Um, dude. All large structures have emergency procedure for a plane strike, and the Pentagon certainly qualifies as a “large structure.” I don’t see where the surprise is.
Would you be shocked if the WTC had emergency drills for a plane strike? Those buildings were designed for a 707 to hit them. Conspiracy?
Just saying.
‘The government’ is a large, multi-faceted organism, in which one part (or many parts) frequently does not have a clue what the other part(s) is doing. A Pentagon report does not an actual plan make, you know.
Just a side note about the pentagon as an office building… I seem to remember from somewhere that it’s the largest single office building in the world in terms of square footage, so it would behoove the tenants to have the same contingency plans and drills that any important and vulnerable (ESPECIALLY from the air )command and control centre would have.
I would have thought it strange if they had Attack of Mutated Troll preparedness exercises there, but a plane crash would be one of the first relevant disaster contingencies I would think of…
Agreed…
Yet Condi said they had no idea.
Theois has the key. I work with a person who actually was involved in a major “disaster preparedness study” of a plane from National crashing into or near the Pentagon. He told me that it was a big concern, and that occasionally there were some “near misses” as planes came into approach too low, or when there was a “traffic emergency”.
Did Ms. Rice actually say that they had no idea a plane would ever crash into the Pentagon? At all? Or no idea that a plane would be used as a terorist weapon against the Pentagon? I assume there will be a cite to keep this in GD.
National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing (whitehouse.gov May16,2002)
Condi’s claim has been suspect for a couple of years now. See this Sept. 2002 article in the Washington Post: 9/11 Probers Say Agencies Failed to Heed Attack Signs
What are we really talking about here? I’m sure that some CIA or FBI operative somewhere can be cited to have predicted any event that anyone could ever dream up. Does that mean that it was given credence as a likely scenario? Ask yourself: prior to 9/11/01, how many people here would have thought it likely that terrorists would slam a comercial jetliner into the WTC? How many of you woke up that morining and said: Wow, I kind of expected this might happen? I think that is what Condi is getting at.
If you want to get all worked up about whether her statement is technically correct or not, knock yourself out. We got caught with our collective pants down. There is nothing to be gained, other than partisan sniping points, by trying to blame someone for failing to prevent this. Richard Clarke himself is on record as saying that if everything he recommended had be implemented, that the attacks of 9/11/01 would in all likelihood still have happened.
Squink, every cite you have refers to them not knowing about a terrorist incident. However, what I’m talking about is accidental crashes, which the main cite in the OP is discussing. Where’s the connection between accidents and terrorists?
The OP claims in effect that the military “practice(d) for such an event”. Yet the “event” linked is referring to an accident. Furthermore from the linked article:
Where’s the connection? I want to know how the linked article in the OP is a direct refutation of Rice’s claim re: terrorists using planes as missiles.
Rice seems to agree that the original quote was a bad deal, because she now says that she misspoke.
Because it wasn’t real? That’s a standard literary technique after all.
Again, I repeat - how is an article discussing a simulated accident proof that the government knew planes would be used as missiles?
Do you actually think that Condi’s claim that no one could have predicted a terrorist attack employing airplanes amounts to anything more than partisan ass covering? If so, how? What other useful purpose did it serve?
Determining what was known, and when, and how it failed to prevent 9/11 involves checking the veracity of everyone’s claims about what was known, and what they thought possible, and when they thought it, and what they did about what they thought. Rice’s claims seem at odds with what was known at the time. Finding out why that is has more utility than just its potential use in assigning blame. Was there a systemic communication breakdown about this sort of “unthinkable” threat? How and why? Is there anything we could do better to ensure that the same sort of thing does not happen again? These are not partisan questions until someone either tries to assign blame, or hide information in order to avert the possibility of blame.
He isn’t on record as saying any such thing. The question he was answering was this:
These were actions directed at removing Bin Laden from Afghanistan. The things that Clark says could have prevented 9/11 were the things liking daily meetings to address the actual hijacking threat.
I don’t see the connection either. The article from the OP seems to describe a normal disaster preparedness exercise; a little exciting, but not all that unusual even before 9/11. It doesn’t mention Ms. Rice, and there’s no reason to expect her to know about such a glorified fire drill. However, you did ask what Condoleezza had said about terrorists flying planes into the pentagon. As I wrote, she’s said enough to raise more than a few eyebrows across the country. It’d be a shame to ignore the real heart of the issue just because of a poorly thought out OP.
Wow! Here’s a BLOCKBUSTER story! Betcha this was something Bush doesn’t want to hear. And from both a Republican and a Democrat! One by one, the crew are abandoning the ship. 
George Tenet’s written statement to the Commission begins by addressing the issue of prior knowledge of airplanes being used in various ways by terrorists.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0403/S00363.htm
President Bush is saying that he had no idea. Vice President Cheney says that Clarke was not a part of higher level meetings. Clarke is saying that he wasn’t allowed access to the higher level meetings.
If terrorism were really a priority to the Bush Administration and if the CIA was warning the White House and the FAA that terrorists were devising new methods and that the focus included “the homeland,” maybe someone should have thought to include the terrorism advisor in higher level meetings. Especially since he seemed so insistent at the time.
Maybe the President should have appointed someone with expertise in the Middle East rather than in Russia, as was Condi Rice’s focus.
I’m truly not blaming the President for failure to prevent 9/11. I do hold him responsible for not paying attention and for passing the buck for his lack of knowledge.
I do not understand how such a wonderful woman as Barbara Bush could be the mother of such an stubbornly stupid and dishonest man.
Do any of you remember an interview with Presidential candidate George Bush in which his basic ignorance of international affairs was revealed? Did any of you wonder how someone could 1) be a President’s son and 2) be a candidate for the Presidency and still not do his homework?
Further, the man is still perpetuating mistakes that spring from his stubborn ignorance. The latest example is the statement that June 30 is a firm date. How can he possibly say that at this stage?
end hijack
This is a blockbuster? We all knew the attacks could have been prevented.
We all knew our domestic and foreign intelligence gathering let us down, and that our approach to prosecuting Al-Quaida prior to September 11th was haphazard and sloppy.
This, however, is a much more damning indictment of an administration that sat on its hands for eight years, rather than one that had only been in office eight months and was still filling key Administration positions due to Democratic stonewalling. I’m sure Clinton feels the sting of this more coming from Lee Hamilton, probably the last living Democrat with any kind of noteworthy foreign policy experience.
Was the George W. Bush administration complacent? It was, as much as the rest of the country. We all paid a price for that. But at least they took swift action in Afghanistan when the attacks came, and didn’t just stop with a few cruise missiles, like certain other, impotent (where it counts) leaders did.
“Bush go-o-o-od! Clinton ba-a-a-a-ad!”
I knew I shoulda sprung for the sheepdog instead of these darn cats…
You’re kidding, right?
Just because the administration had intelligence that terrorists might use jetliners as flying bombs does NOT mean they could stop everyone who tried to launch such an attack. Therefore no conspiracy is necessary.
The point (to me) is: if the Bushies WERE aware of such a technique, why lie about it?
Because this Administration is just whacko paranoid. Anything that isn’t said in public to a group of reporters is a national secret of Class 1 proportions and nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who isn’t already a member of this Administration is going to get that kind of security clearance.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this White House classifies the President’s breakfast selections.