


"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US," the document said.


The report said bin Laden's first attempt to strike inside the United States appeared to have been a 1999 plot at the turn of the century, the so-called millennium plot when an al Qaeda operative entered the United States from Canada in an attempt to bomb Los Angeles International Airport.


It was highly unusual for the U.S. government to make public a sensitive presidential intelligence memo. Its release had been demanded by members of the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, and Democrats on the commission had questioned whether Bush could have done more to stop the attacks based on the memo.

As for smearing Dick Clarke, well it did kind of work... but the problem will hopefully be cleared up when people realize that When the Bush admin reacted to the 9/11 attack they handed everything over to the same man they say was incompetent and a lose cannon.




















SHUX