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

[dmcowen674]

This just showed complete and total failure.

That's what you get when you don't listen.

 

[conjur]

No, it won't. But, no response accomplishes nothing.

 

[ThePresence]

Great job, Condi.

 

[conjur]

I sure would love to see that PDB titled "bin Laden to attack within the United States".

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it won't. But, no response accomplishes nothing.

I think Dr. Rice made it pretty clear why there was no response. What should the US have done in response? Launch a couple of missles? That's not going to do anything substantive. Better to make calculated strikes at our choosing as opposed to playing to the actions of terrorists.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it won't. But, no response accomplishes nothing.

Very true. Now the question of who was actually responsible for the Cole attack needs to be asked. I thought there was some testimony today about the hand over of the Cole attack assessment from he Clinton admin to the Bush admin. I don't remember what the assessment actually said about who was considered to be responsible for that attack.
CWRMadcat brings up the point of having no real effect by the tit-for-tat type reactions - as it may create the illusion that something is being done. We can't just react - we have to prevent and guard against - and if something happens - we need to thoroughly remove the threat - not just give them a bruise.
IMO of course

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Great job, Condi.

Awwww, such praise for your Fearless Liar's minions, how touching.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it won't. But, no response accomplishes nothing.

Very true. Now the question of who was actually responsible for the Cole attack needs to be asked. I thought there was some testimony today about the hand over of the Cole attack assesment fromt he Clinton admin to the Bush admin. I don't remember what the assesment actually said about who was considered to be responsible for that attack.

CkG

Well...there's this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron2.html

Dec. 8, 2000

Cole Links to Bin Laden

ABC News' John Miller reports authorities have found a number of connections between the Cole attack and Osama bin Laden, including telephone records of calls between the bombers of the Cole and an Al Qaeda cell in East Africa. Yemeni officials arrest Gamal Al Badawi, a suspect who admits he fought with Al Qaeda forces in Bosnia. Fahad al-Quso, in custody, apparently carried $5,000 from an associate of bin Laden to Cole conspirators. Lastly, Miller reports Yemeni authorities suspect Abdul Al-Nassir both organized the Cole attack and also recruited bombers for the attack on the embassies in East Africa in 1998.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Great job, Condi.

Awwww, such praise for your Fearless Liar's minions, how touching.

Do you have something constructive to add here dave? Or are you just trolling?

CkG

 

[conjur]

And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Great job, Condi.

Awwww, such praise for your Fearless Liar's minions, how touching.

Do you have something constructive to add here dave? Or are you just trolling?

CkG

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it won't. But, no response accomplishes nothing.

Very true. Now the question of who was actually responsible for the Cole attack needs to be asked. I thought there was some testimony today about the hand over of the Cole attack assesment fromt he Clinton admin to the Bush admin. I don't remember what the assesment actually said about who was considered to be responsible for that attack.

CkG

Well...there's this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/cron2.html

Dec. 8, 2000

Cole Links to Bin Laden

ABC News' John Miller reports authorities have found a number of connections between the Cole attack and Osama bin Laden, including telephone records of calls between the bombers of the Cole and an Al Qaeda cell in East Africa. Yemeni officials arrest Gamal Al Badawi, a suspect who admits he fought with Al Qaeda forces in Bosnia. Fahad al-Quso, in custody, apparently carried $5,000 from an associate of bin Laden to Cole conspirators. Lastly, Miller reports Yemeni authorities suspect Abdul Al-Nassir both organized the Cole attack and also recruited bombers for the attack on the embassies in East Africa in 1998.

Hmmmm, I don't recall being the President and not doing anything until Kamakazi's took over.

 

[classy]

Well I now we see that all the info they got was "historical". OK, yea right. Its clear that Bush wasn't interested in AlQueda. He was only interested in Iraq. Then how do you get a memo with info of possible threats and not even address with the President. This is an outrage. At first I thought Clarke was a liar looking for political gain, but he was telling the truth. And to blame it on a "structural" problem is a lie. It wasn't a structural problem when we stopped the other possible attacks. They should all be fired and yes Bush should be impreached, f'in moron. To hear her babble makes me sick. And now our boys are in a country where more than 5 million folks could join an uprising. This is a damn shame.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

That's nice conjur - so does bombing the training camps solve the Al Qeada issue? Isn't that the tit-for-tat type of thing that doesn't really address the problem - it just gives the illusion of doing something about the problem?

That's the whole point conjur - the strategy was moving towards the deeper issue of how to remove and fight these types of groups. Would I have liked to see us respond to the Cole - hell yes. But would it have solved the issue? No.

CkG

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I now we see that all the info they got was "historical". OK, yea right. Its clear that Bush wasn't interested in AlQueda. He was only interested in Iraq. Then how do you get a memo with info of possible threats and not even address with the President. This is an outrage. At first I thought Clarke was a liar looking for political gain, but he was telling the truth. And to blame it on a "structural" problem is a lie. It wasn't a structural problem when we stopped the other possible attacks. They should all be fired and yes Bush should be impreached, f'in moron. To hear her babble makes me sick. And now our boys are in a country where more than 5 million folks could join an uprising. This is a damn shame.

I'm not sure how to react to that...personally I would love for them to declassify the document so I can read it for myself.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

That's nice conjur - so does bombing the training camps solve the Al Qeada issue? Isn't that the tit-for-tat type of thing that doesn't really address the problem - it just gives the illusion of doing something about the problem?

That's the whole point conjur - the strategy was moving towards the deeper issue of how to remove and fight these types of groups. Would I have liked to see us respond to the Cole - hell yes. But would it have solved the issue? No.

CkG

And when did that strategy reach the President? Sept. 4, 2001.

Would responding to the USS Cole attack have prevented 9/11? Probably not.

Would responsing to the USS Cole attack have delayed 9/11? Possibly. And, at that point, Bush would have had time to determine to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that might have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks from occurring.

We won't know because the Bush Administration wasn't treating terrorism as a high priority. They waited 8 months to even get a simple document to the President!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

That's nice conjur - so does bombing the training camps solve the Al Qeada issue? Isn't that the tit-for-tat type of thing that doesn't really address the problem - it just gives the illusion of doing something about the problem?

That's the whole point conjur - the strategy was moving towards the deeper issue of how to remove and fight these types of groups. Would I have liked to see us respond to the Cole - hell yes. But would it have solved the issue? No.

CkG

Like occupying Iraq solves the issue

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Originally posted by: classy
Well I now we see that all the info they got was "historical". OK, yea right. Its clear that Bush wasn't interested in AlQueda. He was only interested in Iraq. Then how do you get a memo with info of possible threats and not even address with the President. This is an outrage. At first I thought Clarke was a liar looking for political gain, but he was telling the truth. And to blame it on a "structural" problem is a lie. It wasn't a structural problem when we stopped the other possible attacks. They should all be fired and yes Bush should be impreached, f'in moron. To hear her babble makes me sick. And now our boys are in a country where more than 5 million folks could join an uprising. This is a damn shame.

I'm not sure how to react to that...personally I would love for them to declassify the document so I can read it for myself.

Exactly, but from Rice's testimony it wasn't anything close to specific like I'm sure classy and others will try to insinuate. A broad "threat" warning does what exactly? How do you respond to a broad threat? or one that isn't defined? How is one supposed to "act" on such broad "threat" analysis and historical information. If the document contains specific new threats with a good amount of specifics then something should have been done but from what I've heard - there was no specific threat reported. This blustering by classy and others trying to blame this administration is what we call - politics

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

That's nice conjur - so does bombing the training camps solve the Al Qeada issue? Isn't that the tit-for-tat type of thing that doesn't really address the problem - it just gives the illusion of doing something about the problem?

That's the whole point conjur - the strategy was moving towards the deeper issue of how to remove and fight these types of groups. Would I have liked to see us respond to the Cole - hell yes. But would it have solved the issue? No.

CkG

And when did that strategy reach the President? Sept. 4, 2001.

Would responding to the USS Cole attack have prevented 9/11? Probably not.

Would responsing to the USS Cole attack have delayed 9/11? Possibly. And, at that point, Bush would have had time to determine to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that might have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks from occurring.

We won't know because the Bush Administration wasn't treating terrorism as a high priority. They waited 8 months to even get a simple document to the President!

and ignoring a guy that "clearly" wasn't crying Wolf.

I hate using the word "clear" now because Dub has worn it out being so muddy with it.

It's clear Clarke was 110% ignored.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Originally posted by: classy
Well I now we see that all the info they got was "historical". OK, yea right. Its clear that Bush wasn't interested in AlQueda. He was only interested in Iraq. Then how do you get a memo with info of possible threats and not even address with the President. This is an outrage. At first I thought Clarke was a liar looking for political gain, but he was telling the truth. And to blame it on a "structural" problem is a lie. It wasn't a structural problem when we stopped the other possible attacks. They should all be fired and yes Bush should be impreached, f'in moron. To hear her babble makes me sick. And now our boys are in a country where more than 5 million folks could join an uprising. This is a damn shame.

I'm not sure how to react to that...personally I would love for them to declassify the document so I can read it for myself.

Our boys are now dying for lies. They are fighting one man's agenda. This war had nothing to do with terrorism. This witch won't even just answer the questions. I can't believe this bs. And to see the absolute jackals sit in support of this crap is damn disgrace. They did nothing. And could have have done a lot. "Historical" info my @ss.

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
And more from that page:

Jan. 25, 2001

Clarke Warns of Sleeper Cells

Richard Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism chief, sends a memo to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley warning that Al Qaeda sleeper cells within the U.S. are ?a major threat.? Clarke also advocates targeting Al Qaeda training camps in response to the Cole bombing.


Jan. 27, 2001

Cole Links to Al Qaeda Confirmed

The Washington Post reports on this date that investigators in Yemen believe that people in custody are tied closely to Al Qaeda. An anonymous Bush administration official tells The Post, ?There is no question that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.?

That's nice conjur - so does bombing the training camps solve the Al Qeada issue? Isn't that the tit-for-tat type of thing that doesn't really address the problem - it just gives the illusion of doing something about the problem?

That's the whole point conjur - the strategy was moving towards the deeper issue of how to remove and fight these types of groups. Would I have liked to see us respond to the Cole - hell yes. But would it have solved the issue? No.

CkG

And when did that strategy reach the President? Sept. 4, 2001.

Would responding to the USS Cole attack have prevented 9/11? Probably not.

Would responsing to the USS Cole attack have delayed 9/11? Possibly. And, at that point, Bush would have had time to determine to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that might have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks from occurring.

We won't know because the Bush Administration wasn't treating terrorism as a high priority. They waited 8 months to even get a simple document to the President!

At that point in time, I doubt anything aside from sending troops to arrest the terrorists boarding those specific flights would have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would have done nothing. The terrorists were already inside and ready to carry out their attacks.

So one document didn't make it to the president...how about other documents?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Like occupying Iraq solves the issue

*cookie*

- got something to ad to the discussion or are you constantly going to troll in here with your inanities?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wait, no one is picking on me? Waaa!!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Wait, no one is picking on me? Waaa!!!!

*cookie*

CkG

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Originally posted by: classy
Well I now we see that all the info they got was "historical". OK, yea right. Its clear that Bush wasn't interested in AlQueda. He was only interested in Iraq. Then how do you get a memo with info of possible threats and not even address with the President. This is an outrage. At first I thought Clarke was a liar looking for political gain, but he was telling the truth. And to blame it on a "structural" problem is a lie. It wasn't a structural problem when we stopped the other possible attacks. They should all be fired and yes Bush should be impreached, f'in moron. To hear her babble makes me sick. And now our boys are in a country where more than 5 million folks could join an uprising. This is a damn shame.

I'm not sure how to react to that...personally I would love for them to declassify the document so I can read it for myself.

Exactly, but from Rice's testimony it wasn't anything close to specific like I'm sure classy and others will try to insinuate. A broad "threat" warning does what exactly? How do you respond to a broad threat? or one that isn't defined? How is one supposed to "act" on such broad "threat" analysis and historical information. If the document contains specific new threats with a good amount of specifics then something should have been done but from what I've heard - there was no specific threat reported. This blustering by classy and others trying to blame this administration is what we call - politics

CkG

Politics? Look here genius. In 1999 we stopped the attack against the LA Airport. And shutdown Al Queda cells in New York and Boston with the same "structure" that this huzzy now says was a problem. Why was it a problem for them but wasn't problem before. As a little boy I remember very vividly attending the funeral of a familly member killed in Vietnam. I have 3 cousins, 2 of them suffer from mental problems as a result of Vietnam. So your bs of politics means very little. You people just don't get it. He sent people to die for the wrong reasons and used lies to decieve the American Public. This is not about politics. I am so sick and tired of politics. What happened on 9/11 is quickly forgotten. We will live together and die together as Americans. We are one people group. And to hear Rice admit to having brushed off info and blame the very structure that worked in the past is hideous. I am very very disturbed by her testimony. Very disturbed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Originally posted by: conjur
And when did that strategy reach the President? Sept. 4, 2001.

Would responding to the USS Cole attack have prevented 9/11? Probably not.

Would responsing to the USS Cole attack have delayed 9/11? Possibly. And, at that point, Bush would have had time to determine to attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that might have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks from occurring.

We won't know because the Bush Administration wasn't treating terrorism as a high priority. They waited 8 months to even get a simple document to the President!

At that point in time, I doubt anything aside from sending troops to arrest the terrorists boarding those specific flights would have stopped the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would have done nothing. The terrorists were already inside and ready to carry out their attacks.

So one document didn't make it to the president...how about other documents?

Or it might have stopped or at least delayed the attacks. If we had launched an aggressive assault on Afghanistan and all of the known terror camps and also started hitting the Taliban, it would have at least gotten the hijackers to think about what was going on. Perhaps they'd have all met and they were under surveillance...somewhat.