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

[Shuxclams]

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

CkG? Who cares if he approves or not........








Rice lied... Prove me wrong.







SHUX

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
He certainly didn't seem concerned about all of the warnings of a threat, neither did Rice, neither did Hadley.

And, yeah, Gaard, if it's just historical data, declassify that puppy!!

Has a PDB ever been declassified? just curious.

CkG

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

Actually, ten President's Daily Briefs are in the public domain, officially declassified by the U.S. government. (Note 4) The CIA established the PDB under that name in 1964, and PDBs from the Johnson administration began to be declassified in 1985, during the tenure of President Reagan. The ten declassified PDBs contain such extraordinarily sensitive items as this one on Egypt: "Nasir, in a speech to the nation on Saturday, outlined a 'program of action' to bring about political reform. We doubt that it will amount to much." That's the whole item. Another supersensitive entry concerns the head of state of Indonesia: "Despite Sukarno's long-standing kidney ailment, for which he delays proper treatment, he has seemed quite chipper lately." Three lines of the item are blacked out since they refer to the sources of intelligence, perhaps Indonesian assets of the CIA, or communications intercepts, or maybe just the British ambassador. One of the PDBs is even published in the latest volume of the distinguished State Department documentary series, Foreign Relations of the United States.

Alright -that's what I was looking for. So the answer is yes(to my question).
So in 18 years that PDB can be declassified

I'd love to read it though as I'm sure tons of people would. However I'm sure just as what's his name tried to insinuate by asking what the title was - the left will take it and run around trying to claim it was a warning inspite of it's contents even when declassified. The left will say that it was a "warning" of a pending strike - when it in reality probably doesn't have specific threat details like Rice pointed out. It will be interesting to see what happens though - you know...the politics of this charade

CkG

"the left is gonna _____" , "The left _____" , "Leftist agenda caused_____"...................

The PDB said from Condi's own mouth "BIN LADIN" wanting to "ATTACK" as the main part of the title..... and a few days later Bin Ladin's people fly airplanes into the Trade Center.... Left Right or Center, I don't care what side you are on.... Stand together as Americans and see that for what it was...........










SHUX

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm curious, I haven't had time to follow this thread in its entirety, but did Rice manage to perjur herself today? I've seen some mention of contradictions between her testimony today and some of her numerous media appearances as well as her past statements. Can anyone definitively nail her on any one specific thing?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Phokus
There's a stark contrast to rice and clarke: clarke is direct and answered questions with straight forward 'yes' and 'no's as well as 'i did this' and 'i did that' and was generally unflappable, while rice is evasive, tempermental, and vague. I don't trust rice at all.

wow i wouldnt have used any of those adjectives to describe her testimony

I would. She kept trying to reform the question or interject her words before the question was finished.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Phokus
There's a stark contrast to rice and clarke: clarke is direct and answered questions with straight forward 'yes' and 'no's as well as 'i did this' and 'i did that' and was generally unflappable, while rice is evasive, tempermental, and vague. I don't trust rice at all.

wow i wouldnt have used any of those adjectives to describe her testimony

I would. She kept trying to reform the question or interject her words before the question was finished.

I also had a completely different impression. I thought she was constantly trying to put her answers into some kind of context, but some of the members of the panel were openly confrontational and downright rude, so she had to interrupt to make sure her point was made correctly. I would say her testimony was well-spoken and articulate despite the attempts of several members of the panel to rattle her.

 

[alphatarget1]

I haven't heard clarke's testimony but I felt that Rice was trying to evade questions. All government officials do this anyway.

she was trying very hard to implicitly deny that the bush administration didn't do worse than the other administrations.

 

[Tripleshot]

I think she just embarrased the President, she proved she is incompetent, and just insured a victory for the Dems in 2004. Bush is toast.
Think I'm wrong? Check all the news sources evaluating this now. Even the republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from this administration. Geeze,I'm lovin it!!!

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard
stolen...




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.


later....


KEAN: This is the last question, Senator.

KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.

RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings.



In other words, it was a historical document that reported no new threat but nonetheless we responded to it as if it was a new threat.

hijackings - not Al Qeada and no specific threats

CkG

So, um CAD, if the title of the briefing is just wild hyperbole having nothing to do with the contents -much like that which you constantly whine about happening in this forum - what does that say about the Administration official who wrote the PDB?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I think she just embarrased the President, she proved she is incompetent, and just insured a victory for the Dems in 2004. Bush is toast.
Think I'm wrong? Check all the news sources evaluating this now. Even the republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from this administration. Geeze,I'm lovin it!!!

CNN: Rice delivers tough defense of administration
MSNBC: Rice defends anti-terror moves before 9/11. Commission demands al-Qaida warning be declassified
Foxnews: Rice: No 'Silver Bullet' Could Have Stopped 9/11
Al Jazeera: Rice: Bush understood al-Qaida threat

Oh you said "news sources" "evaluating"...
sorry..salon.com, the san francisco chronicle, slate, and nypost.com don't count as news sources...mouthpieces for the DNC, yes.

 

[conjur]

One thing I'd like to know is why no one asked Rice about the speech she had planned to give on Sept. 11, 2001. The one that covered missile defense and not terrorism.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I haven't heard clarke's testimony but I felt that Rice was trying to evade questions. All government officials do this anyway.

she was trying very hard to implicitly deny that the bush administration didn't do worse than the other administrations.

Well...this is Clarke's response to Rice's testimony:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1830270.html

 

[nutxo]

Dang. Guess I missed a lot. Just nothing of real substance.

I do find myself amazed at the number of people in this thread that seem to be overjoyed at the prospect of finding something wrong.

It's a little sickening.
:disgust:

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
I think she just embarrased the President, she proved she is incompetent, and just insured a victory for the Dems in 2004. Bush is toast.
Think I'm wrong? Check all the news sources evaluating this now. Even the republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from this administration. Geeze,I'm lovin it!!!

CNN: Rice delivers tough defense of administration
MSNBC: Rice defends anti-terror moves before 9/11. Commission demands al-Qaida warning be declassified
Foxnews: Rice: No 'Silver Bullet' Could Have Stopped 9/11
Al Jazeera: Rice: Bush understood al-Qaida threat

Oh you said "news sources" "evaluating"...
sorry..salon.com, the san francisco chronicle, slate, and nypost.com don't count as news sources...mouthpieces for the DNC, yes.

I didn't read the sources, but the NY Post is a far-right tabloid, hardly a DNC mouthpiece.

 

[conjur]

Let's also not forget the obvious:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0403250153mar25,1,2379710.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Author and journalist Bob Woodward, who was granted extraordinary access to the president and his team for the 2002 book "Bush at War," wrote that the president "acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team" before Sept. 11.

Woodward also quoted Bush directly, with the president saying that he knew bin Laden was a problem, "But I didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling."

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: conjur

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!

Still waiting....

Just one, huh... He claimed that the Bush team did not consider terrorism a top priority. It in fact was a top priority as stated by Rice, and Bush expressed the desire from the beginning of his presidency to develop a more forceful approach against international terrorism. Let me repeat this, Clarke is a POS low life using a national tragedy and lies to try to make money off a bs book.
Ben-Veniste was a real jerk. He was OBVIOUSLY not interested in the truth. He wanted to try to manufacture false newspaper headlines, but Condi was too smart for him. She made him look like a b*tch.
This was a HUGE loss for the fading democrat party. They failed to pin the blame on bush. They are looking more pathetic every day. The democrat party is a party of ego and hate, and the American public is beginning to realize this.
What are you liberals going to do when Bush beats Kerry by a wide margin?? I think some of you will burst into flames. If you honestly believe Kerry even has a remote chance in November, you're not in tune with the American people or reality.
Conjur, seek help. I'm serious. You have issues.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur

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!

Still waiting....

Just one, huh... He claimed that the Bush team did not consider terrorism a top priority. It in fact was a top priority as stated by Rice, and Bush expressed the desire from the beginning of his presidency to develop a more forceful approach against international terrorism.

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!!!

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
One thing I'd like to know is why no one asked Rice about the speech she had planned to give on Sept. 11, 2001. The one that covered missile defense and not terrorism.

Because there is noway to politicize the speech.

What if 9/11 was a nuclear attack and the speech was about terrorism?


You just don't get it and you never will.....

 

[heartsurgeon]

for the record....

assuming airline volume in 2004 is roughly similar to that in 2001 (i did not find "exact" figures for 2001, but i'm sure someone could)

6,000,000 flights/year in the U.S. - linky

600,000,000 passengers/year on those airplanes - linky

assuming what Kerry stated about the classified PDB is accurate:

"In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.
That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.
RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings"

What should the Administration have done....the Clinton team characterized their inactivity due to "lack of actionable intelligence."...well, how is this any different..consistent with does not mean "proves". Of the 600 million passengers, which ones are going to do the evil deed? Of the 6 million flights (that's about 17,000 flights per day), which one (in this case 4 flights!) are at risk?

well, without "actionable intelligence" which exact flights, which exact people, you've got to have a system in place to "harden" the airplanes against hijacking....

well, a system was proposed by some very smart people for Countering airline terrorism..it came out of a Gore Commission report...which was promptly watered down, and neutered by the airline industries because of it's great cost (The airline lobbyist used to crush the Gore Commission recommendations was Sen Tom Daschle's (D-SD) wife...).

well, guess what, the recommendations of the Gore Commision are essentially those that we are using today.

even if they had been adpated in full, i'm not sure everyone of the hjackings would have been stopped.

finally, even if the FBI had "nabbed" all the "suspects" who where carrying out activities "consistent with" plans for hijacking..exactly what laws would they have been prosecuted under? Heck, we HAD ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI in custody on August 16th, 2001, and NOTHING has happened to him as far as i know (legal limbo for now).

i would argue that the posture of our legal system, the political, legal and social constraints against domestic "spying", would have hamstrung any efforts to pre-emptively stop an Al Qaeda "cell" from action.

so. no obvious pre-emptive way to stop Al Qaeda,
no fire-wall in the airplane to prevent hijacking (courtesy of the abandoned Gore Commission recommendation)..

who's to "blame"?

let me posit this..if multiple trains on the east coast corridor get bombed like in Madrid, who's to "blame"...we know they've done it, it isn't hard to get explosives. i don't believe they check people at the rail station (how many people a day go through Penn Station? a million?)..

 

[conjur]

hs,

Aug. 16, 2001

FAA Warns of Weapons from Everyday Objects

The FAA warns airlines that terrorists may use weapons modified from everyday objects.

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

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur
hs,

Aug. 16, 2001

FAA Warns of Weapons from Everyday Objects

The FAA warns airlines that terrorists may use weapons modified from everyday objects.

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

I've heard of a few after the new restrictions that hae gotten weapons through.

Ever heard of an executive letter opener?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: myusername

So, um CAD, if the title of the briefing is just wild hyperbole having nothing to do with the contents -much like that which you constantly whine about happening in this forum - what does that say about the Administration official who wrote the PDB?

Talk about not having a clue...
The title stated OBL wanted to attack the US. Well...DUH... It supposedly gave the details of the history of OBL in (I assume here because I've only seen 10 PDBs...sort of) breifing format. Like Rice stated - none of the OBL stuff was about some new detailed threat - it was info.

Now there is other data in the PDB as they deal with many issues. One of those items happens to be (according to kerrey) about the FBI and their reporting that indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.

Now the hijacking info - no direct info of a plot - just suspicious activity and the OBL info might cause some people in hindsight to ASSume people should have put that together with the OBL info, that said he still hates us, into meaning that OBL was going to fly airplanes into the WTC on Sept 11. But the problem with that is there was no specific info pointing to that.
As it turns out - this was the case, but like has been constantly pointed out to you bleaters - there was no specific info. So what do you expect someone to do? To monitor the situation and be ready for the threat if info came in citing specific info? What was someone supposed to do? Was the FBI supposed to take out this "suspicious" activity? How - who -where? And as for OBL - what exactly should have been done about him since Bush was briefed about his history? Would Bush invading Afghanistan have prevented 9/11? Or would it have happened anyway and then we'd be here because you would be whining about "Cowboy Bush" pissed off the terrorists and so then they blew up our buildings. It really is a nice try people - but even Dick "rubber raft" Clarke stated that it probably couldn't have been prevented.

Anyway - believe what you want - try to blame it on Bush if you wish but just isn't the case. There is plenty of blame to go around - yes - even to Congress. Where was Congress in all this? Oh, that's right...kerrey was thinking about Iraq and Saddam after the Cole bombing....oops

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur

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!

Still waiting....

Just one, huh... He claimed that the Bush team did not consider terrorism a top priority. It in fact was a top priority as stated by Rice, and Bush expressed the desire from the beginning of his presidency to develop a more forceful approach against international terrorism.

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!!!

Eh? OBL is the only terrorist or terrorist organization? Oh boy - you sure PWN3D him

conjur - if you would - please inform people of first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration - please?

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I am more interested in why after 9/11 Saddam took a higher priority than Bin Laden. The whys and hows of that is more important IMO. Never see it happen with a Rep congress though

could you explain why having a republican congress will not allow rice/bush/cheney/rumsfeld/ashcroft/whomever to say why Iraq took a higher priority than bin Laden?

 

[FrodoB]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FrodoB

Originally posted by: conjur

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!

Still waiting....

Just one, huh... He claimed that the Bush team did not consider terrorism a top priority. It in fact was a top priority as stated by Rice, and Bush expressed the desire from the beginning of his presidency to develop a more forceful approach against international terrorism.

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.

 

[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