Paula Zahn/Bob Kerrey: 9/11 panel sworn to secrecy for campaign; Bush "negligence prior to 9/11"

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0411/08/pzn.01.html
ZAHN: Was John Kerry an intuitive campaigner?

KERREY: He's not as intuitive a politician as George Bush is. I mean, George W. Bush's father isn't as intuitive. I'm not as intuitive.

George Bush knows when to kiss the baby. And that's a hard thing to teach. In fact, it's an impossible thing to teach. He's very good on the street and he's good with the message. His message was, I will keep you safe, and the other guy won't. And when you are the incumbent, it's a much higher standard for an opponent to prove that you're wrong. So...

ZAHN: The American public, by and large, didn't think John Kerry was the guy to do that.

KERREY: That's correct, because the president had a case, a very simple case to make: I am the commander in chief. I won the war in Afghanistan, even though John Kerry supported it, even though, by the way, there's a credible case that the president's own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster in the first place.

ZAHN: How so?

KERREY: Well, the 9/11 report says in chapter eight -- now that it's beyond the campaign, so the promise I had to keep this out of the campaign is over.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.


The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: But what we continue to hear from this administration is that the threat was much too diffuse. There was no way you could zero in on the fact that al Qaeda was going to use jets as bombs and ram them into buildings.

KERREY: That is a straw man.

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.


But the report, I think, it's difficult for a challenger. If I had been the challenger, it's difficult to make that case when you are running against an incumbent. He can stand back and say, oh, you're just grousing.

ZAHN: Oh, we couldn't connect the dots is what we heard.
Sworn to secrecy to keep the truth from the American public?


Tenet told us that in his world "the system was blinking red." By late July, Tenet said, it could not "get any worse."30 Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB contained an article titled "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real." Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions. Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department's questions on this point; the reporting was convincing. To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.31


30. AAL transcript, telephone call from Betty Ong to Nydia Gonzalez, Sept. 11, 2001.

31. See Nydia Gonzalez interview (Nov. 19, 2003); Craig Marquis interviews (Nov. 19, 2003; Apr. 26, 2004); AAL record, Dispatch Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept. 11, 2001; AAL transcript, telephone call from Bill Halleck to BOS ATC, Sept. 11, 2001.The Air Carrier Standard Security Program required airlines to immediately notify the FAA and FBI upon receiving information that an act or suspected act of airplane piracy was being committed.
Kinda ticks me off that the Commission members couldn't discuss this during the past year. Gee...wonder why?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Yes, I read that part. That's what ticks me off that these people agreed to it. The truth should never be fettered.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
and clearly you don't either Pliable...please explain

Clinton gets a BJ and we spend millions to investigate...


This administration, and to some extent the administration before it, dropped the ball - though this group clearly ignored dire warnings about 9/11 - and it has to stay "hush hush" prior to the election?

How is that a good thing? A lack of conflict with Bush's "I'll keep you safer" campaign?
 

earthman

Golden Member
Oct 16, 1999
1,653
0
71
I thought this administration's outlandish incompetence was clear to see. It certainly should be.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,370
8,494
126
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
That's what I don't get. But, then again, how much of the general public is going to bother reading it?
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
29,314
41,553
136
*waits patiently for neocons to arrive to commence blaming Clinton*
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,370
8,494
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
That's what I don't get. But, then again, how much of the general public is going to bother reading it?
isn't that the media's job? to find the really good dirt in the thing?
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The media's job is to make a profit for stockholders.
Unless you are on PBS - then it's your job to find the most monotonous, uninspiring hosts and put them on-air 18 hours a day. ;)
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Kerrey is full of revisionist garbage. It's would seem he hasn't even read the report he cites because if he had he would know he's got a load in his pants.

The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport country, didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people.

...

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress.


If you want to pick snippets from the report selectively you can make it say just about anything you want. What does it say overall though? From the Executive Summary of the 9/11 Commision Report:

The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response.

Bin Ladin's inference may well have been that attacks, at least at the level of the Cole, were risk free.

The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years.

During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings that al Qaeda planned, as one report put it, "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us, "The system was blinking red."

Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas. Domestic agencies were not effectively mobilized. The threat did not receive national media attention comparable to the millennium alert.

While the United States continued disruption efforts around the world, its emerging strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda threat was to include an enlarged covert action program in Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The process culminated during the summer of 2001 in a draft presidential directive and arguments about the Predator aircraft, which was soon to be deployed with a missile of its own, so that it might be used to attempt to kill Bin Ladin or his chief lieutenants. At a September 4 meeting, President Bush's chief advisers approved the draft directive of the strategy and endorsed the concept of arming the Predator. This directive on the al Qaeda strategy was awaiting President Bush's signature on September 11, 2001.

So Bush did have a plan. Additionally, how much could Tenet have been telling Bush about bin Laden and al Qaeda if Bush had to request the information contained in the oft cited PDB? That's right, Bush had to ASK for it, it wasn't provided to him.

So please, Kerrey, stop spreading lies. The information is public and so are your statements. It's plainly visible that your partisanship is prompting you to spout incorrect crap and your blind followers are lapping it up.

As far as the supposed "secrecy," many in the Democratic party swore an oath not to discuss the subject; not to hide any truth, but because they were afraid the Dems would get roasted on this issue since the report speaks of Clinton's ineffectiveness concerning bin Laden and al Qaeda.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
That's what I don't get. But, then again, how much of the general public is going to bother reading it?
isn't that the media's job? to find the really good dirt in the thing?
Normally, yes. However, ever since 9/11 this administration has been given a virtual free pass with very little in the way of scrutiny being applied to decisions and actions.

How much have we heard in the media about PlameGate? EnergyGate? AbuGate has abated despite investigations and trials still going on. The entire run-up to the war on Iraq was a big gun-ho in the media.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The media's job is to make a profit for stockholders.
Unless you are on PBS - then it's your job to find the most monotonous, uninspiring hosts and put them on-air 18 hours a day. ;)
Never seen the McLaughlin Group, eh? ;)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So Bush did have a plan. Additionally, how much could Tenet have been telling Bush about bin Laden and al Qaeda if Bush had to request the information contained in the oft cited PDB? That's right, Bush had to ASK for it, it wasn't provided to him.

So please, Kerrey, stop spreading lies. The information is public and so are your statements. It's plainly visible that your partisanship is prompting you to spout incorrect crap and your blind followers are lapping it up.

As far as the supposed "secrecy," many in the Democratic party swore an oath not to discuss the subject; not to hide any truth, but because they were afraid the Dems would get roasted on this issue since the report speaks of Clinton's ineffectiveness concerning bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Bush didn't have a plan until Sept. 2001. Even then, the new plan adopted by the Administration in Sept. 2001 was largely Richard Clarke's Delenda Est plan, which was mostly adopted by Clinton (except the military portion...the Pentagon would not buy into it.)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,638
6,456
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The media's job is to make a profit for stockholders.
Unless you are on PBS - then it's your job to find the most monotonous, uninspiring hosts and put them on-air 18 hours a day. ;)
Never seen the McLaughlin Group, eh? ;)

Yes, the job of PBS is to protect their government funding by placating both parties.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Um, did you read the transcript? Kerry didn't have any problems with it (the oath)...

YOU should... and anyone who doesn't is a coward and a nonpatriot.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So Bush did have a plan. Additionally, how much could Tenet have been telling Bush about bin Laden and al Qaeda if Bush had to request the information contained in the oft cited PDB? That's right, Bush had to ASK for it, it wasn't provided to him.

So please, Kerrey, stop spreading lies. The information is public and so are your statements. It's plainly visible that your partisanship is prompting you to spout incorrect crap and your blind followers are lapping it up.

As far as the supposed "secrecy," many in the Democratic party swore an oath not to discuss the subject; not to hide any truth, but because they were afraid the Dems would get roasted on this issue since the report speaks of Clinton's ineffectiveness concerning bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Bush didn't have a plan until Sept. 2001.
And? Is that supposed to imply something? Plans don't just magically appear, they have to be forumulated. Rice requested Clarke's input on January 25, 2001 and Clarke forward both his "Delenda Plan" and his December 2000 strategy paper. The early planning stages began almost immediately after Bush took office. I don't see how people can conclude he was doing nothing considering he started doing something immediately.
Even then, the new plan adopted by the Administration in Sept. 2001 was largely Richard Clarke's Delenda Est plan, which was mostly adopted by Clinton (except the military portion...the Pentagon would not buy into it.)
Portions of each paper from Clarke were adopted but Bush's strategy was not essentially the same. Unlike Clinton, Bush wasn't not nearly as leary of using military power to take bin Laden down and had plans to do exactly that.




 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,370
8,494
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
That's what I don't get. But, then again, how much of the general public is going to bother reading it?
isn't that the media's job? to find the really good dirt in the thing?
Normally, yes. However, ever since 9/11 this administration has been given a virtual free pass with very little in the way of scrutiny being applied to decisions and actions.

How much have we heard in the media about PlameGate? EnergyGate? AbuGate has abated despite investigations and trials still going on. The entire run-up to the war on Iraq was a big gun-ho in the media.

the whole run up was about about how bad everything was going. unfortunately, unless something new happens in an old story it gets pushed out for newer stories. they only have 30 minutes to present everything, and the 9/11 commission report was pretty big news when it was new. the administration has been hammered on all sorts of things. are you not watching network news at all? there is something every day about how bad something the bush admin made a decision on is going.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ElFenix
sworn to secrecy about something stated in a publically available report? please.
That's what I don't get. But, then again, how much of the general public is going to bother reading it?
isn't that the media's job? to find the really good dirt in the thing?
Normally, yes. However, ever since 9/11 this administration has been given a virtual free pass with very little in the way of scrutiny being applied to decisions and actions.

How much have we heard in the media about PlameGate? EnergyGate? AbuGate has abated despite investigations and trials still going on. The entire run-up to the war on Iraq was a big gun-ho in the media.
the whole run up was about about how bad everything was going. unfortunately, unless something new happens in an old story it gets pushed out for newer stories. they only have 30 minutes to present everything, and the 9/11 commission report was pretty big news when it was new. the administration has been hammered on all sorts of things. are you not watching network news at all? there is something every day about how bad something the bush admin made a decision on is going.
I don't watch the Big 3 nightly newscasts. Those are worthless.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn't made.

Condi Rice - "That's BS. It contained nothing but historical data. Why do you think we never put up a fuss to declasify it?"
 

Yzzim

Lifer
Feb 13, 2000
11,990
1
76
Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA.

He could easily be talking about Clinton.

[This is an honest question:]

what did Clinton do the stop further attacks? Fire a couple tomahawks at Sudan & Afghanistan? How is that going to stop attacks in the future?

[/honest question]
 

JacobJ

Banned
Mar 20, 2003
1,140
0
0
Originally posted by: Yzzim
Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA.

He could easily be talking about Clinton.

[This is an honest question:]

what did Clinton do the stop further attacks? Fire a couple tomahawks at Sudan & Afghanistan? How is that going to stop attacks in the future?

[/honest question]
If you need to point out that its an honest question, then maybe theres something wrong with the qestion.