Center For American Progress attempts to discredit Rice

[lieu]

The Center For American Progress is a liberal think tank created by John Podesta from which

"a message-oriented war room will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right.

As you’d expect, they were listening closely to Ms. Rice’s testimony today and came out with this refutation of several claims she made in her testimony. I’m just curious about how some of you feel regarding the accuracy of their assertions, if their points are valid or if it’s partisan politics as usual.

CLAIM: “We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration’s covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network.”

FACT: Newsweek reported that “In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States.” Additionally, AP reported “though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months,” thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: “The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power – intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military – to meet this goal.”

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: “Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, ‘Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership’?” Armitage: “No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11.” [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: “We bolstered the Treasury Department’s activities to track and seize terrorist assets.”

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department “disapproved of the Clinton Administration’s approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden.” Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with “loose banking regulations” being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided “no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center.” [Source: “The Age of Sacred Terror,” 2003]

CLAIM: “We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida.”

FACT: According to AP, “the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001” but the White House “failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators” and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: “We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies.”

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House “did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators” and “proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants.” Newsweek noted the Administration “vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.” [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: “While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke.”

FACT: Rice’s statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that “No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration.” [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: “When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity.”

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration “did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI.” Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved “farther to the back burner” and recounted how the Bush Administration’s top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, “shut down” a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying “We are going to be struck again” by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not “above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen.” [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: “The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to…manner of attack.”

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration “officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden’s terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally “received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.” Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said “terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft.” [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

[Reeder]

They post their sources. Do you have reason to doubt them?

[MLS]

The fact that something was reported in Newsweek or any other news source does not necessarily mean it’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, especially when what’s quoted is an isolated sentence or two that could possibly have been out of context.

One cannot take anything as gospel that is disseminated by an openly partisan entity of any kind. It may be completely factual; if so, that is mere coincidence. All sides will select the parts that suit their own agenda.

Please note that I’m NOT saying that Newsweek or anybody else is lying; just that the “facts” noted in the cites may be incomplete or incorrect. Another group or person with another agenda could come up with an equally factual set of quotes that “proved” just the opposite.

(Personally, I like Dr. Rice; I’d like to see her run for President. But that’s just an opinion.)

[RTFirefly]

@MLS

(Personally, I like Dr. Rice; I’d like to see her run for President. But that’s just an opinion.)

Why? Completely aside from the 9/11 readiness question, she’s not been a particularly competent NSC chair, by many accounts. A big part of the job description is to ride herd on State and Defense to make sure they’re on the same page, but she’s clearly been unable to do that, as the conflicts between Rummy and Powell go on and on. If she doesn’t have the stature to rein them in, she’d suck as President.

And she was given responsibility for keeping the Israeli-Palestinian talks moving forward, but Elliot Abrams was able to keep her sidetracked.

Sure, she cleans up nice, and she’s an African-American woman, but that’s not enough.

[lieu]

@Reeder

They post their sources. Do you have reason to doubt them?

I’m a mermaid. [Source: Good Times, 4/01/04]

MLS, your skepticism and mine are twin sons of differnt mothers. Normally I’d wait until objective, reasonable sources weighed in on the issue but I had a compelling need to address the issue in short fashion, hence my appeal to those I trust.

RTF, it’s a rare day I don’t read your post twice.

[rjung]

When the apologists are reduced to “don’t trust anything you read,” isn’t it time to simply admit you don’t have anything to refute the charges with?

[Apos]

And she was given responsibility for keeping the Israeli-Palestinian talks moving forward, but Elliot Abrams was able to keep her sidetracked.

Er, didn’t she hire Abrams, and he reported to her? Am I confused here?

Of course, looking into that story produces yet ANOTHER major official who resigned in digust over nothing substantive getting done and ideologues sabotaging what did get done: Flynt Leverett. He says that, just like the “plan to stop swatting flies and take down Al Qaeda,” Rice was handed the job of creating the fabled road map, but did nothing. She even nixed everything that Powell had worked so hard to negotiate.

“When they wouldn’t put the road map out in 2002 and brought in someone like Abrams, that meant they weren’t going to be serious. I didn’t want to stick around for a charade. I say this as someone who voted for Bush in 2000 and was genuinely committed to see him succeed.”

Why does it seem like this administration is spewing disgruntled experts and proffesionals, many of them Republicans, who all allege that the administration just can’t function: that it has no real policy discussions, only politics discussions, that it doesn’t work very hard, that it seems to hold up everything substantive? Are they all lying? Why are they all saying the same thing?

Diullio
O’Neil
Clarke and like, almost his entire anti-terrorism team
Cressy
O’Neil (the FBI who died in 9/11 who had resigned in disgust when the Bush administration took pressure off the Taliban and Al Qaeda)
Leverett

Are they all liars? A giant conspiracy of evil partisan turncoats with agendas?

[Mockingbird]

I think Rice did a good enough job on her own without any help from an outside agency.

She is the weakest link, good-bye.

[Apos]

Some may not be able to see it, but this cartoon expresses a bit of what I was saying:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2004/04/08/boll/index1.html