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

[FortFunFoSho]

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!

Now I only got to hear different bits and pieces of the whole thing, but I am curious to see what these lies are? Can anyone put some factual lies down on paper that were shown throughout? Purely out of curiosity here...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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.

You don't know that.

The Taliban were coming under great pressure to stop their oppression. Groups like R.A.W.A. were leading the way. Then, the Taliban destroying all of the statues of Buddha caused a huge backlash in worldwide opinion. Also, they were harboring a terrorist group that was launching attacks on the U.S. and its interests. We certainly had much more justification to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan than we did going into Iraq. There's no comparison between the two!

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 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?

Homer Simpson - "Play the race card! Plaaaay iiiiiit!"

 

[conjur]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-bk-ricespeaks040804,0,7135639.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

WASHINGTON -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice today faced down questions about the Bush administration's handling of terrorism with a forceful defense in an extraordinary hearing of the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Rice told the commission there was "no silver bullet" that could have prevented the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.

Rice sparred with some of the Democratic commission members. Some in the standing room only crowd, which included family members of those killed by the al-Qaeda attack, burst into applause when she was pressed on why the Bush administration hadn't done more to prevent the attacks in which terrorists used hijacked planes as missiles.

Rice's appearance under oath was the subject of months of negotiations with the administration, which resisted at first, citing executive privilege. She began her testimony by laying out the steps the Bush team took during the summer of 2001 to put airlines, intelligence agents and the military on alert as the spy network sensed a coming attack of some sort.

She noted conversations captured by spies that talk of "attacks in the near future" and "a very, very, very, very big uproar." But, she said, the evidence pointed to attacks outside the U.S. and did not include specifics about where and when.

Rice said a report prepared for a controversial Aug. 6 secret briefing of the president was a "historical" document about al-Qaeda.

"This was not a warning. This was a historical memo prepared because the president was asking questions. But Democrats pressed her on the briefing, saying it warned of possible hijackings.

Democratic commissioner Richard Ben Veniste forced Rice to put the title of that document in the record for the first time. She did: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States."

Rice then went on about how the content of that document didn't have specifics re: Dates/times/places. Well, I guess she expected bin Laden to fax her a copy of his agenda! What a dense person she is!! :|   She should have PRESSED for details or headed up a team to look for the details and connections HERSELF! Instead, she sloughed it off. :|

But "there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9-11 attacks," she said.

Rice also countered criticisms of former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, who served under the Reagan and Clinton administrations as well as for President Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush.

Clarke, in a book and in testimony to the bipartisan 9-11 panel, said Bush put little emphasis on fighting terrorism before the attacks and then focused on Iraq afterwards, even though that country was not involved.

Clarke has said Bush pressed for evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11.

"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.

Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.

Rice disputed Clarke's contention that the Bush team erred in ignoring his counterterror plan and downgrading the importance of the issue.

Rice said the FBI had issued warnings. But Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a former Justice Department official, said the warnings were weak. "Have you looked at the messages the FBI put out? They're feckless. They don't bring anyone to battle stations."

But Rice said she was working on a strategic plan to fight terror that involved a broader plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan. War against Afghanistan for harboring al-Qaeda would have been absolutely "not possible" before Sept. 11 because of Pakistan's opposition, she said. And, she said, the nation was hampered by legal bars to some coordination between the FBI and CIA, which were eliminated after Sept.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: 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?

Homer Simpson - "Play the race card! Plaaaay iiiiiit!"

They still have Colin Powell too if they want to play the race card.

FWIW, i think Rice is doing pretty well, she clearly has a good game plan going in and following it through. If thats the best that the dems can do, i think the 9/11 committe will be an afterthought pretty soon with the looming elections.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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.

You don't know that.

The Taliban were coming under great pressure to stop their oppression. Groups like R.A.W.A. were leading the way. Then, the Taliban destroying all of the statues of Buddha caused a huge backlash in worldwide opinion. Also, they were harboring a terrorist group that was launching attacks on the U.S. and its interests. We certainly had much more justification to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan than we did going into Iraq. There's no comparison between the two!

I have to say the same thing CkG said to classy: there are plenty of Iraq war threads to go whine in. This is not the place, and your argument is ignorant. Sure, the justification to go into Iraq (WMDs and terrorism link) cannot compare to what the justification would have been for going into afghanistan, but you're talking about HINDSIGHT! You now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq (at least none there now) and you know that there is no terrorism link with Saddam, but the American public was ready to believe both of those things. Support for the war was MUCH higher when we first talked about it and only waned as more countries started questioning the reasons for it. Only then did a large portion of Americans start to question their government's reasonings. We were SO ready to go right at first. Maybe you weren't, but again, the lowerst-common-denominator is what shapes opinion at times in this country.

It is more important to compare our willingness. You cannot compare the US public's willingness to go into Iraq in the post-9/11 world to their willingness to go into Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing. We just did not believe that terrorism was a big enough threat to enough Americans to justify invading another country.

And for the last time, even invading Afghanistan would not have assured us of preventing these attacks.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: conjur
Democratic commissioner Richard Ben Veniste forced Rice to put the title of that document in the record for the first time. She did: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States."

Rice then went on about how the content of that document didn't have specifics re: Dates/times/places. Well, I guess she expected bin Laden to fax her a copy of his agenda! What a dense person she is!! :|   She should have PRESSED for details or headed up a team to look for the details and connections HERSELF! Instead, she sloughed it off. :|[/quote]
BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Now tell me who gives a sh|t what the title was?! Let's talk about what it actually discussed? It was a bad attempt by a terribly slanted guy on a witchhunt to try to attack her, and she rebuffed it quite nicely.

"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.

Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.[/quote]
You are really stretching now.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: classy
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

Let me examine that tirade for a minute:

"... and you know it." - Obviously to eveyone else here, CkG does NOT believe this. The fact that you imply that he does proves that you're incapable/unwilling to believe that this might not be the case. I don't understand: even if you HATE Bush - and I know many of you do - what in the world makes you believe that he is such a horrible person that he would let thousands of people die?! Do you realize what type of horrible, conniving person he'd have to be to do this? He may be stupid, incompetent, overbearing, old-fashioned, and even too quick to react, but nothing in this man's character would lead me to believe that he would let thousands die for some type of personal gain.

BAH! Trolling sucked me in.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
You don't know that.

The Taliban were coming under great pressure to stop their oppression. Groups like R.A.W.A. were leading the way. Then, the Taliban destroying all of the statues of Buddha caused a huge backlash in worldwide opinion. Also, they were harboring a terrorist group that was launching attacks on the U.S. and its interests. We certainly had much more justification to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan than we did going into Iraq. There's no comparison between the two!

I have to say the same thing CkG said to classy: there are plenty of Iraq war threads to go whine in. This is not the place, and your argument is ignorant. Sure, the justification to go into Iraq (WMDs and terrorism link) cannot compare to what the justification would have been for going into afghanistan, but you're talking about HINDSIGHT! You now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq (at least none there now) and you know that there is no terrorism link with Saddam

How does that Kool-Aid taste, Ilmater? You might try considering educating yourself:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

but the American public was ready to believe both of those things. Support for the war was MUCH higher when we first talked about it and only waned as more countries started questioning the reasons for it. Only then did a large portion of Americans start to question their government's reasonings. We were SO ready to go right at first. Maybe you weren't, but again, the lowerst-common-denominator is what shapes opinion at times in this country.

I bought into the deception Bush fed our country and the U.N. I see now, though, that he KNEW Iraq had no WMDs and so did his administration.

It is more important to compare our willingness. You cannot compare the US public's willingness to go into Iraq in the post-9/11 world to their willingness to go into Afghanistan after the USS Cole bombing. We just did not believe that terrorism was a big enough threat to enough Americans to justify invading another country.

Public opinion should not determine if we attack a country that is harboring a group that has launched repeated attacks against us.

And for the last time, even invading Afghanistan would not have assured us of preventing these attacks.

No, but there's the chance it might have. The cell in the country would have seen those attacks and possibly had doubts about carrying on their mission.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: classy

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

Great argument.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Now tell me who gives a sh|t what the title was?! Let's talk about what it actually discussed? It was a bad attempt by a terribly slanted guy on a witchhunt to try to attack her, and she rebuffed it quite nicely.

I don't trust Rice. The PDB should be declassified. Also, from what I was able to hear during the testimony, the Commission has seen that document but cannot discuss it as it's not been declassified. Why would members of the panel bring it up if it contained worthless data?

"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.

You are really stretching now.

Not in the least. She's a very intelligent person and that phrase implies a fact without stating it as a fact. That way, she cannot be charged with perjury later on.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur
"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.

Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.[/quote]
ROFLMAO! Are you kidding me? You would have rather heard her testify that she was in the room with the President every second of every day and heard every single word that came out of his mouth? IT IS HER OPINION!!!

 

[CaptnKirk]

I did not get to watch all of the telivision coverage, nor all of the radio coverage, as I was having to go back and forth between places.
However I did get to focus on somwhat over 1/2 of the programming time alloted by using both medias.
I tried to go back over whatever text I could find to augment that which I missed, but what little was there lacked the dynamics of body language and voice inflection.

My observations:

A little combative on both side of the stand, from Rice as well as from the 9-11 panel.
There were interuptions to what she was answering from the panel members who had originated the question, she was trying to deflect information.
There were constant interuptions by Rice as she tried to lead how the question was being asked so she could frame the structure of the question.
She felt there was no urgency to terrorist threats, her background and training yeilded nothing that would have made her observant of that.
Her job was to keep Bush appraised of things that he wanted to hear, not things that he was not interested in, if it was not on his personal agenda.
There was clearly a failure to communicate, many personalities to place the communication failure upon.
(SH) it flowed from the top down - a seriously flawed Harvard MBA mentality of good news is what the boss wants to hear, not necessacarily the facts.
If Bush was in fact breifed by the FBI and the CIA directors on a daily, or even a weekly basis - it never got through to him what was being said,
he never understood the repeated warning and breifings of a pending catostrophic event in the making, he was foucused elsewhere - StarWars.
Rice herself was part of the communications failure. She did not concern herself with the repeated warnings either, they did not dovetail
into the functional agenda that was being proceded upon, memos stopped with her, were not passed up, or co-ordination with other agencies
never proceded past her desk as she did her 'laser beam' focused job of presenting Bush and his cabinet with screened data that stayed on
the mission that they were prescribed to follow. She may have done her job well for doing exactly what Bush wanted her to do, but she was
thinking as shallow as Bush was, and as were all the middle managment meddlers that had been placed around Bush to keep the loyalty.
She also documented herself as contradicting facts that had been multiple source verified by the panel prior to this apperance.
She had to say that Bush knew what was going on, no matter how little he really had payed attention to it - or did or did not understand.

She did her job to appease George W. Bush.
She did not do her job as the National Security Advisor to keep the country safe in the best interests of the citizens.
Bush was asleep at the wheel, and was being sang lullabyes by his staff to keep him happy and stroke his ego.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding me? You would have rather heard her testify that she was in the room with the President every second of every day and heard every single word that came out of his mouth? IT IS HER OPINION!!!

Then she should have said something like "I don't know." Or, at the least, "To the best of my knowledge."

She knew what she was doing when she said that.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: conjur
Now tell me who gives a sh|t what the title was?! Let's talk about what it actually discussed? It was a bad attempt by a terribly slanted guy on a witchhunt to try to attack her, and she rebuffed it quite nicely.

I don't trust Rice. The PDB should be declassified. Also, from what I was able to hear during the testimony, the Commission has seen that document but cannot discuss it as it's not been declassified. Why would members of the panel bring it up if it contained worthless data?[/quote]
Very simple. I firmly believe that Ben-Veniste was out to get her, and I don't think he gives a damn about what actually happened. Which is why he just wanted the name of the document, but when she tried to explain why the NAME of it was irrelevant because the actual document didn't discuss any new threats, he tried to interrupt her. Repeatedly.

"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.

Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.[/quote]

You are really stretching now.

Not in the least. She's a very intelligent person and that phrase implies a fact without stating it as a fact. That way, she cannot be charged with perjury later on.

No, she cannot make a sworn statement about what the President said or not said. She was not with him 24/7. She said that she is "quite certain". Big deal, you are really nitpicking.

 

[Ferocious]

from msnbc....

Rice?s comment about ?swatting flies? drew a sharp response from Democratic former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted that the administration did not respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in October 2000.

?Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once. ... How the hell could he [Bush] be tired?? Kerrey asked.

You go Kerrey!

I still can't fathom how a Navy ship of ours was attacked and we basically did nothing about it.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
from msnbc....

Rice?s comment about ?swatting flies? drew a sharp response from Democratic former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted that the administration did not respond militarily to the attack on the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in October 2000.

?Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once. ... How the hell could he [Bush] be tired?? Kerrey asked.

You go Kerrey!

I still can't fathom how a Navy ship of ours was attacked and we basically did nothing about it.

That was such a dumb question trying to gain cheap anti-Bush points. What Bush OBVIOUSLY meant by saying "we", he meant WE; the US of A (duh).

 

[ThePresence]

BTW, if anyone is looking for it, here is the complete transcript.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur
What a dense person she is!!

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't trust Rice.

Originally posted by: conjur
She's a very intelligent person...

Make up your mind! What you've said, in context, leads me to believe that you're one of the ones that thinks that she wanted to see the planes run into the WTC. Is that the case?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: 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?

Well, if we consider comments from such "racially diverse" characters as Chris Dodd and "Sheets" Byrd, coupled with the ethnic insensitivity of Frankenradio, then anything is possible from that mob.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
"I'm quite certain the president never pushed anyone to twist the facts," Rice said.Only "quite certain"? That's not the same as stating a fact...that's stating an opinion.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding me? You would have rather heard her testify that she was in the room with the President every second of every day and heard every single word that came out of his mouth? IT IS HER OPINION!!!

Then she should have said something like "I don't know." Or, at the least, "To the best of my knowledge."

She knew what she was doing when she said that.

This just gets more and more ridiculous. So what you're saying is that if she had said "To the best of my knowledge" you wouldn't have said anything? I'll try to lay this down for you:

You: "Condi is only saying 'I'm quite certain' because she doesn't want to be prosecuted for perjury."
Me: "That's not true, she HAD to say that because it WAS her opinion."
You: "If she had said 'To the best of my knowledge' then it would be different."

That argument is ridiculous. She would be E-Q-U-A-L-L-Y free from prosecution had she said "To the best of my knowledge." That statement, in your mind, is different? ....

Nope, I'm not typing any more. If you don't realize that this particular argument is stupid, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
What a dense person she is!!

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't trust Rice.

Originally posted by: conjur
She's a very intelligent person...

Make up your mind! What you've said, in context, leads me to believe that you're one of the ones that thinks that she wanted to see the planes run into the WTC. Is that the case?

No, of course not.

And, it's possible for one to be very intelligent yet dense (obstinate). And, it's also possible to not trust that person.

IMO, Hitler was very intelligent, so was Manson, and you wouldn't see me trusting anything they said.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, of course not.

And, it's possible for one to be very intelligent yet dense (obstinate). And, it's also possible to not trust that person.

IMO, Hitler was very intelligent, so was Manson, and you wouldn't see me trusting anything they said.

I think you're missing my point. Look at what you said:

Rice then went on about how the content of that document didn't have specifics re: Dates/times/places. Well, I guess she expected bin Laden to fax her a copy of his agenda! What a dense person she is!! She should have PRESSED for details or headed up a team to look for the details and connections HERSELF! Instead, she sloughed it off.

You clearly stated that you thought that she was either stupid, naive, or lazy. She is a VERY intelligent person, regardless of anyone's opinion of her character, and (like I said earlier), unless you think she WANTED terrorists to attack, you can't deny that she would not be stupid enough to "expect Bin Laden to fax her a copy of his agenda" or "slough it off".

 

[conjur]

No, I'm saying she apparently dismissed the warnings as it was something that Bush did not want to hear about. Remember, Bush was tired of "swatting flies". Perhaps she felt Bush would be mad if she brought more flies to him that needed to be swatted.

We don't know until we can see the content of that PDB.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, I'm saying she apparently dismissed the warnings as it was something that Bush did not want to hear about. Remember, Bush was tired of "swatting flies". Perhaps she felt Bush would be mad if she brought more flies to him that needed to be swatted.

We don't know until we can see the content of that PDB.

I have no hope for you....<shakes head>