1
   

Rice answers with the TRUTH...

 
 
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 07:58 am
9/11: For The Record

By Condoleezza Rice
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21


The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.

We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.

We pushed hard to arm the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle so we could target terrorists with greater precision. But the Predator was designed to conduct surveillance, not carry weapons. Arming it presented many technical challenges and required extensive testing. Military and intelligence officials agreed that the armed Predator was simply not ready for deployment before the fall of 2001. In any case, the Predator was not a silver bullet that could have destroyed al Qaeda or stopped Sept. 11.

We also considered a modest spring 2001 increase in funding for the Northern Alliance. At that time, the Northern Alliance was clearly not going to sweep across Afghanistan and dispose of al Qaeda. It had been battered by defeat and held less than 10 percent of the country. Only the addition of American air power, with U.S. special forces and intelligence officers on the ground, allowed the Northern Alliance its historic military advances in late 2001. We folded this idea into our broader strategy of arming tribes throughout Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban.

Let us be clear. Even their most ardent advocates did not contend that these ideas, even taken together, would have destroyed al Qaeda. We judged that the collection of ideas presented to us were insufficient for the strategy President Bush sought. The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or "roll back" the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to "eliminate" the al Qaeda network. The president wanted more than occasional, retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

Through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda -- which was expected to take years. Our strategy marshaled all elements of national power to take down the network, not just respond to individual attacks with law enforcement measures. Our plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived. It focused on the crucial link between al Qaeda and the Taliban. We would attempt to compel the Taliban to stop giving al Qaeda sanctuary -- and if it refused, we would have sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime. The strategy focused on the key role of Pakistan in this effort and the need to get Pakistan to drop its support of the Taliban. This became the first major foreign-policy strategy document of the Bush administration -- not Iraq, not the ABM Treaty, but eliminating al Qaeda.

Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.

Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."

We now know that the real threat had been in the United States since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years. According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here. Even if we had known exactly where Osama bin Laden was, and the armed Predator had been available to strike him, the Sept. 11 hijackers almost certainly would have carried out their plan. So, too, if the Northern Alliance had somehow managed to topple the Taliban, the Sept. 11 hijackers were here in America -- not in Afghanistan.

President Bush has acted swiftly to unify and streamline our efforts to secure the American homeland. He has transformed the FBI into an agency dedicated to catching terrorists and preventing future attacks. The president and Congress, through the USA Patriot Act, have broken down the legal and bureaucratic walls that prior to Sept. 11 hampered intelligence and law enforcement agencies from collecting and sharing vital threat information. Those who now argue for rolling back the Patriot Act's changes invite us to forget the important lesson we learned on Sept. 11.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Because of President Bush's vision and leadership, our nation is safer. We have won battles in the war on terror, but the war is far from over. However long it takes, this great nation will prevail.

The writer is the national security adviser.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,981 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:10 am
The paper prints the above as opinion, not truth - especially not the TRUTH.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:13 am
Thats er story and shes stickin with it. It summarizes Bush campaign position on his successful campaign against terrorism.....not
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 08:37 am
Yes. One can surely count on a top administration official, herself greatly responsible for decisions and policies, to be absolutely unbiased and forthcoming such that her words will reflect TRUTH. Damned tootin.

On the other hand, one certainly does not want to place ANY credibility to the accounts of a fellow who has been working on issues related to terror under first, Reagan, then Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr...he's bound to be biased beyond believability...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20967&highlight=&sid=7381e3c8d17f1a16c2cc3e4a6b2085a3

The upside down world of this administration.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:46 am
the State Radio System of Free america has been doing its damnest to discredit Mr Clark. They are tripping over each other and it would make wonderful earplay to demonstrate the 180 difference between what the conservatives say about "the liberal Media" with whats really being said.

upside down is the admins position on everything.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:52 am
Only because you disagree with it. how can you be certain which side is really telling the truth?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 10:57 am
farmerperson

A particularly egregious strategy (and I think it is fair to use that term, suggesting purpose) is to accuse (often pre-emptively) opponents of some particular negative (say, deceitfulness) knowing that one oneself is liable to be properly accused of it. The advantages are redirection, but also, minimizing the badness of the thing by suggesting that everyone does it. I can't count the times I've seen this administration apparently doing precisely that move.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:10 am
The major problem with this book is it's timing not its substance. The core issue should have been presented in an article six months ago and the book as a follow up expanding and detailing the thesis. As it is it is too deep into the political season and the Bush White House will attempt to paint this as a political ploy. There is not enough time now to explore Clark's information out side the context of a political campaign which will reduce the book's effectiveness. People will tend to accept or reject his evidence based on electoral preferences and the Bush campaign will do everything possible to encourage that kind of thinking.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:33 am
Acq

I think you're wrong on that, for several reasons.

First, the attacks on the author's credibility, and attempts to obfuscate the charges, would come no matter when the release date. I doubt that the attack claiming the proximity to election = partisanship carry much extra value.

Second, public investigation of the administration on precisely these charges begins tomorrow. My clear preference (as an administration foe) for release date is to have it coincident with this investigation.

Third, that coincidence of publication and investigation has the dual value of pushing this issue even farther into mainstream consciousness, and also the (I expect) increase in credibility to Clark's charges through what others will reveal.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:55 am
Acquiunk
Acquiunk, sorry that old political ploy won't work either. Insiders in the Bush and Clinton administrations have been reporting the general information about the Bush Adm. since early in 2002. Our lovely Media chose to mention it and then move on without really looking in to it. You can go back in press archives and find many attempts to expose what was going on. The Media was still in love with "Bush, the patriot war president" and was afraid to touch him. I will never forgive the media for its failure to uphold its constitutional obligations to look out for the interests of US citizens.

Now the Media is forced to confront the issue because of Clarke's book even when it deserted Paul McNeill after he was punished by Bush et al for telling similar truths.

You are savy enough to know that it takes many months or several years to write a book and get it published. Do you suggest that Clarke should have started right after the Bush 2000 Selection to write his book based on his crystal ball readings of the future?

BBB
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:02 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Only because you disagree with it. how can you be certain which side is really telling the truth?


You say this, yet you title this very thread with "Rice answers with the TRUTH". Eh, I guess such statements apply to everyone but yourself.

Anyway, its obvious that Bush is serious about wanting to know how and why things went wrong, since he's cooporated so well with the 9-11 panel Rolling Eyes

Its been clear for some time that the emperor has no clothes. Hopefully the general public will have a grand awakening to this fact in time for the election.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:17 pm
Heywood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Only because you disagree with it. how can you be certain which side is really telling the truth?


You say this, yet you title this very thread with "Rice answers with the TRUTH". Eh, I guess such statements apply to everyone but yourself.

Anyway, its obvious that Bush is serious about wanting to know how and why things went wrong, since he's cooporated so well with the 9-11 panel Rolling Eyes

Its been clear for some time that the emperor has no clothes. Hopefully the general public will have a grand awakening to this fact in time for the election.


Maybe you need to go back for further education as the united States has no emperor. we have an elected president. and he wears suits pretty regularly. Sheesh.

IT'S A TITLE! Get over it. Did you read the article? Do you have a comment regarding the article? Can you provide any evidence proving what Condoleezza says in the article? we have enough threads on this forum discussing people's dislike of Bush. Most people get it. It's not neccessary to infect each and every thread with this disgusting behavior.

Now, can ANYONE prove Condi is lying? If not, it must be the TRUTH!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:21 pm
Because one cannot prove that someone is lying is not prima facia evidence that the person in question therefore speaks the truth.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:23 pm
If one cannot prove they are lying, then one should assume they are telling the truth.

(I like your new sig. It made me laugh.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:23 pm
there is always the possibilty that Ms Rice is telling the truth.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:31 pm
Dys
Dys wrote: there is always the possibilty that Ms Rice is telling the truth.

Dys, I want some of whatever it is that you're smoking. :wink:

BBB
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:39 pm
there is also the possibility that Bush is winning the war on terrorism. there has not been a single incident of terrorist activity in Pueblo Colorado since Bush invaded Iraq!
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:40 pm
Or the nation of Kentucky...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:45 pm
Kentucky is not a nation it is the Commonwealth of Kentucky!!!!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:57 pm
Dys
Dys, you're getting to be an ole nit picker. :wink:

BBB
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rice answers with the TRUTH...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/14/2021 at 05:01:53