Frankly, I wouldn’t put all my eggs in any basket labelled with nothing more than “information from two government sources”.
**
Other than the fact that he isn’t on the Committee?
**
Got that shit right.
Ms. Rice is on record as stating that there was no way the Bushiviks could have been cognizant of the possible use of airplanes as a terror weapon. As quoted in Diogene’s opening remarks, this is plainly questionable. These two facts are public knowledge, but the explanation is too sensitive? This is not a strain on your credulity?
And given that the Pubbies first choice to chair the committee was that paragon of utter candor, Henry Kissinger, do you wonder that some of us suspect that transparent truth is not the first goal of this excercise?
But be assured: Ms. Rice is most likely not going to be subjected to a public savaging by that Dem pit bull, Sen. Ted Kennedy.
(Or is he listed as a “Guest Star”?)
She’s probably trying to hide her incompetence. Remember the little dust up over that when it came out that she hadn’t read the national security estimate on Saddam’s purchase of African uranium?
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the application Occam’s razor suggests that a desire on Condi’s part to hide her incompetence is a better hypothesis than her not wanting to give supersecret information to the commission charged with connecting the dots on 9/11.
elucidator, why do you always have to demean a perfectly good set of questions by throwing phrases such as Bushiviks and Pubbies about?
At this point, pretending to have no partisan stance would be disingenuous. I prefer to make it entirely clear. I trust the intelligent and perceptive reader, such as yourself, to recognize a good question regardless of the source. You have demonstrated that this is the case.
Or it could just be that I’m an asshole. What, the pink and puckered don’t have a voice? And if my questions are good and my points valid, what difference does it make? If you like, please feel free to rephrase such points and questions in a respectful, solemn manner, if it shall reflect an esteem I do not share. And have no intention of pretending to share.
Now, as to Ms. Rice…?
Utter bullshit. Are you saying the August 1998 attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan were “lack of action”? In Clinton’s speech following the strikes, he specifically mentions Osama as Public Enemy #1.
From http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/oreillylies.htm
Bill Clinton increased the FBI’s counterterrorism budget by almost 400 percent after World Trade Center bombing, from $78.5 million in 1993 to $301.2 million in 1999.
Additionally the number of FBI agents devoted full-time to counterterrorism increased, from 550 in 1993 to 1,383 in 1999.
As Mr. Clinton prepared his re-election bid in 1996, the administration made several crucial decisions. Recognizing the growing significance of Mr. bin Laden, the C.I.A. created a virtual station, code-named Alex, to track his activities around the world.
In the years after the embassy bombings, the Clinton administration significantly stepped up its efforts to destroy Al Qaeda, targeting its finances, plotting military strikes to wipe out its leadership and prosecuting its members for the bombings and other crimes. “From August 1998, bin Laden was Enemy No. 1,” Mr. Berger said.
Still, the fight against Al Qaeda gained new, high-level attention after the embassy attacks, present and former officials say. Between 1998 and 2000, the “Small Group” of the Cabinet-rank principals involved in national security met almost every week on terrorism, and the Counterterrorism Security Group, led by Mr. Clarke, met two or three times a week, officials said.
President Clinton also ordered a more aggressive program of covert action, signing an intelligence order that allowed him to use lethal force against Mr. bin Laden. Later, this was expanded to include as many as a dozen of his top lieutenants, officials said.
More Here:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/repubnews/bushwarned.htm
Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton Anti-Terrorism Bill
7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) – President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
<snip>
The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for “multi-point” tapping of suspected
terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.
Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said technology is giving criminals an advantage. “What the terrorists do is they take one cellular phone, use the number for a few days, throw it out and use a different phone with a different number,” he said. “All we are saying is tap the person, not the phone number.”
WTF? Dr. Rice has gotten where she is without leaning on the racial or gender crutch. She is self-made, brilliant and deserving of respect. But she is not omniscient, clairavoyant or blessed with the ability to prognosticate.
Dr. Rice may not want to testify because she doesn’t want to be part of a public specatacle where she has to answer questions about why she didn’t see the future with the clarity that a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks see the past.
This speculation is like reading a novel or watching a movie and squirming because the lead character didn’t realize the importance of a clue, a phrase or a dramatic look. It got buried in the sea of other sensory input and he didn’t have the advantage of foreshadowing music
And, Squink, do you really believe she is incompetent? Are you really saying that? And to support it, you cite a question that was not asked. The howler is rebuking the press for not asking tougher questions, such as the one you cited. But that questions is loaded and biased. “We are told that…” They are not asking about facts, they are asking about hearsay.
Like her or not, she is not incompetent. She is not an unqualified token hire meant to appease some demographic group.
There’s no such thing as a national security estimate.
If the 9/11 commission plans to be independent, bi-partisan and all that, then they should allow Rice to testify at a closed hearing and extend the same courtesy to all past and present administration officials.
Why is she afraid to take the oath? Never mind saying anything in public. Why won’t she promise to tell the truth even in private?
(UncleBeer, thanks for fixing the OP)
Sure she is. It’s part of the National Security Advisors job to be aware of issues which impinge upon National Security. Condi has a history of failing to read major security documents prepared for her use. Administration policy, and rhetoric, was based on that failure. When the failure was discovered, Condi hemmed and hawwed about, said she had read the document, then hadn’t read the document, then had… In short, she lied in an effort to cover her own sorry ass.
Maybe you have a different definition of incompetence, but that sure rings my bell.
Since your memory of this affair appears to be impaired, here’s a more detailed summary from the Washington Post: Iraq Flap Shakes Rice’s Image
Controversy Stirs Questions of Reports Unread, Statements Contradicted
Okay. So Clinton was merely ineffective for eight long years, rather than inactive. And Bush was supposed to do . . . exactly what in a single year?
My apologies. I have no idea what I was thinking. Or more accurately, I wasn’t thinking. You seem to be correct in your assertion that the hearings aren’t going to be a “hostile environment made up of Democrat political hacks.” Well, except for Bob Kerry perhaps.
I guess I’d also like to know what y’all make of the City of New York’s reluctance to provide requested materials to the Kean Commission.
Graceful statement respectfully noted.
As to New York…well, I suspect the same thing as I do in general: no one wants to admit the obvious: that a bunch of bozos caught us with out pants down around our ankles and a “Fuck Me!” sign taped to our collective butt.
It should never have happened! The first airplane hijackings engendered a whole slew of “To Havana!” jokes when I was but a lad, and the cockpit doors were still unlocked! This does for stupid what plutonium does for BANG!
(Alternatively, the NYawk authorities may be fearful of another revelation like the EPA’s bald-faced lies as to the safety of the air quality post 9/11. As well they should be, some heads should absitively, posolutely roll for that one! That one makes me dizzy with rage!)
Diogenes: Is that the case? Is everyone testifying under oath? I don’t know.
Has the Post ever run a story without citing “unnamed senior officials speaking on the condition of anonymity?” Just curious.
Since there’s widespread confusion about what documents mean what anyway, I wouldn’t take somebody’s word that Rice hadn’t read one too seriously.
Considering that her boss seems proud of the fact that he doesn’t bother to read a newspaper, what can you expect?
“The President is not a fact-checker”
- Condi Rice
Well it was 2001 not 1999.
Yes it was - how insightful of you.
Now, could you discuss why Bush is to blame in 2001, but Clinton was not in 1999? Since Clinton had seven years to do something effective, and Bush had seven months.
Regards,
Shodan
Clinton was constantly hamstrung by a nakedly spiteful Republican Congress.
Bush was told by the outgoing Clinton WH that his most urgent priority was al Qaeda and OBL. Bush decided that it was more important to give away the budget surplus to his billionaire friends than to protect the country from terrorism.
The bottom line is that 9/11 occurred on W’s watch, not Clinton’s.
Don’t know. Want to find out. That’s why investigate.
(Gotta keep it simple…)
Well, for starters, they could have not cut the FBI’s counterterrorism budget. Or repeatedly refused to assign more agents to counterterrorism as Freeh wanted. Or actually listened to George Tenet when he warned the incoming administration about al-Qaeda and even gave them a plan that the Clinton administration had been working on for two years to deal with the threat - which turned out to be the same plan that the Bush Administration implemented right after 9-11.
You know, little things.