White House withholds Rice speech

[Tripleshot]

9/11 panel barred from seeing text of pre-attack address

WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday.

Just typical of this baboon we call President these days.:disgust:

link

 

[DealMonkey]

I'm sure "national security" or something ludicrous was cited.

 

[nutxo]

Do you honestly think that something that someone might have considered saying is relevent?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Do you honestly think that something that someone might have considered saying is relevent?

Yes.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

9/11 panel barred from seeing text of pre-attack address

WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday.

Just typical of this baboon we call President these days.:disgust:

Lets think this through..
Is there is anything in her speech that mentions 9/11..

No...

Is there anything in her speech that mentions airplanes being used as bombs.

No...

What possible good could come from releasing a speech written before
the attacks.


Explain what would the comission use the speech for, other than political exploitation?

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

9/11 panel barred from seeing text of pre-attack address

WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday.

Just typical of this baboon we call President these days.:disgust:

Lets think this through..
Is there is anything in her speech that mentions 9/11..

No...

Is there anything in her speech that mentions airplanes being used as bombs.

No...

What possible good could come from releasing a speech written before
the attacks.


Explain what would the comission use the speech for, other than political exploitation?

Someone did think it through.

The Washington Post, citing former U.S. officials who have seen the Rice speech, reported last week that the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy. It said the speech included no mention of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups.

It goes to the level of what the adminstration at that time deamed important in terms of dealing with a dangerous world, in light of the fact Clark had breifed the administration MANY TIMES that we needed to take a different and more deliberate approach to Osama and terrorism.

It also goes to the fact this adminstration is stonewalling, blocking a legitimate investigation and obstructing justice. Add that to the fact the bastard won't even testify himself UNDER OATH, as he is making Condleeza Rice do, and he wants a private chat with Cheney at his side, for one hour ,and no recording of the conversation. :disgust:

Do you want more reason?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

9/11 panel barred from seeing text of pre-attack address

WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday.

Just typical of this baboon we call President these days.:disgust:

Lets think this through..
Is there is anything in her speech that mentions 9/11..

No...

Is there anything in her speech that mentions airplanes being used as bombs.

No...

What possible good could come from releasing a speech written before
the attacks.


Explain what would the comission use the speech for, other than political exploitation?

Someone did think it through.

The Washington Post, citing former U.S. officials who have seen the Rice speech, reported last week that the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy. It said the speech included no mention of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups.

It goes to the level of what the adminstration at that time deamed important in terms odf dealing with a dangerous world, in light of the fact Clark had breifed the administration MANY TIMES that we needed to take a different and more deliberate approach to Osama and terrorism.

It also goes to the fact this adminstration is stonewalling, blocking a legitimate invrestigation and obstructing justice. Add that to the fact the bastard won't even testify himself UNDER OATH, as he is making Condleeza Rice do, and he wants a private chat with Cheney at his side, for one hour ,and no recording of the conversation.

Do you want more reason?

I would strongly defend the cornerstone of our security being missile
defense even today.

I would guess that someone also briefed the administration on North Korea
and the threat of nuclear warfare from them. Missle defense is a good idea if it can work.

I know what page your on but we only hear of the passion you have
for reality. What of things that could happen, where is your passion for
them. How do you protect yourself from the unknown?


I believe the Administration was devoting resources to more threats
than you or I can imagine.

I also believe clarke was successful in convincing admin to take a different approach.
It was to little to late.

The commision is not about justice, it is about preventing another attack.

The current Administration has to make all its decision on what it does based on political manuvering
just as the party that wants to remove it also does.

The Irony is that you have bought the latters position without knowing
the outcome from the commision.

Now please explain what would the comission use the speech for,
other than political exploitation?

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could prevent another terrorist attack? No

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could be exploited by those that
want us dead? Possibly.....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm sure "national security" or something ludicrous was cited.

If so, that would be a HUGE mistake as this was to be a public speech, right?

The White House is trying to cover its ass and failing miserably!

The Commission is out to find out the facts behind our intelligence and administrative failures. This speech goes to show that the Administration failed to take terrorism seriously which is contradictory to their claims!

This is madness by the Bush Administration! :| :|

 

[Tripleshot]

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could prevent another terrorist attack? No

That is obvious. But not relevent to the issue. I cite stonewalling, and repression of information sought by the commision, that commision is headed by a republican and they deemed it important enough to ask for it.

Try again.

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could be exploited by those that want us dead? Possibly.....

Your speculation, not fact, not even close. The A-Holes that attacked us could care less what we think or do. They hate us for who we are, and that is that we are not Muslums but the center of Christiandom. If you aint Islamic, your are in there gunsights. You are expendable. You are to be killed by them, because they think Allah will favor them over you.

Not a very good scenerio for peace, is it?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could prevent another terrorist attack? No

That is obvious. But not relevent to the issue. I cite stonewalling, and repression of information sought by the commision, that commision is headed by a republican and they deemed it important enough to ask for it.

Try again.

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could be exploited by those that want us dead? Possibly.....

Your speculation, not fact, not even close. The A-Holes that attacked us could care less what we think or do. They hate us for who we are, and that is that we are not Muslums but the center of Christiandom. If you aint Islamic, your are in there gunsights. You are expendable. You are to be killed by them, because they think Allah will favor them over you.

Not a very good scenerio for peace, is it?

Speculation is how we imagined 9/11 before 9/11.

No it is not a good scenerio for peace, and that is why exactly why Bush Admin will not take the risk of
letting this undelivered speech being used as a political tool.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could prevent another terrorist attack? No

That is obvious. But not relevent to the issue. I cite stonewalling, and repression of information sought by the commision, that commision is headed by a republican and they deemed it important enough to ask for it.

Try again.

Is there anything in an undelivered speech that could be exploited by those that want us dead? Possibly.....(BAA)

Your speculation, not fact, not even close. The A-Holes that attacked us could care less what we think or do. They hate us for who we are, and that is that we are not Muslums but the center of Christiandom. If you aint Islamic, your are in there gunsights. You are expendable. You are to be killed by them, because they think Allah will favor them over you.

Not a very good scenerio for peace, is it?

Speculation is how we imagined 9/11 before 9/11.

No it is not a good scenerio for peace, and that is why exactly why Bush Admin will not take the risk of
letting this undelivered speech being used as a political tool.(BAA)

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Obstructing the truth since 1980.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Feb 4, 2001
NMD

Jan 17, 2001

This will take diplomacy. I think it also probably takes understanding the entire complex of nuclear issues," including proliferation concerns. "So we're in a different world than we were when the American nuclear arsenal faced off against the Soviet threat of thousands of nuclear warheads. The threats are different,

Hmm

she referred reporters to Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell's recent testimony on Capitol Hill that "the Saddam state remains a tremendous threat to the region; that we must continue to put pressure abroad on him to live up to the obligations that he undertook at the end of the Gulf War." She said the sanctions regime "needs to be reinforced and strengthened and it will be the goal of this administration to make certain that we deal with Saddam Hussein in a way that is consistent with the tremendous threat that he remains to his neighbors, including the potential that he is continuing to try to develop weapons of mass destruction."

June 2001

Finally, Rice said the President is seeking a security infrastructure that is based "on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us." Americans must be free, she said, "to defend our people, our forces, and our allies with missile defenses. All responsible states should have the right to do so."
------------------------------
To be sure, there are terrorist threats and other means by which to deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That is why the President has asked the Vice President to oversee a national planning effort to prepare the country to deal with the consequences of a WMD attack. Together with sound intelligence these efforts will help to deter attack.

I wonder what got more attention in Summer 2001, Cheney's Energy Task Force or his national plan to prepare for a WMD attack?

 

[chess9]

Isn't this the speech that was partially leaked to the Washington Post?

If so, they should release it. Failure to do so is yet another political blunder. It may be slightly damaging, but not releasing it is much more damaging. Folks are willing to reach some pretty wild conclusions when you hide information.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Ayup...not one mention of terrorist groups or networks; no mention of bringing the USS Cole bombers to justice; no mention of the Taliban; no mention of bin Laden...just missile defense.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ayup...not one mention of terrorist groups or networks; no mention of bringing the USS Cole bombers to justice; no mention of the Taliban; no mention of bin Laden...just missile defense.

did anyone anywhere mention them? do you remember what was on the news on 9/10/2001? or the early morning of 9/11/2001?

 

[conjur]

The only thing I remember from the news the morning of 9/11/2001 before the planes hit was that a drone plane had either been shot down or fired upon in Iraq.

The USS Cole was getting minor mention. The NY Times had a one-paragrapher on Sept. 5 about the FBI being back in Yemen, investigating the attack on the Cole.

 

[PingSpike]

I don't understand why they don't just release it. If its irrelevant, what harm can it do? This just makes them look shady, like they have something to hide.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't understand why they don't just release it. If its irrelevant, what harm can it do? This just makes them look shady, like they have something to hide.

ain't that the truth

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I don't understand why they don't just release it. If its irrelevant, what harm can it do? This just makes them look shady, like they have something to hide.

ain't that the truth

This administration has an obsession with secrecy. The attitude from day one is that you only know what you need to know, and you don't need to know anything. Not just about the war, but economic policy, environmental issues, you name it. It's in their nature to hide things even if it were to their advantage to do otherwise. This is a paranoid administration.

 

[ElFenix]

economic policy? doesn't seem much to it other than deficit spending. they've been hiding something there?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

9/11 panel barred from seeing text of pre-attack address

WASHINGTON - The White House has refused to provide the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with a speech that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to have delivered on the night of the attacks touting missile defense as a priority rather than al-Qaida, sources close to the commission said Tuesday.

Just typical of this baboon we call President these days.:disgust:

link

The only baboons are all the people trying to politicize a terrorist act irregardless of party or ideology. Anyone willing to put aside their partisan rhetoric knows damn well that pre 9/11/2001 America would not have stood for the types of operations and actions necessary to prevent the attacks anymore than pre December 7, 1941 America would have stood for the actions necessary to prevent Pearl Harbor.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Linflas

The only baboons are all the people trying to politicize a terrorist act irregardless of party or ideology. Anyone willing to put aside their partisan rhetoric knows damn well that pre 9/11/2001 America would not have stood for the types of operations and actions necessary to prevent the attacks anymore than pre December 7, 1941 America would have stood for the actions necessary to prevent Pearl Harbor.

Two completely different scenarios.

To prevent Pearl Harbor, scrambling fighters and moving the ships out of the port would have lessened or greatly eliminated our losses.

To prevent the 9/11 attacks, pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan would have been supported as there was sufficient evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the Millennium attack attempts, and the USS Cole as well as attempts to blow several jetliners and the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. The Taliban, themselves, were coming under pressure from groups such as R.A.W.A., as well.

 

[Insane3D]

/Gaard mode:

"Full Cooperation"


Full cooperation my a$$....

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Linflas

The only baboons are all the people trying to politicize a terrorist act irregardless of party or ideology. Anyone willing to put aside their partisan rhetoric knows damn well that pre 9/11/2001 America would not have stood for the types of operations and actions necessary to prevent the attacks anymore than pre December 7, 1941 America would have stood for the actions necessary to prevent Pearl Harbor.

Two completely different scenarios.

To prevent Pearl Harbor, scrambling fighters and moving the ships out of the port would have lessened or greatly eliminated our losses.

To prevent the 9/11 attacks, pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan would have been supported as there was sufficient evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the Millennium attack attempts, and the USS Cole as well as attempts to blow several jetliners and the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. The Taliban, themselves, were coming under pressure from groups such as R.A.W.A., as well.

If Bush had tried to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan I can almost guarantee that the left would have screamed wag the dog. Everyone seems to forget that the day before 9/11 Bush was under constant political attack for the election and the economy. Similarly had Clinton taken action he would have faced similar accusations from his enemies. It is very easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback should have, could have, would have while ignoring the total picture of what the mood of the country at that time was.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Linflas

The only baboons are all the people trying to politicize a terrorist act irregardless of party or ideology. Anyone willing to put aside their partisan rhetoric knows damn well that pre 9/11/2001 America would not have stood for the types of operations and actions necessary to prevent the attacks anymore than pre December 7, 1941 America would have stood for the actions necessary to prevent Pearl Harbor.

Two completely different scenarios.

To prevent Pearl Harbor, scrambling fighters and moving the ships out of the port would have lessened or greatly eliminated our losses.

To prevent the 9/11 attacks, pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan would have been supported as there was sufficient evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the Millennium attack attempts, and the USS Cole as well as attempts to blow several jetliners and the Taliban were harboring Al Qaeda. The Taliban, themselves, were coming under pressure from groups such as R.A.W.A., as well.

If Bush had tried to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan I can almost guarantee that the left would have screamed wag the dog. Everyone seems to forget that the day before 9/11 Bush was under constant political attack for the election and the economy. Similarly had Clinton taken action he would have faced similar accusations from his enemies. It is very easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback should have, could have, would have while ignoring the total picture of what the mood of the country at that time was.

I'm referring to Clinton's wanting to attack Afghanistan.

We all know perfectly well that the Bush Administration had NO plans for doing anything with regard to Afghanistan. Just check out the so-far released portions of Rice's speech.