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

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams



As for smearing Dick Clarke, well it did kind of work... but the problem will hopefully be cleared up when people realize that When the Bush admin reacted to the 9/11 attack they handed everything over to the same man they say was incompetent and a lose cannon.

Yeah, that part of her testimony has been noted by many. Clarke was some disgruntled employee and liar but who did they go to? Clarke.

It's all in his book...he pretty much ran the show the day of 9/11.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

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

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

Transcript from August 2002 Briefing:

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

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office ? issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

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

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

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

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




QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

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

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

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

What's the point of posting that?

Seriously. What are you getting at?

You keep saying Clarke never lied and Bush did nothing and they are both right there....

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur
And your point is?

Kerry believes Bush is right....

We're not talking about Kerry. We're talking about Kerrey.

And, he doesn't believe Bush is right. The intelligence known then was thought to be truthful but was found out to not be before we went to war. Also, that statement from Kerrey looks entirely like a knee-jerk reaction.

Not only does Kerrey believe Bush is right he believes Clarke is Wrong.



Kerrey op ed

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"So no, I don't buy the BS about Bush "doing nothing" because he didn't strike at something and that Clinton was because he struck a couple times. The approach was shifting to where it needs to go - not only focused on the people - but the network behind them. We can kill OBL but will that stop Al Qaeda? No. If Bush would have gone into Afghanistan would that have prevented 9/11? No."


Obviously you cannot know that anymore than I can know that it would have. But as far as myself, you aren't addressing the issue that bothers me the most about the months before 9/11.

And that is the Bush admin stopped doing what Clinton was doing while they came up with a different plan. It would have been a lot better to do both.

And I'm not talking about striking back as much as I'm talking about overall focus on terrorism. I feel that Rice is correct about the FBI structural problems, but that wasn't new, in fact I think it was one of the MAIN reasons Clinton was having the principals meetings, was to try to work around these problems, not because he didn't want the structural changes too, but because there wasn't time to wait for the structural changes.

I don't fault Bush for trying to come up with a better structure, but for not understanding why Clinton was doing what he was doing, as far as the principal's meetings, as a way to overcome the structural problems.

And that doesn't mean I think that if Bush had done both, it would have prevented the attacks, I just think the chances would have been better.

EXACTLY!

That's why Clarke uses that phrase "Shake the trees". He mentions a few times in his book when they had to do that...have a Cabinet-level meeting to wake people up to apparent or even imminent threats.

Those meetings always resulted in action.

I mean, it is fairly obvious by his book that Clarke had a pretty good
handle on al quaeda, and had Clitons ear..

And it is fairly obvious by history that we were attacked again, and again, and again...

Thats the kind of action that impresses you??

 

[heartsurgeon]

lets see....Clarke testifies....Bush's approval ratings increase.

Condi Rice Testifies..Bush's approval ratings increase.

PDB memo released - Democrats and Ben Veniste look like complete partisan hacks....guess what..Bush's approval ratings are gonna increase more.

I've changed my mind. I like it when the Democrats spew out accusations about Bush and 9/11!!! Works for me!!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

EXACTLY!

That's why Clarke uses that phrase "Shake the trees". He mentions a few times in his book when they had to do that...have a Cabinet-level meeting to wake people up to apparent or even imminent threats.

Those meetings always resulted in action.

I mean, it is fairly obvious by his book that Clarke had a pretty good
handle on al quaeda, and had Clitons ear..

And it is fairly obvious by history that we were attacked again, and again, and again...

Thats the kind of action that impresses you??

It's also fairly obvious you haven't read the book or you'd know the reason why Al Qaeda was not attacked with a vengeance and eliminated.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur
And your point is?

Kerry believes Bush is right....

We're not talking about Kerry. We're talking about Kerrey.

And, he doesn't believe Bush is right. The intelligence known then was thought to be truthful but was found out to not be before we went to war. Also, that statement from Kerrey looks entirely like a knee-jerk reaction.

Not only does Kerrey believe Bush is right he believes Clarke is Wrong.



Kerrey op ed

That's where Kerrey is wrong is my, and others', opinion.

Al Qaeda entered Iraq as it saw a prime opportunity to launch attacks on U.S. personnel and to also train pro-Saddam fighters with Al Qaeda tactics.

Had we NOT entered Iraq, we'd have concentrated on eliminating Al Qaeda and reforming Afghanistan (which is still a mess after more than 2 years.)

 

[Gaard]

Good read. (at least I thought so )

The World According To Condi

Things began to get interesting once Commissioner Ben-Veniste had a turn! He cites previous testimony that the American intelligence community was discussing the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland, and asks: "Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?"

After a great deal of dissembling, Condi finally admits "I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president. I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about."

Just who was supposed to tell you this, DOCTOR Rice? Was that PhD of yours from a diploma mill? You are supposed to be advising the pResident on national security issues - terrorism certainly making the list even before 9/11 - and yet you have yet to demonstrate that you were qualified to be a secretary in that office!

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

EXACTLY!

That's why Clarke uses that phrase "Shake the trees". He mentions a few times in his book when they had to do that...have a Cabinet-level meeting to wake people up to apparent or even imminent threats.

Those meetings always resulted in action.

I mean, it is fairly obvious by his book that Clarke had a pretty good
handle on al quaeda, and had Clitons ear..

And it is fairly obvious by history that we were attacked again, and again, and again...

Thats the kind of action that impresses you??

It's also fairly obvious you haven't read the book or you'd know the reason why Al Qaeda was not attacked with a vengeance and eliminated.

Oh yes, Clarkes version..

 

[replicator]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lets see....Clarke testifies....Bush's approval ratings increase.

Condi Rice Testifies..Bush's approval ratings increase.

PDB memo released - Democrats and Ben Veniste look like complete partisan hacks....guess what..Bush's approval ratings are gonna increase more.

I've changed my mind. I like it when the Democrats spew out accusations about Bush and 9/11!!! Works for me!!

I guess deluding yourself helps you keep your feet on the ground.

"April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic challenger John Kerry led President George W. Bush by the widest margin yet in a Newsweek magazine poll, and a majority in the U.S. said Bush underestimated terrorist threats before Sept. 11, 2001. "


Kerry Leads Bush 50% to 43% in Poll, Newsweek Says

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lets see....Clarke testifies....Bush's approval ratings increase.

Condi Rice Testifies..Bush's approval ratings increase.

PDB memo released - Democrats and Ben Veniste look like complete partisan hacks....guess what..Bush's approval ratings are gonna increase more.

I've changed my mind. I like it when the Democrats spew out accusations about Bush and 9/11!!! Works for me!!

I guess deluding yourself helps you keep your feet on the ground.

"April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic challenger John Kerry led President George W. Bush by the widest margin yet in a Newsweek magazine poll, and a majority in the U.S. said Bush underestimated terrorist threats before Sept. 11, 2001. "


Kerry Leads Bush 50% to 43% in Poll, Newsweek Says

i agree, the dems are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for thier political puposes once agains making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...


BTW there was still no information regarding any specific attack anywhere.

all clinton did was piss bin laden off, he did not follow through, in fact bush did more in 233 days than clinton did since the 1993 WTC attack.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by:Shad0hawK

i agree, the dems are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for thier political puposes once agains making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...

I agree, the Repubs are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for their political purposes, once again making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...

Fixed for you

but it was perfectly fine for Bush to use to clips of 9-11 in his very first campaign Ad

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: replicator

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
lets see....Clarke testifies....Bush's approval ratings increase.

Condi Rice Testifies..Bush's approval ratings increase.

PDB memo released - Democrats and Ben Veniste look like complete partisan hacks....guess what..Bush's approval ratings are gonna increase more.

I've changed my mind. I like it when the Democrats spew out accusations about Bush and 9/11!!! Works for me!!

I guess deluding yourself helps you keep your feet on the ground.

"April 10 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic challenger John Kerry led President George W. Bush by the widest margin yet in a Newsweek magazine poll, and a majority in the U.S. said Bush underestimated terrorist threats before Sept. 11, 2001. "


Kerry Leads Bush 50% to 43% in Poll, Newsweek Says

i agree, the dems are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for thier political puposes once agains making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...


BTW there was still no information regarding any specific attack anywhere.

all clinton did was piss bin laden off, he did not follow through, in fact bush did more in 233 days than clinton did since the 1993 WTC attack.

The dems aren't the ones using 9/11 as a pretense for a predecided war on Iraq. They're also not the ones running presidential ads showing 9/11 as an example of , ahem, bush's um, "leadeship."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i agree, the dems are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for thier political puposes once agains making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...


BTW there was still no information regarding any specific attack anywhere.

all clinton did was piss bin laden off, he did not follow through, in fact bush did more in 233 days than clinton did since the 1993 WTC attack.

The dems aren't the ones using 9/11 as a pretense for a predecided war on Iraq. They're also not the ones running presidential ads showing 9/11 as an example of , ahem, bush's um, "leadeship."

Hmmm...wasn't Karl Rove that proposed in 1992 to "run on the war"?

Hmmm....

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
i agree, the dems are capitalizing on propaganda using the blood of 911 for thier political puposes once agains making "rules" for others to follow but not themselves...


BTW there was still no information regarding any specific attack anywhere.

all clinton did was piss bin laden off, he did not follow through, in fact bush did more in 233 days than clinton did since the 1993 WTC attack.

The dems aren't the ones using 9/11 as a pretense for a predecided war on Iraq. They're also not the ones running presidential ads showing 9/11 as an example of , ahem, bush's um, "leadeship."

Hmmm...wasn't Karl Rove that proposed in 1992 to "run on the war"?

Hmmm....

Ah, Rove... yes. The brains behind the lies...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
[ ... ] in fact bush did more in 233 days than clinton did since the 1993 WTC attack.

You and the bleating Bush fanboys have repeated this claim 100 times already. If you repeat it a million more times, however, there still won't be a shred of truth in it. But please bleat on. You are an accurate reflection of your feckless leader.

Just for the record.

 

[mi1stormilst]

I read through this entire thread and I have to say WOW! Let me just say some things to get them off my chest I doubt anyone in the CLINTON or BUSH administration intended or expected these kinds of incidents to unfold. This is the dawning of a new era, the tides have changed...the USA is susceptible to these kinds of attacks. It is shocking for us all...it should also be an eye opener to us as individuals. Did Clinton do enough? Did Bush do enough? Will the next president be able to do enough to actually stop this from ever happening again? Lets put this into perspective...shall we? People make mistakes...sometimes they are small...sometimes they are huge. This was a horrible incident the only people that are at fault are those that carried out the atrocities. Now I must throw in a little party poking fun: I would rather have BUSH planning on how to bring down a crazy, murderous, evil oppressor then seeing how far he could jam a cigar up Monica?s you know what )-:

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: mi1stormilst
I read through this entire thread and I have to say WOW! Let me just say some things to get them off my chest I doubt anyone in the CLINTON or BUSH administration intended or expected these kinds of incidents to unfold. This is the dawning of a new era, the tides have changed...the USA is susceptible to these kinds of attacks. It is shocking for us all...it should also be an eye opener to us as individuals. Did Clinton do enough? Did Bush do enough? Will the next president be able to do enough to actually stop this from ever happening again? Lets put this into perspective...shall we? People make mistakes...sometimes they are small...sometimes they are huge. This was a horrible incident the only people that are at fault are those that carried out the atrocities. Now I must throw in a little party poking fun: I would rather have BUSH planning on how to bring down a crazy, murderous, evil oppressor then seeing how far he could jam a cigar up Monica?s you know what )-:

Well said.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I think that this analysis is relevant, and I'll post it here in this thread

Comments please.

 

[MoFunk]

Memo to Bush.... there is a possible attack going to take place, and they are going to use planes.....
Bush Memo to the USA......OK people, we know there is going to be an attack, and they are going to use planes, so until we can be sure, I have grounded ALL flights....
Liberal America..... NOOOOOO you can't do that, how can I get where I am going?
Bush to Libs...... OK fine, Flight restored, but I am going to question suspicious people before they get on a plane.
Liberal America.... FOUL!!! That is racial profiling, you cant do that.
Bush to Libs.....OK fine, carry on.

Liberal America after an attack..... Bush knew and he did nothing! In fact he wanted it to happen to he could go to war, he is a bad person, let's forget about the 8 years Clinton was in office and did NOTHING to stop terrorism. He I know, let's vote in Kerry....

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Memo to Bush.... there is a possible attack going to take place, and they are going to use planes.....
Bush Memo to the USA......OK people, we know there is going to be an attack, and they are going to use planes, so until we can be sure, I have grounded ALL flights....
Liberal America..... NOOOOOO you can't do that, how can I get where I am going?
Bush to Libs...... OK fine, Flight restored, but I am going to question suspicious people before they get on a plane.
Liberal America.... FOUL!!! That is racial profiling, you cant do that.
Bush to Libs.....OK fine, carry on.

Liberal America after an attack..... Bush knew and he did nothing! In fact he wanted it to happen to he could go to war, he is a bad person, let's forget about the 8 years Clinton was in office and did NOTHING to stop terrorism. He I know, let's vote in Kerry....

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Good one, except your scenarios don't reflect reality. Grounding all planes indefinitely will never be an option, lib or neocon. Selective screening, as one who votes democratic I have never been against that - and it has been a point of contention more with libertarians than liberals.

Nice try though.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Nice try though.

Thanks.