1
   

Dr. Rice testifies

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 04:58 pm
Don't have to read the transcript--I listened to every word of the testimony and what the Dems had to say about it afterward, all pretty much what the Dems in here are parroting now.

I was intentionally comparing her testimony with Clarke's--I had no preconceived notions about what he was going to say. Of the two, even if I didn't know the background, Condi is the most credible. The documentation should bear this out.

I do not believe she filibustered at all. She is a strong woman and wasn't going to let them bully her which they definitely tried to do.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 04:58 pm
Rice Shifts Blame for Intelligence Lapses to CIA & FBI
Apr 8, 2004
Rice Seeks to Shift Blame for Intelligence Lapses to CIA and FBI
An AP News Analysis By Tom Raum
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Condoleezza Rice offered little new information about the days leading up to Sept. 11, and instead determinedly shifted blame from the White House to a two-decade failure in the way U.S. intelligence fought terrorism.

From her opening statement to the occasional clashes with members during three hours of testimony Thursday, President Bush's national security adviser stuck closely to her message that blame for America's worst terror attack rested with administrations dating to Ronald Reagan.

The FBI and CIA failed to talk to share intelligence. Administrations had an "allergy" to doing the type of domestic intelligence gathering needed to thwart attacks on U.S. soil. Military solutions weren't aggressively considered.

"The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them," Rice told the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

That was precisely the message the White House wanted as Bush heads into a tight election campaign in which he is touting his role as commander of the war on terror.

No matter how commission members pressed questions suggesting Bush had enough warning signs to see Sept. 11 coming, Rice did not yield and did not fluster. Her performance earned praise from the panel's Democratic vice chairman, Lee Hamilton.

"I don't think we asked her any questions that threw her at all. She was very articulate," Hamilton said. "I especially appreciated the tone of her statement. She was not in any way vindictive. She was constructive."

Following a little over a week after her former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke portrayed the Bush administration as slow to reacting to the terrorist threat, Rice did not personally attack him.

Instead, she often drew different conclusions about the same sets of facts. Most frequently, she pointed to problems inside the FBI and CIA.

"What we do know is that we did have a systemic problem, a structural problem between the FBI and the CIA," the president's national security adviser told the commission investigating the 2001 terror attacks.

"This country, for reasons of history and culture and therefore law, had an allergy to the notion of domestic intelligence, and we were organized on that basis," she said. "It just made it very hard to have all of the pieces come together."

In her three hours on the hot seat, Rice offered little new information on actions taken - and not taken - by the Bush administration in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks in New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people.

But it is unlikely that her appearance will cause additional political damage to the White House.

"She has survived, which was her main goal. She's done more than that," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "The average American in looking at this will have a favorable impression of her that's going to override whatever contradictions may remain."

Rice's initial refusal to testify drew heavy criticism from Democrats and many Republicans.

Rice disputed Clarke's claim that Bush pressed him to find a link to Iraq on the day after the terror attacks.

She said she did not recall such a discussion between Bush and Clarke, but "I'm quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts."

"It is not surprising that the president would say 'What about Iraq?'" she added.

Her testimony did nothing to challenge information developed by the panel that the administration "was a little lax" in dealing with terrorism threats before Sept. 11, said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar with the Brookings Institution.

"Let's face it, it was not their finest hour," he said. But he added that there is also no evidence that anything proposed by Clarke or the Clinton administration would have prevented the attacks.
------------------------------------------

EDITOR'S NOTE - Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3BKDDTSD.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:01 pm
From TNR:

Quote:
WHAT IS CONDOLEEZZA RICE TALKING ABOUT, CONT'D?:

This is probably not the most novel point, but watching Condoleezza Rice testify before the 9/11 Commission this morning I was amazed at how much of her defense of the administration hinged on such a literal interpretation of responsibility.

Rice argues that the White House would have "moved heaven and earth" to prevent the 9/11 attacks had someone, somewhere just told them exactly when and where the attacks were going to take place. Because no one did, the administration cannot be considered negligent.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that the administration could have prevented the attacks. But there's obviously a lot of territory between acting on highly specific intelligence that happens to fall in your lap and doing everything in your power to defend the country against a horrific terrorist attack. Just being willing to do the former doesn't necessarily imply that you're doing the latter.

This line of defense was obviously developed to defend the administration against the specific charge, leveled by Dick Clarke and others, that the White House didn't respond appropriately to the spike in "chatter" in July of 2001 hinting at an attack. Rice, in her opening statement, explained that:

Quote:
The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer:

- "Unbelievable news in coming weeks"
- "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar"
- "There will be attacks in the near future"

Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.

I'm no intelligence expert, but if I were picking up a series of transmissions indicating a "very, very, very, very" big attack, the fact that these transmissions didn't tell me when and where the attack was going to happen would not make me sleep better at night. It would make me want to do everything I could to figure out where and when the attacks were going to occur. This seems to me one of the pillars of Clarke's critique of the administration--and, judging from the questioning, that of commissioners like former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer--and I have a hard time seeing how Rice's testimony rebutted it.

(This was not, incidentally, a single, isolated comment culled from the testimony. Rice repeatedly suggested that the administration would have done more had it had specific information--the implication being the it could not have done more since it didn't have that information. Rice even went so far as to say she "wasn't asked" by Clarke's counterterrorism group or the FBI to take additional action in response to the rise in chatter. Lady, you're the national security adviser! Is it really much of a defense to say you never got any specific instructions from the people below you on the organizational depth chart? At the very least, why not press them to see what kind of instructions they might offer if they were going to offer instructions?)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:09 pm
Condi in 2008.

Finally, a no-nonsense, tough on the issues, brilliant, groomed for the job woman.

I was so proud of her testimony.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:12 pm
I was too Sofia. But some resent a strong, articulate powerful woman unless she's on their side of course Smile

Another AP report:

Rice backs Bush
By Hope Yen
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Under contentious questioning, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified today "there was no silver bullet that could have prevented" the deadly terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and disputed suggestions that President Bush failed to focus on the threat of strikes in advance.

Bush "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she told a national commission investigating the worst terror attacks in the nation's history.

In nearly three hours in the witness chair, Rice stoutly defended Bush when Democrats on the commission raised questions about the administration's attentiveness to terrorism, and implicitly and explicitly rebutted a series of charges made two weeks ago by former terrorism aide Richard Clarke.

In widely anticipated testimony, Rice offered no apology for the failure to prevent the attacks - as Clarke did two weeks ago. Instead, she said, "as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt."

Rice said the president came into office determined to develop a "more robust" policy to combat al-Qaida. "He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was `tired of swatting flies,' " she told the commission delving into the attacks that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the twin World Trade Center towers in New York and blasted a hole in the Pentagon.

But she also said, "Tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11, this country simply was not on a war footing."

She said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4, 2001. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida."

Her comment about swatting flies drew a sharp response from former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted the administration made no military response to an attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

"Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once . . . How the hell could he (Bush) be tired?" Kerrey asked.

"I think it's only a figure of speech," she replied, adding that Bush felt that the CIA was "going after individual terrorists."

She later said a further, similar attack may have emboldened the perpetrators, and American interests were better served by a broader response designed to undermine al-Qaida.

Rice also clashed with Richard Ben Veniste and former Democratic Rep. Tim Roemer when they pressed her to say how much the president had been informed of the threat of terror activity.

She said a classified briefing paper prepared for the president on Aug. 6, 2001, was a "historical" document despite its title: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." She said it contained no "actionable" intelligence, meaning it lacked information that would have alerted agencies to the imminent threat.

Thomas Kean, the commission Republican chairman, said at hearing's end that he would ask the White House to declassify the document.

Rice was emphatic on one point - that the threat of terrorism had been building for years, and the administration was only in office 233 days before al-Qaida struck.

"The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them," she said.

"For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Rice acknowledged.

"In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9-11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies," she said.

Rice's testimony, under oath and on live national television, came after weeks of White House resistance. Bush yielded in response to repeated public requests from members of the commission - as well as quiet proddings of Republicans in Congress - that an on-the-record rebuttal was needed in response to Clarke's explosive charges.

The former White House aide testified last month that the Bush administration gave a lower priority to combating terrorism than had former President Clinton, and that the decision to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror. In addition to raising questions about administration attention to the threat of terrorism, his remarks implicitly challenged a key underpinning of Bush's campaign for re-election.

Rice's appearance was businesslike for the most part, first turning contentious when Ben-Veniste pressed her on what was known about the terrorist threat in advance of the Sept. 11 attacks. They interrupted one another repeatedly, the interrogator and the witness.

"I would like to finish my point," she said when he began speaking while she was.

"I didn't know there was a point," he replied.

Under questioning, Rice acknowledged that she had spoken too broadly once when she said that no one had ever envisioned terrorists using planes and crashing them into buildings. She said that aides came to her within days and said there had been reports or memos about that possibility, but that she hadn't seen them.

Pointing a finger of blame, she said that senior officials "have to depend on intelligence agencies to tell you what is relevant."

She also directly challenged one of the claims made by Clarke, who said earlier that the administration had moved slowly on some of the recommendations he and others made before the attacks.

"I'm now convinced that while nothing in this strategy would have done anything about 9-11, if we had in fact moved on the things that were in the original memos that we got from our counterterrorism people, we might have even gone off course," she said.

Asked to rebut Clarke's claim that Bush pressed him to find an Iraq connection to the suicide hijackings, Rice said she did not recall such a discussion but that "I'm quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts."

She added, "It is not surprising that the president would say `What about Iraq?' " But she said that when Bush's top advisers met after Sept. 11, none recommended action against Iraq before taking military action against Afghanistan.

In her prepared testimony, Rice neither criticized Clarke nor offered a point by point rebuttal of his appearance.

She said she made the unusual decision to retain him when the new administration came into office, saying, he was an "expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager."
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:17 pm
Re: Dr. Rice testifies
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
The most interesting tactic I saw during her testimony was Rice's skillful filibustering of the time allotted to questioners. When asked a question she wanted to evade, she just kept her motor mouth running, ignoring the questioner's insistence that she answer the specific question and prattling on. It was a successful tactic in squandering Democrat commissioner questioner's time and limiting them to far fewer questions than they wanted to ask. I was amazed and disappointed that the panel let her get away with it.

I didn't get that impression from what I heard. It sounded to me like she was trying to give them full and complete answers to what they asked. And sometimes the questions they asked, if she had answered with one or two words, might have sounded bad. When she explained it fully, it made a trick question into just a question.

nimh wrote:
But the best part must, I'm sure, have been this gem:

Quote:
Condoleezza Rice: "I believe the title [of the August 6 PDB] was "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". [..] It did not warn against attacks inside the United States."


Kinda like, I voted for it, before I voted against it ...

It's more like the difference between:

"I overheard Joe telling Bob that he would like to kick your ass some day."

...and...

"Bob saw Joe with a baseball bat and brass knuckles, saying he's on the way to your house to kick your ass, and he should be there in 5 minutes."

In the first case you might think "Oh that Joe, what a funny guy," because you knew all along that Joe didn't like you. In the second case you would lock your doors and prepare to defend yourself, since you had received a specific threat warning.

Quote:
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 06:24 pm
Re: Dr. Rice testifies
If a report emphasized to me that my enemy "is determined" to stage an attack against me inside my own country, I would very much take it to be "warning" me against an attack inside my own country. Obviously.

It may be a general warning, rather than a time/location/means-specific one. But to claim that a report headlined enemy determined to attack you in your country "did not warn" you against an attack in your own country ... seems like playing semantics of the most trifle kind.

Sure, it was a general warning. No specified time, location and means of attack - which basically takes us to the argument the TNR log makes. Rice basically seems to make the case that, since there was no specific signal of Al Qaeda taking flight #X to NY on 9/11, the administration thus cant possibly be blamed for not acting on the threat. After all, how were they to know? The blog entry makes sense to me when it points out that

Quote:
if I were picking up a series of transmissions indicating a "very, very, very, very" big attack, the fact that these transmissions didn't tell me when and where the attack was going to happen would not make me sleep better at night. It would make me want to do everything I could to figure out where and when the attacks were going to occur.

And thats where Clarke's criticisms come in ... that the admin didn't do all of "everything" it could have done. The rebuttal that there hadnt been a specific warning on the specific kind of attack on the specific day it took place in the specific city ... etc - doesn't really address that criticism at all. The rebuttal that Clarke's counterterrorism group hadn't explicitly "asked" Rice to take action when it reported the alarming intelligence chatter, so thats why she didnt, in fact actually confirms it.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 06:42 pm
nimh,
Have you heard the endless jokes and complaints about the US color-coded warning system... What is the threat? Where is the threat supposed to be? What does Homeland Security expect me to do?

People, mostly liberals, laugh at this warning system, but when it is politically expedient, suddenly place grave importance on the SAME kind of chatter, which is graded on the color-coded system. This is the SAME non-specific level of threats liberals and anti-Bushies are now blaming Bush for not taking some dramatic action toward.

When there are thousands of non-specific threat comments, as Rice cited, exactly what do you think should have been done? She directed Clarke to inform the CIA/FBI/et al of the communiques. If he had felt it was a job for Rice and the NSC, he should have said so. In the absence of that request, it was understood the FBI/CIA/etal were handling the situation. They had been handling it, and no one had informed Rice they were incompetant to do the job. Assessing their capability and efficiency was part of Clarke's job.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 07:12 pm
Sofia wrote:
People, mostly liberals, laugh at this warning system, but when it is politically expedient, suddenly place grave importance on the SAME kind of chatter, which is graded on the color-coded system. This is the SAME non-specific level of threats liberals and anti-Bushies are now blaming Bush for not taking some dramatic action toward.


I understand that the same PDB (or a different one, please dont pin me down on this one) also mentioned specifically the risk of planes being hijacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists. So it wasn't all as non-specific as the color-coded stuff the average US citizen faces.

You're right: intell reports of course include an enormous variety of possible risks, and you can't possibly tell in advance which one is actually going to become the big bang. But you can telll which ones might be.

When the specific allegations refer to the administration not having done enough (or been willing to do enough) about the Al-Qaeda risk illustrated in these intell reports, in general (whether or not because it was all focused on Iraq instead), the rebuttal that it couldnt have known about the exact course of events as it unfolded on 9/11 in particular is a bit of a non-answer. In that sense a lot of Clarke's allegations are left uncontested this way.

Sofia wrote:
When there are thousands of non-specific threat comments, as Rice cited, exactly what do you think should have been done? She directed Clarke to inform the CIA/FBI/et al of the communiques. If he had felt it was a job for Rice and the NSC, he should have said so.


Clarke already admitted, before the commission and the families of the 9/11 victims, that he failed.

But Rice was the National Security Adviser. Its her job to distill what the most acute threats are from the various intell reports she gets, from people like Clarke, on her own initiative as well. Thats why its an important job - if it would be simply about following every advice from the top bureaucrat and not undertaking anything except for what the top bureaucrat advised, everybody could do the job.

The top bureaucrat in question, Clarke, has already apologised for failing. What about the National Security Adviser?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 07:16 pm
Some of you people are gonna have to hose yourselves off, what with all the time you spend at FR.

And the worse thing is, you're just not getting the straight dope::

Quote:


You do realize Howard Fineman was on your side until today, don't you?

And then there's this:

Quote:


I think you need to keep telling yourselves that today was a good day for Bush.

Keep repeating that. Cool

(BTW, be sure and completely disregard nimh's post. He's just all over it.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 07:19 pm
"Clarke, has already apologised for failing. What about the National Security Adviser?"

A propos of which ...

Quote:
Does Rice really know her role?
How national security adviser's testimony hurt Bush
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 07:21 pm
OMG PDiddie, thats too funny ...

we just posted the same thing, within three minutes ... ;-)
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 07:44 pm
So, Fineman was on Air America today on the O'Franken Factor.

And even Franken could not believe what he was hearing the guy say.

If you just came in here and read what these people on the right post, you would be completely deluded.

As they are.

I really shouldn't, but I'm going to point out their mistake:

This is about what the NSA did and what she told the POTUS.

This is about the security of the nation, not someone's political fate.

And they failed. And they know it. And they're trying like hell to cover it up.

Ain't gonna wash with Joe Sixpack.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:15 pm
Reality
Condi Gets A Reality Check

By David J. Sirota and Christy Harvey and Judd Legum, Center for American Progress
April 8, 2004

Opening Statement


CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."


FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]


CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaeda network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - to meet this goal."


FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]


CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."


FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]


CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaeda."


FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]


CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."


FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]


CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."


FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously - and inaccurately - denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]


CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."


FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]


CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."


FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Q&A Testimony


Planes as Weapons


CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]


FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]


CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]


FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]


August 6 PDB


CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6. [responding to Ben Veniste]


FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]


Domestic Threat


CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]


FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]


CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]


FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event - there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]


Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force


CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]


FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]


Principals Meetings


CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]


FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]


Previous Administration


CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]


FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]


FBI


CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]


FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]


CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]


FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]


Homeland Security


CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]


FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.


CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies - the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA - so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]


FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11


CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."


FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]


CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"


FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]


War on Terror


CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."


FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]

* The Right Wings says: "Don't believe what you clearly see, just believe what we tell you."
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:19 pm
Has the PDB of 8/6/01 been released to Fineman?

Certainly, if the only communique recieved about terrorism was a direct threat of AQ to plow planes into buildings, we would have no excuse.

Maybe if we had 100 different threats, and one was the planes as bombs, we wouldn't have much of an excuse not to take some action.

But, if the threat is a needle in a stack of thousands of needles, reasonable people as less likely to blame their President than they are to blame the bombers....and perhaps the administration which had seven years longer to do something about the threat.

I am interested to see the particular PDB. But, I am pleased to see that Bush was not amenable to following Clinton's tit for tat defense--and early on told Condi his administration was going after AQ to stop them.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:23 pm
Richard Clarke told ABC News at the conclusion of Dr. Rice's testimony that he thought that what she said essentially confirmed what he had said to the commission.

I personally don't think that she did a spectacular job. The seams were too apparent, the political framework of her answers and positions too overriding and all encompassing, the insertion of comments about Homeland Security and the Patriot Act when the question was about other things, her trying to talk over and through the commissioners' voice was very rude, her obvious attempt to hog the clock and use up time.

But she did what she wanted to do and on that score, her appearance was successful.

We just didn't get anything new or meaningful - anything that would further the work of the commission. Just like the testimony of Armitage, which was a joke and embarrassing to the country.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:27 pm
Sofia wrote:
reasonable people as less likely to blame their President than they are to blame the bombers


You better keep prayin' for that to happen.

(They blew it. I know it and you know it.)

Quote:
....and perhaps the administration which had seven years longer to do something about the threat.


Honey, Bill Clinton's not running for re-election this year.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:27 pm
Read them for content.

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaeda network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - to meet this goal."
(She didn't say we were going to war with them right off the bat. She said their elimination was the goal. You start with diplomatic procedures, andadvance as far as need be.)

FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
(There didn't have to be a military plan on the table for the goal of elimination to be established. They had begun to squeeze the financial resources of AQ, and had started a dialogue with Musharraf, which predicated manipulation of AQ's safety zone in Afghanistan.) (After 911, there was ample reason to move beyond preliminary measures, and get the guns out. How many libs would have backed war on Afghanistan pre-911???)

A lot of this list is just intentional twisting of words...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:29 pm
"I'll have to get back to you on that."

Yep, that's pretty knotted...
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 08:29 pm
Stupidity
Of course the 911 attackers are to blame!!!

The other issue is what did Buscho do or not do to thwart attacks on the USA?

In my view Buscho did very little to thwart attacks and botched in their jobs on the day of the attack.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dr. Rice testifies
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/11/2024 at 09:39:02