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

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur
LMFAO!!!!!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey, FrodoB...look ONE post above yours there and tell me what you see re: Bush's DIRECT quotes.


You just got PWN3D!!!

You're truly pathetic if you think that validates your argument. Rice specifically stated that terrorism was a top priority of the Bush team.
You lose. Your perception of reality is wrong.

Ah...so...Bush was lying to Woodward then?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Sure, CkG. It's largely administrative in nature and notes no particular action to be taken:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm

That created the National Security Presidential Directives - it wasn't a major National Security POLICY directive as it was, as you said was administrative in nature. I'm asking for the first major policy directive.

But since you brought it up - I thought the Bush Admin didn't do anything before 9/11? I thought they were asleep at the wheel?

CkG

 

[conjur]

They didn't.

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur
LMFAO!!!!!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey, FrodoB...look ONE post above yours there and tell me what you see re: Bush's DIRECT quotes.


You just got PWN3D!!!

You're truly pathetic if you think that validates your argument. Rice specifically stated that terrorism was a top priority of the Bush team.
You lose. Your perception of reality is wrong.

Ah...so...Bush was lying to Woodward then?

Again - do you have troubles seeing the difference between focusing on one guy(OBL) and focusing on Terrorism? Thought so.

CkG

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: conjur
They didn't.

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

Stopped Ashcroft from flying commercially!:disgust:

 

[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....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur
LMFAO!!!!!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey, FrodoB...look ONE post above yours there and tell me what you see re: Bush's DIRECT quotes.


You just got PWN3D!!!

You're truly pathetic if you think that validates your argument. Rice specifically stated that terrorism was a top priority of the Bush team.
You lose. Your perception of reality is wrong.

Ah...so...Bush was lying to Woodward then?

Again - do you have troubles seeing the difference between focusing on one guy(OBL) and focusing on Terrorism? Thought so.

CkG

Back then, bin Laden was the world of terrorism.

When Clarke briefed the new administration on Al Qaeda and they saw for the 1st time how large and intricate the network was, they were all shocked. They'd not heard of Al Qaeda before...just the name bin Laden.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: conjur
They didn't.

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

Stopped Ashcroft from flying commercially!:disgust:

Sad, but true.

 

[conjur]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4712842.html

Did Rice lie?

The title of the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing was revealed Thursday: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." The briefing also, according to Commission Member Bob Kerrey, warned that "the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking."

Rice gave a two-pronged answer: The Aug. 6 document was "historical" in nature -- meaning, apparently, it looked back -- and that all through the summer, federal agencies, including FBI field offices, had been "tasked" with investigating this information.

But the language from the memo certainly doesn't sound "historical," and as for tasking federal agencies, Gorelick responded: "Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea. Yes, the attorney general was briefed, but there was no evidence of any activity by him about this.

"You indicate in your statement that the FBI tasked its field offices to find out what was going on out there. We have no record of that."

Commission Member Tim Roemer came back to the same point: "We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 commission. We've gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody -- nobody at the FBI who knows anything about a tasking of field offices."

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Looks like the left-wing smear machine has let out their thoroughly-researched, fact-based attack dogs:

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

April 8, 2004

Planes as Weapons

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
They didn't.

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

Support of UN security resolution 1363, which specifically links to taliban, and terrorism.
and a mechanism to adress both through reafirming prior resolutions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Looks like the left-wing smear machine has let out their thoroughly-researched, fact-based attack dogs:

You mean thoroughly politicized spin doctors
There is an awful lot of context missing from their little list and a whole lot of spin and innuendo.

*****

conjur - find that major policy directive yet?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur
LMFAO!!!!!

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Hey, FrodoB...look ONE post above yours there and tell me what you see re: Bush's DIRECT quotes.


You just got PWN3D!!!

You're truly pathetic if you think that validates your argument. Rice specifically stated that terrorism was a top priority of the Bush team.
You lose. Your perception of reality is wrong.

Ah...so...Bush was lying to Woodward then?

Again - do you have troubles seeing the difference between focusing on one guy(OBL) and focusing on Terrorism? Thought so.

CkG

Back then, bin Laden was the world of terrorism.

When Clarke briefed the new administration on Al Qaeda and they saw for the 1st time how large and intricate the network was, they were all shocked. They'd not heard of Al Qaeda before...just the name bin Laden.

Dick Clarke - is that you?

Have you read the terrorism reports of 1999 and 2000? You know...the Global report on terrorism. I guarantee that it wasn't just OBL in those reports.

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

Intensive searches at each airport and following that warning probably would have found the box cutters.

What your failing to point out is that "knives with blades less than 4 inches in length" were not prohibited items in carry on luggage before 9/11!!

here's another way that things were screwed up that nobody is talking about...

this Clinton appointee - MARY A. RYAN, was in charge of Consular Affairs. She came up with a fantastic program called "Visa Express", which allowed Saudi nationals to obtain travel visas from travel agents in Saudi Arabia! This program was used by 3 of the 9/11 hijackers to enter the U.S!

what a great idea eh?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

Here some more stuff they put in motion, thing was not enough time for inertia to occur.

Transcript from August 2002 Briefing:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

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.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies ? and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer ? last point ? they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.




QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: conjur
They didn't.

Name one thing the Bush administration did to physically attack or dismantle Al Qaeda in any way, prior to 9/11.

Stopped Ashcroft from flying commercially!:disgust:

Sad, but true.

no...not true. the truth is the witch hunt backfired today did'nt it?

according to non other than clarke himself, plans were in fact being "acted upon" in the first 200 days of his administration, plans the previous administation did not begin to enact(AFTER already going through an attack on the WTC in 1993, SEVEN YEARS EARLIER!!!). and clarke not only said this in 2002, he re-iterated it in 2004 by saying "nothing said in 2002 was untrue"...

the simple truth is bush did more in 8 months than clinton did in 8 years but we have the "imprtial" commitee members ben veniste and kerrey get their arse handed to them while doing a bad perry mason imitation ,kerrey did not even apparantly know who he was even talking to! ROFL!!


you dems are trying to milk the blood of 2001 for all it's political worth...and that is what is sad but true.

i used to vote whatever i thought would be the best candidate no matter hwta political party, but come nov 2004 i am going to simply pull the republican lever when i vote! to hell with ANY democrat!

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Kerrey a Neo-con? Hmmm....

CkG

Well, Kerrey wrote an interesting opinion piece that appears in today's Wall Street Journal.

Excerpts:

The best example of this came two weeks ago, when all the key national security officials of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, except Ms. Rice, testified under oath before the commission. This testimony came immediately after Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism director under both presidents, spoke.

Mr. Clarke's most startling statement was that there have been more terrorist attacks against the United States in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months prior to the attack. You could almost hear a clap of thunder when he went on to say that this happened because we substantially reduced our efforts in Afghanistan and went to war in Iraq, causing a loss of momentum in the war against al Qaeda.

That's his argument. I think he's wrong, but I don't think he is being duplicitous. He is wrong because most if not all of the terrorism since 9/11 has occurred because al Qaeda and other radical Islamists have an even dimmer view of a free and independent Iraq than they do a free and independent United States. A democracy in Iraq that embraces modernism, pluralism, tolerance and the plebiscite is a greater sacrilege than anything we are doing here at home.

 

[fjord]

Summary: Clarke claimed that the Bush administration did not give priority or or even prudent attention to terrorism and Al Qaeda--despite numerous intelligence spikes throughout 2001, prior to 9/11.

Rice: No direct rebuttal of Clarke's claim, instead claims administration is not culpable or blameworthy due to faulty intelligence sharing and structurally flawed institutional problems. Further claims no "silver bullet" could have prevented 9/11, so Bush admin is in the clear of any negleigence, and should not be open to any criticism (from Clarke or anybody else).

The question is: How did the Bush administration *really* understand and deal with terrorism prior to 9/11

Rice presented a different view of the Bush admin, than Clarke did--but no direct rebuttal of Clarks testimony.

Bottom line, difference of interpretation.

Clarke's testimony under oath stands unchallenged.
---
Done.

Now lets move on to more important stuff i.e. unprovoked preemptive agression towards a sovereign nation as a policy against terrorism...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Kerrey a Neo-con? Hmmm....

CkG

Well, Kerrey wrote an interesting opinion piece that appears in today's Wall Street Journal.

Excerpts:

The best example of this came two weeks ago, when all the key national security officials of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, except Ms. Rice, testified under oath before the commission. This testimony came immediately after Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism director under both presidents, spoke.

Mr. Clarke's most startling statement was that there have been more terrorist attacks against the United States in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months prior to the attack. You could almost hear a clap of thunder when he went on to say that this happened because we substantially reduced our efforts in Afghanistan and went to war in Iraq, causing a loss of momentum in the war against al Qaeda.

That's his argument. I think he's wrong, but I don't think he is being duplicitous. He is wrong because most if not all of the terrorism since 9/11 has occurred because al Qaeda and other radical Islamists have an even dimmer view of a free and independent Iraq than they do a free and independent United States. A democracy in Iraq that embraces modernism, pluralism, tolerance and the plebiscite is a greater sacrilege than anything we are doing here at home.

KERRY DOESN"T HAVE A CLUE

The terrorists are now confronted with some unpleasant realities.

1) They have limited resources, and we are working through financial and diplomatic means to further limit their resources every day. So a much more effort and attention must be given to the simple logistic necessities of their continued existence than before we invaded Iraq.

2) Regimes that might have openly supported them in the past fear to do so now that America has demonstrated its willingness to invade and conquer those who openly oppose us. So at the most, terrorist organizations can only get marginal covert support. This drastically limits their mobility.

3) If they focus their limited resources and attention on attacking the USA directly, then they cannot effectively oppose the liberalization of Iraq. To so ignore Iraq would be to admit ultimate defeat - because this is a war of ideology to them. To allow the ideology of liberal democracy, freedom for women, and tolerance of religious freedom to flourish in Iraq is not an option for them. If it becomes known that Americans do not wish to conquer, and that Americans provide unheard of freedoms, and that those freedoms lead to better lives for Arabs, then it exposes the lie of the Islamofascist ideology. This is something they simply cannot allow.

4) If they focus their attention on Iraq where they share a language, a religion and a culture with the citizens of Iraq, then they can blend in well. Also, logistically, it is easier to get to Iraq, and costs less money to operate there. But by focusing on Iraq, the terrorists lose the initiative. Rather than fighting an offensive war, they are forced to fight a defensive war. Also, as sovereignty is turned over to Iraqi's, and as more and more Iraqi's take responsibility for their own security, and their own prosperity, the attacks in Iraq become more of an Arab civil war, rather than a war on the Great Satan - the USA. This exposes the lie of the "Arab Street." There is no Arab unity. At best, they are still simply a collective of warring tribes who only coexis under the oppressive hand of tyrants.

In all these cases, the terrorists lose. Currently, the only available winning strategy they have is to attack in Europe - where the people of Europe have demonstrated cowardice and a willingness to capitulate. But how long will this last?

It makes you wonder though how gaining the support of Europeans should even be a priority for Americans. In the not too distant future, the call in Europe will be for Americans to come to their aid. Will we do so? Yes.

It is becoming ever more clear that this administration is about to take the leash off of Israel and let them take out the PA, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. The only way this can be accomplished is by taking out Syria. After Iraqi's have their own sovereignty, we can redeploy our troops to form an anvil on which the hammer of Israel can crush Syria. Then perhaps we will find out what happened to all those WMD.

That will leave only Iran. Jordan and Egypt will fall into line a la Lybia. Saudi Arabia must undergo a revolution, but without places to divert the animus of their citizenry, the Saudi's will be living on borrowed time.

Its too bad Clarke cannot see these things clearly, but sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees. Some say Bush is not detail oriented enough to meet their criteria. I wonder if his grand vision isn't just what this country needed at this time.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

CLAIM:

Fact checking the fact checkers

The propagandists never cease.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Gaard
Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

CLAIM:

Fact checking the fact checkers

The propagandists never cease.

Pwned!!

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Gaard
Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

CLAIM:

Fact checking the fact checkers

The propagandists never cease.

LOL

Nicely done.

:beer:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Gaard
Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

CLAIM:

Fact checking the fact checkers

The propagandists never cease.

Pwned!!

Hardly. Did you read it? It is another Bush fanboy blog blowing smoke and mirrors. All it proves is if you circle jerk too much you go blind. You are blind to the truth.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: fjord
Summary: Clarke claimed that the Bush administration did not give priority or or even prudent attention to terrorism and Al Qaeda--despite numerous intelligence spikes throughout 2001, prior to 9/11.

Rice: No direct rebuttal of Clarke's claim, instead claims administration is not culpable or blameworthy due to faulty intelligence sharing and structurally flawed institutional problems. Further claims no "silver bullet" could have prevented 9/11, so Bush admin is in the clear of any negleigence, and should not be open to any criticism (from Clarke or anybody else).

The question is: How did the Bush administration *really* understand and deal with terrorism prior to 9/11

Rice presented a different view of the Bush admin, than Clarke did--but no direct rebuttal of Clarks testimony.

Bottom line, difference of interpretation.

Clarke's testimony under oath stands unchallenged.
---
Done.

Now lets move on to more important stuff i.e. unprovoked preemptive agression towards a sovereign nation as a policy against terrorism...

Yes. Put them under oath and they stop smearing Clarke. He is telling the truth.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Hardly. Did you read it? It is another Bush fanboy blog blowing smoke and mirrors. All it proves is if you circle jerk too much you go blind. You are blind to the truth.

And just WTF is the "Center for American Progress". If you guessed "left-wing propaganda organization", you guessed correctly.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.