Watch Live Rice defending the Bush Admin...

[RTFirefly]

@Tigers2B1

If Clinton and Gore truly have nothing to hide and have already cooperated fully in private, well crap, they shouldn’t have any problem with doing that. No?

I agree with what others here have already said: I’d love to see Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Cheney all testify publicly, under oath, and separately.

I’d love to see if Bush could manage that without wetting his pants.

Apos - your comment about Bush’s (in)competence as a CEO makes me think of the first time Bush and Paul O’Neill meet after Bush’s inauguration. (I’ve just started reading The Price of Loyalty.) O’Neill is laying out a course for the new administration’s economic and tax policy, and he’s come prepared to answer a number of likely and obvious questions. He talks for a while, and Bush doesn’t ask him anything. So O’Neill, being aware that there’s plenty of time left, pushes into areas he hadn’t really expected to get to that morning. Bush still doesn’t ask any questions. And so it went.

[rjung]

@Tigers2B1

Well the same was said in regards to Dr. Rice’s private testimony.

The only examples I’ve seen commending Condi for her testimony have been from Republican Congresscritters, who aren’t exactly unbiased sources. The snippets and transcript segments I’ve read indicate that “cooperative” and “forthcoming” aren’t terms that can be applied, either.

@Tigers2B1

So I say, lets put them ALL on public display. Bring in the TV cameras, the applauding, the dancing bears, the politicians, the trained monkeys, the over-zealous inquisitors - bring 'em all.

Sounds good to me. I don’t think Clinton or Gore would have any problems with it, since they’ve reportedly been nothing but cooperative with the Commission from day 1. On the other hand, getting Bush and Cheney to go along – especially given how they didn’t even want to testify at all, then kept imposing limits on times and appearances – seems damn impossible…

[NotMrKnowItAll]

Well, it’s Friday. You know what that means.

White House to declassify memo about bin Laden

Members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States already have seen the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB about bin Laden. They requested Thursday that it declassified and released to the public “because we feel it’s important that the American people get a chance to see it,” commission chairman Thomas Kean said.

[Tigers2B1]

@rjung

The only examples I’ve seen commending Condi for her testimony have been from Republican Congresscritters, who aren’t exactly unbiased sources. The snippets and transcript segments I’ve read indicate that “cooperative” and “forthcoming” aren’t terms that can be applied, either.

During his opening statement, near the beginning, the 9/11 Commission Chairman, Thomas H. Kean said “We have had extended private meetings with Dr. Rice. We have received a lot of information from her and she’s been a very cooperative witness in that circumstance.”

The Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News and Analysis

Sounds good to me. I don’t think Clinton or Gore would have any problems with it, since they’ve reportedly been nothing but cooperative with the Commission from day 1. On the other hand, getting Bush and Cheney to go along – especially given how they didn’t even want to testify at all, then kept imposing limits on times and appearances – seems damn impossible…

And I agree with you fellas that they should ALL go before the commission and big eyebrowed politicians and the cameras they love. I sort of miss Clinton’s double speak. Would love to see him answer questions before a partisan group that surprises him with the definition of ‘is’ ----- and then proceeds to sweat the truth out of him.

[Desmostylus]

@RTFirefly

Nailed it in one, Desmo.

Thanks. I wrote that straight after watching the thing. It was my best effort at a summary of what she said. I note with some satisfaction that the points I mentioned are precisely the ones now being raised in the mainstream press.

[Rashak_Mani]

Newsweek’s take on Rice:

Link

[Merijeek]

Lately, it seems as if the Usual Suspects have been trying less and less to defend this pathetic “administration”.

They come in, make their limp, weak, CD-inspired rationalizations (note the same whining we’ve heard for years now, “But Clinton…”), have their illogic rubbed in their face, and then they disappear.

It’s almost as if they realize that Patton, Rambo, and John Wayne working together couldn’t circle the wagons well enough to defend these monkeys…

-Joe

[UncleBeer]

I’d love to see if Bush could manage that without wetting his pants.

Sorry to bring this two-day dead topic back to the fore, but y’all make some good points. My comparison between the public vs. private nature of Rice’s and Clinton’s testimony to this committee is flawed and I would request that I be permitted to withdraw it.

Although I gotta say, I too, would relish the spectacle of Bush testifying publicly. If only for the jokes that would surely follow.

[flickster]

@annaplurabelle

This was the “Millennium Plot”:My bolding. More:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/17/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/current/msg00944.html

Some additional information regarding Millennium and Clarke in a Seattle Times article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001901197_ressam12m.html
Another case of Clarke strecthing the truth is his book? Sometimes you’re better off just acknowledging being lucky than trying to take credit for something you didn’t do.

[annaplurabelle]

@flickster

Some additional information regarding Millennium and Clarke in a Seattle Times article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001901197_ressam12m.html
Another case of Clarke strecthing the truth is his book? Sometimes you’re better off just acknowledging being lucky than trying to take credit for something you didn’t do.

Those problems (mostly on the Canadian end, with careful reading) were mentioned in my first cite (I wonder if you read it).

In your cite:

Another Brookings scholar, Stephen Hess, a senior fellow on governmental studies and an authority on Washington and the media, said errors in memoirs are not unusual or particularly significant unless they affect the broader point or conclusion the author is drawing.

“So it’s hard to say what the significance of these errors are,” Hess added. “Whether you agree with him or not, I don’t think anybody has accused Dick Clarke of being sloppy.”

And Clarke’s conclusion remains valid. Al-Qaida, he wrote, was here - and actively attempting to attack the United States.

I do wonder whose fault it was that the high alert status didn’t trickle down officially. Are you trying to say it was part of Clarke’s job to ensure that?

In spite of your efforts, Clarke’s credibility on the broader points remain corroberated and documented.

[flickster]

The main point of contention I see in the article is that Clarke trying to take credit for foiling Millennium by putting the customs agents on heightened alert when the agents are saying it’s just not true. Ressam was captured due to his actions making agent Dean suspicious, not because of an NSA directive. As for the Canadian authorities part of the picture, that didn’t come to light until after his capture.

[Squink]

Trickle down security.

[annaplurabelle]

@flickster

The main point of contention I see in the article is that Clarke trying to take credit for foiling Millennium by putting the customs agents on heightened alert when the agents are saying it’s just not true. Ressam was captured due to his actions making agent Dean suspicious, not because of an NSA directive. As for the Canadian authorities part of the picture, that didn’t come to light until after his capture.

Are you disputing that Clarke put out the alerts? If not, then your assertion is irrelevant - it wasn’t his fault that Canadian agents never received notice, was it? Certainly, it was lucky that the agents were suspicious for other reasons, but the broader point is - why depend on luck when you can issue an alert.

As for some of the other “discrepancies”… From your cite:

More significantly, Clarke wrote that agents had found “explosives and a map of the Los Angeles International Airport” in the car, implying the threat to the airport was known almost immediately.

There was no map in the car. A map of Greater Los Angeles was found days later in Ressam’s apartment in Montreal.

From Rice’s testimony:

“It was because a very alert Customs agent named Diana Dean and her colleague sensed something about Ressam” that led to his capture, Rice told the panel.

“They saw that something was wrong. They tried to apprehend him. He tried to run. They then apprehended him, [then] found that there was bomb-making material and a map of Los Angeles in his car.”

Tell me again, how these details are important, and how they determine “credibility”. :rolleyes:

[flickster]

@annaplurabelle

Are you disputing that Clarke put out the alerts? If not, then your assertion is irrelevant - it wasn’t his fault that Canadian agents never received notice, was it? Certainly, it was lucky that the agents were suspicious for other reasons, but the broader point is - why depend on luck when you can issue an alert.

The agents referred to in the article are US agents, not Canadian.

Are you disputing that Clarke put out the alerts?

The US agents are the one’s disputing any heightened alert was in effect at the time, which would lead to the conclusion that either Clarke did not put out the alert or that it was poorly distributed.

[annaplurabelle]

@flickster

The agents referred to in the article are US agents, not Canadian.

Oops. Make that US based-Canadian border agents. I hope this factual error doesn’t undermine my credibility in your view, flickster. But really, how does this disqualify my, you know, broader point?

@flickster

The US agents are the one’s disputing any heightened alert was in effect at the time, which would lead to the conclusion that either Clarke did not put out the alert or that it was poorly distributed.

My question to you was: Are you disputing that Clarke put out the alerts?

I can’t find anything that disputes that, so we are left with the second alternative - “poor distribution”. Please explain how this undermines Clarke’s credibility, to your mind. Also, explain how the follow-up actions after Ressam’s arrest were a prime example of “Clinton admin did nothing to fight terrorism”:

Clinton Administration- 1999 Millennium Alerts

The CIA warned that between 5 and 15 terrorist attacks were planned against American interests in the US and overseas. (p 10, Tenet’s sworn Statement)

The highest levels of the Clinton administration were “seized with the threat.” The National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CIA Director, the Attorney General, the FBI director and other top officials met almost daily for a month to coordinate the efforts of their agencies. The top-level leadership then “communicated their own sense of urgency throughout their agencies.” (p 5, Statement 8)

Secretary of Defense Cohen and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs prepared contingency plans for a rapid military response with assistance in the event of mass casualty or WMD terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, including the US homeland. (p 9, Statement 6)

The Clinton Administration made the most of a lucky break when an alert customs agent nabbed an Algerian terrorist crossing into the US from Canada with a car full of explosives and plans to blow up the Los Angelos Airport. This lucky break was pursued to break up terror cells in Toronto, Boston, New York and elsewhere. (p. 4 Berger’s sworn Statement)

“By all accounts” this was a period of unprecedented cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community. An extraordinary number of domestic surveillance warrants were issued. (p 5, Statement 8) The activities of 21 different terrorists in 8 countries were disrupted. (p. 3 Statement 7)

Tenet described it this way, “the CIA overseas and the FBI in the US organized an aggressive integrated campaign to disrupt al Qaeda. …Over a period of months, there were close daily consultations that included the Director of the FBI, the National Security Advisor, and the Attorney General…” (p22, Tenet’s sworn statement)

Explain how Clarke’s assertion (in his book) that “The break came in an unlikely location…during a routine screening” (when Ressam was arrested) is a “factual error” to the extent that undermines his credibility on the broader points, to your mind.

Also, if you’ve got the time (since you claim to be busy with “better things to do”), please explain why the credibility problems within the Bush admin don’t seem to bother you enough to post the “innocent credibility questions” and insinuations you always seem to have time to post re Kerry, Clinton and Clarke.

[flickster]

Also, if you’ve got the time (since you claim to be busy with “better things to do”), please explain why the credibility problems within the Bush admin don’t seem to bother you enough to post the “innocent credibility questions” and insinuations you always seem to have time to post re Kerry, Clinton and Clarke.

For one, there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of ppl already already taking the shots at the Bush administration on this site. Secondly, I didn’t care for the way the mainstream media made Clarke out to be above reproach, starting with 60 Minutes who had an undisclosed financial interest in Clarke’s book sales.

As for what/who I choose to pick on/at, sometimes I’m the devil’s advocate, somtimes I’m just the devil. I tend to find more reasons to move against the grain than with, but not on purpose. I’m not a big fan of politics either in the workplace/corporate level or government level. For the most part I find it a revolting and/or embarassing display.

[rjung]

@flickster

For one, there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of ppl already already taking the shots at the Bush administration on this site.

If they’re the ones who dropped the ball, then why shouldn’t they get the lion’s share of the blame?

Or, as the wags would put it, “Number of World Trade Centers destroyed under Bill Clinton’s Presidency: ZERO.”

[John_Mace]

Interestingly, the public seems to vew Rice as more believable than Clarke, according to this April 8th Time/CNN poll (“Independents” probably represent the best guage):

"Two weeks ago, former White House terrorism official Richard 
Clarke criticized the Bush Administration's policy on terrorism before 9/11 when he 
testified before the commission. Today, Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush 
Administration's record on terrorism in her testimony. If you had to choose, are 
you more likely to believe Richard Clarke or Condoleezza Rice on this matter?"
               Clarke    Rice    Not Sure   
                  %       %         %

 ALL              36      43        21   
 Republicans      15      72        13   
 Independents     34      40        26   
 Democrats        53      30        17 

[blowero]

@John Mace

Interestingly, the public seems to vew Rice as more believable than Clarke, according to this April 8th Time/CNN poll (“Independents” probably represent the best guage):

That doesn’t count - it’s just a “historical document”.

[blowero]

Damn! I forgot this ->