What have you got to hide, Condie Rice?

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**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 the hijackings were in 2001, not 1999, Clinton couldn’t have been to blame then. While you may time travel, most of us don’t. It suggests to me that something was being done in 1999 that prevented the attacks. By 2001 something had changed that allowed the attacks to happen. What that something is could be determined by … oh I don’t know … an investigation, perhaps?

[minty_green]

Query: Given that al Qaeda’s preparations for 9/11 began on Clinton’s watch, I would suspect that the committee would also be seeking testimony from former Clinton administration officials.

Have any of them refused to testify under oath?

[Evil_Captor]

Let’s see, a Congressional inquiry into 9/11 and she’s reluctant to testify? Why, the Congressional committee should find out how reluctant she is to go to jail.

Oh, I’ve got it, put her and Katherine Harris BOTH in jail and then make a women in prison movie out of it! I am SO there!

[UncleBeer]

It suggests to me that something was being done in 1999 that prevented the attacks.

Just how long is your reach?

[Squink]

Here’s a fascinating bit of Condi’s equivocation on the Niger uranium from the white house web site:

Condi: But let me just go to the point you made, David. The CIA – I’ve read the reports that you’ve also read, that there were – the British were told they shouldn’t put this in the paper. I’ve read those reports. All that I can tell you is that if there were doubts about the underlying intelligence in the NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the President. The only thing that was there in the NIE was a kind of a standard INR footnote, which is kind of 59 pagesaway from the bulk of the NIE. That’s the only thing that’s there. And you have footnotes all the time in CIA – I mean, in NIEs. So if there was a concern about the underlying intelligence there, the President was unaware of that concern and as was I.

This quote just gives a bit of the flavor. The entire press conference is well worth reading.
The president’s pre 9/11 daily briefings, also contains footnotes, which were also apparently not read:

The president’s daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, contained “information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives,” the report stated.

A footnote to that passage then quotes what Rice told the public at a May 16, 2002, news conference.

Rice “stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qaeda was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method,” the footnote said.
At the same May 2002 press briefing, Rice also said that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

So the question we have to ask ourselves here, is how much of a habit of NOT READING the Intelligence estimates is acceptable for the holder of the job of National Security Advisor?

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**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.
**

Democratic propaganda. The plan involved invading Afghanistan. Clinton sat on it for two years, Bush for nine months.

[pantom]

As this is the Kean Commission we’re talking about here, I just wanted to throw in that the idea that they would engage in Mccarthyism is just risible. Kean is as honest as a politician gets - which may not be saying much, but I have full faith that he will do as good a job as is possible in investigating what happened that day.
We liked him up here in NJ, a lot. We still do.

[Tee]

Originally posted by Squink
So the question we have to ask ourselves here, is how much of a habit of NOT READING the Intelligence estimates is acceptable for the holder of the job of National Security Advisor?

It’s a non-issue Squink, no matter how often you bring it up. The State Department is but one contributor to collective intelligence. *So is the National Security Agency. * There is no reason the NSA should be beholden to an INR view that contradicts that of other agencies, too, not just Rice’s.

[Tee]

Oops, change “Agency” to “Advisor”, up there…

[Squink]

*Originally posted by Tee *
There is no reason the NSA should be beholden to an INR view that contradicts that of other agencies, too, not just Rice’s.

Beholden to? Who said anything about beholden to?
The issue is whether Rice should be Aware of information which bears directly on our nation’s security.
How many examples of Condi’s ignorance will it take before you begin to think that she might be having trouble doing her job?

[F.U.Shakespeare]

Putting your political enemies on the witness stand, and asking them embarrassing questions (that you already know the answer to)?

I would call that Starr-like, not McCarthy-like.

*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *
**I think that she knows something, and I think that she has no desire to be picked apart by a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Does that mean that she knows something? Maybe. It could also mean that she doesn’t want to be publicly destroyed in the questioning process.

I personally think that as an appointee of an elected official, she has to take her lumps same as if she were elected. So yeah, I think she should get on the stand. But you know what? It seems to me that these people already know the answers, they’re just looking to embarass some people, and truth be told, Condoleeza Rice is not the person who should fall victim to the hatchet these guys are looking to swing.

There’s also the thing about sources. This seems to be an issue of intelligence. What should be said, and what should not be said? I have dealt with this before as well, when TV people come to the base. I’m told what I can say and what I can’t say, and I find it much easier and safer to stay the hell away from anyone waving a camera in my direction. Maybe that’s all that she’s doing.

So, anyway, not to muddle this up too much, I think she should take the stand, I can see why she wouldn’t want to, and I think they’re asking the wrong people if they want real answers, especially since I suspect that they (being the committee) already know the answers. It seems kinda McCarthy-like, if you ask me. **

[Leaper]

*Originally posted by SeekingTruth *
**Let’s just forget that Clinton was given bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese.
**

Which is funny, because I could swear I read that the Clinton Administration followed up directly with the Sudanese government, and found that the guy who claimed to be the middleman to this offer was lying.

Anyone got the REAL truth on this? Some sources seem to accept this guy’s word (and only his word) without question. Is there any evidence besides his say-so to support his claims?

[astorian]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**I really don’t buy into any theory that Bush specifically knew of the attack, I’m not that mindlessly partisan.

I just think he was lazy and indifferent about terrorism when he first came in and the WH doesn’t want that exposed. I think Condie doesn’t want to embarrass W politically during an election campaign by having to answer questions about why he didn’t give a fuck about the warnings given to him by the outgoing Clinton administration.

Bush fucked up. He fell asleep at the switch. there was no conspiracy but he didn’t take Clinton’s warnings seriously because he was arrogant enough to think that he was above taking advice from a moral reprobate.

He thought he was above listening to Clinton and it cost him. **

You’re not mindlessly partisan? Don’t make me laugh!

Your screen name has always been a joke, because you’re NOT a cynic, and never have been. You’re the most credulous, gullible poster on these boards- ALWAYS ready to believe what ANY Democrat says.

A cynic is someone who always expects the worst of EVERYONE, and who’s always leery of believing ANYONE- even the people who are (nominally, at least) on HIS side. You, on the other hand, have never shown any such critical faculties. You always reflexively side with the left, and have never shown the slightest indication of independent thinking.

There would never have been any terrorist attacks if only the ever-vigilant Bill Clinton were still in office! Sure- I guess we hallucinated the bombing of the Cole and the first attempting bombing of the WTC in 1993. After all, Bill Clinton was on top of everything, and would NEVER have allowed such things to take place.

You wanna make mindless, partisan rantrs, rant away. That’s what the Pit is for. But…

1. Don’t expect to be taken seriously. And

2. Change your screen name, pronto. You’re an embarrassment to true cynics everywhere.

[Squink]

Report: Bush Ignored CIA Uranium Warning

the White House ignored warnings that the uranium claim was unreliable before Bush made the assertion in his State of the Union address in January.
…
The (President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) advisory board found that the sentence made it into the speech despite CIA objections because “there was no organized system at the White House to vet intelligence.”

[vibrotronica]

Oh, I’ve got it, put her and Katherine Harris BOTH in jail and then make a women in prison movie out of it! I am SO there!

That’s just gross.

[Apos]

And Bush was supposed to do . . . exactly what in a single year?

I dunno: maybe FIGHT TERRORISM?

It’s clear that there were some pretty simple things that could have been done which would hve exposed 9/11. Had either Clinton or Bush enacted Clarke’s plan, or taken similar actions, even a month before 9/11, the plot would have been exposed. That’s hindsight of course. but the point is that the “I didn’t have enough time” excuse is bullshit. It wouldn’t have taken much time at all, and if it was urgent because Clinton had been obviously deficient in some way, then it shouldn’t have taken any time at all.

But that was the Bush administration’s focus, by a long shot.

Maybe yelling about Diog can make people pretend otherwise though!

[Typo_Negative]

In short, she lied in an effort to cover her own sorry ass.

Or maybe cover someone else’s ass. Maybe somebody higher up and more important to the party.

Call me foolish if you want, but I think she’s stalling because she doesn’t want to be the sacrifical lamb. Somebody is gonna have to fall on their sword. I can’t fault her for not wanting to be the one.

[SeekingTruth]

Homebrew, another poster I have to knock down a few notches in the credible department. I’m willing to forgive your obvious disdain for all things Republican. We are the evil of the world after all.

I HATE busting posters I normally agree with.

The FBI operates inside the US. The CIA handles anything outside the borders. O’reilly sucks is the best cite you can offer?!? I may as well offer a Michael Moore or Al Frankin site. This would be acceptable? I thought maybe we’d have a debate on actual National Security issues. Stupid me.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by SeekingTruth *
**Homebrew, another poster I have to knock down a few notches in the credible department. **

You’ve been here a month, and you assume that anyone would give a fuck what your opinion of another poster’s credibility might be?

And Homebrew’s cite was quite obviously just a reprint of an article from somewhere else. See where it says at the top:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/national/30TERR.html?pagewanted=1

That mean anything to you? Hint: New York Times. If you’ve got some issue with that publication as well, fine. Demonstrate why you think that a NYT story precludes debate on “actual National Security issues”. :rolleyes:

[Reeder]

*Originally posted by SeekingTruth *
**Snip…

The FBI operates inside the US. The CIA handles anything outside the borders.

Snip… **

I beg to differ, the FBI quite often operates outside our borders.