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

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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

*cookie*

CkG

*pretzel for the Republican*

 

[Ilmater]

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!

This is ridiculous. Responding to the USS Cole attack would not have delayed 9/11 at all. The terrorists were already in America training to be pilots at that point. They were a sleeper cell, and by very definition independant. They would not have been effected.

The USS Cole bombing was a big deal, but if you honestly think we would have made a significant difference in our terrorism policy because of it, you're just kidding yourself. Nobody in this country pre-9/11 would have backed INVADING A COUNTRY!

The US is a very fickle society. They focus on a different thing every week. I'm sure the weeks following the Cole attack, terrorism was the first thing on people's minds. The weeks following that they were worried about unemployment. The weeks after that they were worried about abortion rights or kidnappings. The weeks after that they were concerned about gas prices. Whatever. Politicians are pressed to make hasty and rash judgements about these issues AS THEY COME UP. The President was focused on terrorism until the next thing came up. Obviously, in a post-9/11 world, those priorities have changed, but not just because the Pres. wants to stop terrorism but more because the PUBLIC wants to see something done to fight terrorism EVERY DAY. THAT is why we have this focus.

I'm very angry that with our technology and intelligence-gathering techniques, we still didn't prevent 9/11. I'm 100% sure that at least one or two reports were filed at the CIA by fairly credible sources prior to 9/11 that detailed the attacks to some degree, but I do not target my ire at the President for two reasons:

1) Hundreds of tips come into the CIA every day. They cannot be expected to investigate EVERY SINGLE ONE. They have to use their best judgement in these situations.

2) Even if these reports were considered viable threats on some level, the slow-moving machine that is the CIA was NOT made to be slow by GWB personally.

I don't believe that the President could have done anything wrong in this situation unless you can prove to me that he knew 9/11 was coming and purposely let it happen to get reelected (or for whatever reason). I'm not naive, and I do think there are other scenarios where the president could have done wrong, but he and every other politician in Washington is bound to the will of the people - frequently the lowest-comon denominator - and is forced to look to things that seem most prescient to the most people.

I'm not sure I've said everything I wanted to say, but I'm tired of typing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

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.

Amen.

In the meantime what is being done about Binny and his scarrymen getting more and more trained, armed and prepared while we are distracted in the sands of Iraq???

and CAD, stop with your Cookies and Pretzels, you're making me hungry.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: bthorny
Funny how the republicans are asking her questions,whoops, I mean feeding her answers......Pretty weak......
I hate how this country is ran by two parties, a multiparty system is so much democratic. Grrrrrr

Yeah right, get three or four parties in Congress. Things would get done SOOOO much better. Are you insane? You think there's gridlock now, try getting a majority in a Congress with three or four parties. It's not like our system is forced into a bi-partisan one, it just naturally gravitated there. For all its failings, I can't imagine getting anything done if things were not done this way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, there is reason to be disturbed - because the problem wasn't solved. It still existed as there wasn't a way for domestic and foreign intelligences to share alot of things. There were laws in place that prevented such sharing.
So yes GENIUS

- it should be disturbing to hear about what hasn't been done, but what should be encouraging is the change in the way we are addressing the issue, and what this panel can recommend as far as further changes to the way we deal with terrorism because it's clear that what was done previously wasn't enough to prevent an major attack and that just going after individuals or little cells doesn't solve much in the big picture. There needs to be a coordinated effort to remove these people and groups - which wasn't done before.

And yes - your blubbering about Bush and impeachment is politics - not terrorism, Rice's testimony, or the 9/11 commision. There are plenty of Iraq threads for you to go whine about politics in.

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't want a tit-for-tat response to the USS Cole. Instead, doing nothing gives Al Qaeda the impression we are weak and won't respond to attacks.

No actually it is kind of like poker and playing a bluff...


I listened to the entire proceedings, and subjected 11 people (employee's and customers)
to it also...

I,m here to tell you that this is going to hurt the democratic party, big time...

I would suspect this will not be a news worthy event in the mainstream media by
Monday....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, there is reason to be disturbed - because the problem wasn't solved. It still existed as there wasn't a way for domestic and foreign intelligences to share alot of things. There were laws in place that prevented such sharing.
So yes GENIUS

- it should be disturbing to hear about what hasn't been done, but what should be encouraging is the change in the way we are addressing the issue, and what this panel can recommend as far as further changes to the way we deal with terrorism because it's clear that what was done previously wasn't enough to prevent an major attack and that just going after individuals or little cells doesn't solve much in the big picture. There needs to be a coordinated effort to remove these people and groups - which wasn't done before.

And yes - your blubbering about Bush and impeachment is politics - not terrorism, Rice's testimony, or the 9/11 commision. There are plenty of Iraq threads for you to go whine about politics in.

CkG

Like Bush's Abhorrent Adventures in Iraq?

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Like occupying Iraq solves the issue

I agree with you on this point, but at the same time I don't think you can assess the value (or lack-thereof) of going into Iraq until much further down the line. I don't personally think that the presence of a Democratic system will have any effect on the Mideast at all, and frankly I don't think that it can last. However, it may help in the future. This administration is counting on it, and THAT, I believe, is part of their plan. Saddam was not aiding Al Qaeda in any major fashion, and in fact was much nicer to the Sunnis and Christians in Iraq than the Shi'ites that are typically more radical and more often side with terrorists. I think that if there was a Saddam in every Muslim country (especially Afghanistan), there would not BE any terrorism.

But again, the Bush Admin.'s plan is to spread democracy through the region, and it could work, I just don't see how.

 

[classy]

CADkindaGUY

How is that the same structure worked in 1999, but for Bush and this administration 2 years later didn't worked?
Does all info have to be specific or not "historical" to be addressed? I still can't get over that "historical" stuff.

Do me a favor don't answer. I just wish we could take you since your so supportive of Bush, despite the obvious that this man is a liar and put your punk @ss right on the front line of "his" war.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, there is reason to be disturbed - because the problem wasn't solved. It still existed as there wasn't a way for domestic and foreign intelligences to share alot of things. There were laws in place that prevented such sharing.
So yes GENIUS

- it should be disturbing to hear about what hasn't been done, but what should be encouraging is the change in the way we are addressing the issue, and what this panel can recommend as far as further changes to the way we deal with terrorism because it's clear that what was done previously wasn't enough to prevent an major attack and that just going after individuals or little cells doesn't solve much in the big picture. There needs to be a coordinated effort to remove these people and groups - which wasn't done before.

And yes - your blubbering about Bush and impeachment is politics - not terrorism, Rice's testimony, or the 9/11 commision. There are plenty of Iraq threads for you to go whine about politics in.

CkG

Like Bush's Abhorrent Adventures in Iraq?

Or maybe it was in reference to the way we use, gather, share intelligence. You know - the structural problems that classy said he doesn't buy into.

CkG

 

[FrodoB]

This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: classy
CADkindaGUY

How is that the same structure worked in 1999, but for Bush and this administration 2 years later didn't worked?
Does all info have to be specific or not "historical" to be addressed? I still can't get over that "historical" stuff.

Do me a favor don't answer. I just wish we could take you since your so supportive of Bush, despite the obvious that this man is a liar and put your punk @ss right on the front line of "his" war.

Are you on drugs? Have you not been paying attention today?

 

[classy]

CADkindaGUY

I would laugh at you it you weren't so pathetic.

We started out looking WMD's and we haven't found jack.
Now we have 9/11 in which "structural" problems prevented this administration from acting, but this same structure worked under the previous administration 18 months prior.

I have a question that I am almost afraid to ask.

Do you think its possible that they passed over this info in hopes of a 9/11 catastrophy to forward the Bush and company's personal and political agendas? Is it possible they just let us die?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: classy
CADkindaGUY

How is that the same structure worked in 1999, but for Bush and this administration 2 years later didn't worked?
Does all info have to be specific or not "historical" to be addressed? I still can't get over that "historical" stuff.

Do me a favor don't answer. I just wish we could take you since your so supportive of Bush, despite the obvious that this man is a liar and put your punk @ss right on the front line of "his" war.

You don't seem to understand the issue here so let me attempt to explain a bit and if you still don't understand - I'll leave you to your ignorance.
Yes, we need to close down cells here in the US but that doesn't solve the problem - does it? Obviously not if more were here - no? The issue of structure is the info sharing and gathering procedure which, if you would have watched or listened to the hearing this morning you would have seen addressed by the commissioners. But I suppose their wanting to know more about the structural problems means nothing to you.
Anyway - you still don't seem to understand the memo thing about Bil Laden wanting to attack us here in America. From Rice's testimony it seems there was the history of what bin laden has done in the past and his intents -but nothing specific in nature was warned about. Now yes, that is classified so it is speculation on your part to claim it had something more than what Rice said it did and it's speculation on my part that it didn't contain specific new threats but mine is backed up by under oath testimony.

Oh, and just out of curiosity - what 1999 event are you talking about?

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

There is a little strategy here that I think Most fail to see..

The Bush Admin did attack Clarke with a passion..

Will the Dems dare to attack Rice the same way..

Was today the closest they dare?

There is still the race and gender card, to play,
question is
How to play it?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

Show in ONE way how Clarke was proven to be a liar.

Just ONE!

 

[Ozoned]

ayup, Clarke better keep his book money.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: classy
CADkindaGUY

I would laugh at you it you weren't so pathetic.

We started out looking WMD's and we haven't found jack.
Now we have 9/11 in which "structural" problems prevented this administration from acting, but this same structure worked under the previous administration 18 months prior.

I have question that I am almost afraid to ask.

Do you think its possible that they passed over this info in hopes of a 9/11 catastrophy to forward the Bush and company's personal and political agendas? Is it possible they just let us die?

No.
No.

And I will laugh at you because you are pathetic. Now again - if you wish to bleat about the Iraq war - go pick a thread and whine away - there are plenty for you to whine in.

CkG

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

Man you are a fool. There was people in the background clapping when the Senator was grilling Rice just to answer the question. If anything the republican leadership looks even more questionable after this testimony.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

I didn't see a slam dunk. More like a couple of bricks that went "clank" when they hit the rim.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

Show in ONE way how Clarke was proven to be a liar.

Just ONE!

This hobbit friend of ours must have gone to the Ari Fleischer School of Immoral Spin.

On MSNBC, the 9/11 Wives are SLAMMING the Bush Administration and Condi right now for their stonewalling and evading of the 9/11 Commission. These comments will be what are seen and remembered on the evening news tonight, NOT Condi's slick and filibustering testimony.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: classy

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.

No, I'll tell you what I'm sick and tired of: finger-pointing. You're so anxious to find something or someone in the Bush administration to blame for the terrorist attacks, you don't even look at the reality of the situation. OJ Simpson is a free man. Hundreds (if not thousands) of murders go unsolved every year. Combatting crime of any kind is hard. Just because they caught Bundy doesn't mean they were going to catch the Green River killer. Your argument would suggest otherwise. Yeah, we stopped two terrorist attacks. Spain just caught two possible terrorist attacks. THEY'RE NOT EASY TO CATCH!! There is no "magic" way of catching terrorists. The same FBI that prevents some murders doesn't prevent [or in some instances doesn't even catch the person responsible for] others.

The moral of the story is, stop dwelling on what happened in the past; focus on what can be changed to better our chances of preventing it in the future. CkG is exactly right; this should not be a finger-pointing exercise, it should be an exercise in finding out how this kind of stuff could have slipped through the cracks.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: classy
CADkindaGUY

I would laugh at you it you weren't so pathetic.

We started out looking WMD's and we haven't found jack.
Now we have 9/11 in which "structural" problems prevented this administration from acting, but this same structure worked under the previous administration 18 months prior.

I have question that I am almost afraid to ask.

Do you think its possible that they passed over this info in hopes of a 9/11 catastrophy to forward the Bush and company's personal and political agendas? Is it possible they just let us die?

No.
No.

And I will laugh at you because you are pathetic. Now again - if you wish to bleat about the Iraq war - go pick a thread and whine away - there are plenty for you to whine in.

CkG

Dude they let us die and you know it. They might as well had been flying the planes themselves. I hope they die and burn in hell for what they did. And in that statement I am as serious as a heart attack.
I am done. Peace
Happy Easter

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB
This went perfectly for the Republicans. Clarke is now proven to be a complete liar POS. Rice was absolutely brilliant. She confirmed what we all know: the Clinton policy of being reactive rather than preemptive was a failure, Bush was doing his best to correct the failures of the Clinton administration, terrorism was a top priority of Bush from the very beginning, and the structure in place in this country made us vulnerable.
No matter how you liberals try to spin it, the country now will fully understand that YOU ARE WRONG. The libs will not regain control of this country in November. Slam dunk for the smartest woman in America - Condoleezza Rice and slam dunk for the Bush administration.

Show in ONE way how Clarke was proven to be a liar.

Just ONE!

Exactly the same way you have proven Bush to be a liar about Iraq..
Its called insinuation. It is a bipartisan word. Works for everybody.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur
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.

Again, there is NO WAY we would have launched attacks on Afghanistan and especially not its government in response to the USS Cole. The American people would not have supported it, and neither would the rest of the world.