Hodurbear Registered User
Posts: 659
(4/9/04 5:57 am) Reply
Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Anyone else baffled by her testimony? I hope the Bush administration isn't as incompetent now as it sounds like they were when they first got in office.
She never briefed the President on memos titled things like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States," and memos saying that there were al-Queda sleeper cells in the US. So the question is if she just overlooked the potential importance of these documents, or if she was intentionally holding back information.
Rice also said that Clinton had not passed any intelligence to them, and didn't have any plans in place to deal with al-Queda. This was believable enough. However, then she turned around and said that the Clinton administration did give them a list of actionable choices which had not been carried out. That sounds a lot like a plan to me. It might not have been a good plan, and they might have wanted to come up with another one, but claiming that there was no plan from the previous administration really stretches credibility.
She didn't seem to have anything bad to say about Richard Clark, who has been trashed by the White House since his testimony. Based on her testimony, it sounds like his biggest failure was in his reaction to intelligence information. He sent her memos about Bin Laden and al-Queda, but failed to write "Extra Important!!!!" in red marker on the top, I guess.
She never once admitted any potential oversights. Everything was someone else's job, or someone else's fault. I hate to break it to her, but when you are the National Security Advisor, then gathering information on national security issues is your job.
I'd feel a bit better if I thought they were learning from their mistakes. However, if they are unable to admit even the potential that they made mistakes, I don't see how they can be learning anything.
From what we've been hearing, the Bush administration just wanted to wash everything Clinton did from the White House. They just didn't feel that Clinton's people did a job up to Bush's standards, so they had to get rid of anyone remotely associated with the Clinton White House. And in the process, they also got rid of all the work done by those people. I guess the lesson to be learned here is that no matter how incompetent your predecessor is, you cannot disregard everything they did.
Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States
For what it's worth, that's like saying the sky is blue. Clinton knew this as did George Senior. A "memo" saying that pretty much elicits a response of No @#%$ !
Know what? The French hold America in spite! Shall we nuke away? Pretty please?
I think saying George W's administration gave Bin LAden permission to do this is ludicrous.. That's what the Democrats are trying to paint here. They are villifying the people they are trying to get out of office. Tho "blame" anyone for this is silly, as is suing the government because a family member was on one of the planes. No one could have predict the disaster of this magnitude.
Edit: Hit post before finished.Edited by: Nocte at: 4/9/04 6:06 am
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Let me remove all the opinion from your post-
---------------------------------------------
Anyone else baffled by her testimony?
She never briefed the President on memos titled things like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States," and memos saying that there were al-Queda sleeper cells in the US. So the question is if she just overlooked the potential importance of these documents, or if she was intentionally holding back information.
Rice also said that Clinton had not passed any intelligence to them, and didn't have any plans in place to deal with al-Queda. This was believable enough. However, then she turned around and said that the Clinton administration did give them a list of actionable choices which had not been carried out.
She didn't seem to have anything bad to say about Richard Clark. Based on her testimony, it sounds like his biggest failure was in his reaction to intelligence information.
She never once admitted any potential oversights.
---------------------------------------------
Quote:so they had to get rid of anyone remotely associated with the Clinton White House.
Except for Clark right?
Quote:Everything was someone else's job, or someone else's fault.
When the chain of information breaks down, where do you think she should get her information? Do you think she does field work herself?
I'm working while writing this so if I don't make sense...um...who cares.
gnmish.gearbinder.ring.warden.sullon.zek 'Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest... Honestly.'
Agreed. If they got rid of everyone from Clinton's white house, we wouldn't be having this conversation today, would we?
I'm with Nocte. If the memo didn't include anything specific, what should they do about it? Hell, I could've guessed that OBL wanted to attack the US... even prior to 9/11.
Edited by: Ciba at: 4/9/04 8:39 am
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
See. I don't know what I think about this. On one hand, I do not blame the administration for 9/11. All the stuff that has been said like, "News flash, terrorists want to attack US," I agree with. There has to be filters in place. I appreciate Clark trying to say, "Look Bush was after Iraq from the start of things," however it doesn't really fit into the testimony, and I think it weakens his case when he tries to twist that into the 9/11 stuff. So I may hate Bush and think he is a liar but I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think he ignored anything that someone else wouldn't have.
Hodurbear Registered User
Posts: 660
(4/9/04 9:41 am) Reply
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Quote:Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States
For what it's worth, that's like saying the sky is blue. Clinton knew this as did George Senior. A "memo" saying that pretty much elicits a response of No @#%$ !
The reason that memo's title is mentioned is because other White House officials have been testifying that they had absolutely no idea that al-Queda had planned on an attack in the US itself. They obviously knew al-Queda wanted to attack American interests. The problem is that they were expecting it to be in another country.
Quote:I think saying George W's administration gave Bin LAden permission to do this is ludicrous.. That's what the Democrats are trying to paint here. They are villifying the people they are trying to get out of office. Tho "blame" anyone for this is silly...
The Democrats are definitely trying to get a political advantage here. But don't forget that Republicans are asking some of the tough questions also. Many Republicans are not particularly happy with how Bush has gone about his foreign policy.
I think trying to pin absolute blame for 9-11 is foolish. If that's all this panel is trying to do, then its a waste of time. What they need to be doing is two things:
1. learning what strategic and/or intelligence errors may have been made, so we can avoid making the same mistakes in the future; and
2. making sure that members of the Bush administration weren't making personal decisions that affected their ability to carry out their duties.
Quote:Except for Clark right?
He was one of the last guys left that had any contacts with Clinton.
I think I should clarify some also here. By "getting rid of," I'm not necessarily talking about firing people. Now, the incoming administration did, and had every right to, remove every Clinton appointee. Every incoming President does that. The big difference is that the Bush administration also wanted to rid themselves of the high level non-appointed staffers.
There are multiple anecdotes floating around of how the administration accomplished this. They asked some people to resign. Others they demoted or transferred to positions that they did not want. Some people were frozen out of the communication loops they had previously been a part of. Others were just plain ignored.
Now, before anyone thinks this is some evil conspiracy, this is pretty standard. Most incoming administrations have people they want for certain positions, and will use the above methods to open vacancies. The only unusual thing here is the sheer number of people the Bush administration wanted out. The big difference is that the work these people had done under Clinton was essentially tossed to the side, and the Bush people started over from scratch.
Quote:When the chain of information breaks down, where do you think she should get her information? Do you think she does field work herself?
She is nominally the head of all US intelligence. If there is a serious intelligence failure, then she is at least partially culpable. The FBI and CIA don't talk to each other, but they have talked to previous NSAs, yet she seemed to be somewhat out of touch, according to her testimony.
She also testified that memos about al-Queda were not marked as particularly important. She noted that the memo regarding sleeper cells in the US was "only a line or two." That indicates to me that she didn't assign those memos any particular significance.
Quote:If the memo didn't include anything specific, what should they do about it?
I don't really think there was much they could have done about it. There were some mixed warnings, which in hindsight (which is always 20/20), look pretty significant. Odds are, anyone in office would have acting in essentially the same way.
My problem is how it is now being handled. If Condoleeza were to sit at the hearing and say, "We ****ed up, but there is no problem. I'm on the mother****er. Go back to Congress, calm your constituents down and wait for us to capture Bin Laden, who should be coming directly." then I would feel a lot better about the situation. Instead, I feel like they are spending their time trying to cover their asses, and not trying to fix any holes in US intelligence.
Caowyth Registered User
Posts: 4412
(4/9/04 10:10 am) Reply
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Quote:The reason that memo's title is mentioned is because other White House officials have been testifying that they had absolutely no idea that al-Queda had planned on an attack in the US itself.
Umm, WTC bombing? They'd already done it once, it's obvious that they'd do it again given the opportunity.
I think if anyone actually said what you're saying they testified to, they meant that they had no knowledge of any *specific* planned attacks.
Quote:My problem is how it is now being handled.
Isn't that beyond the scope of the commission? They were formed to find out the causes of 9/11, what failures there were in communications and intelligence, and what could be changed to prevent future attacks.
They aren't the 'Bush Administration Policy after 9/11' commission.
Quote:
I'm on the mother****er. Go back to Congress, calm your constituents down and wait for us to capture Bin Laden, who should be coming directly.
Yalum Registered User
Posts: 2224
(4/9/04 10:32 am) Reply
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Clarke has served every president since Ford, and rose fairly high in the State Department under Reagan and the first Bush. He was hardly some lone Clintonian relic.
Most of the terrorism experts that have recently left cut their teeth during Reagan/Bush I. These are the kinds of guys who work whether its a Dem or Rep in the Oval Office.
Registered User
Posts: 2150
(4/9/04 10:46 am) Reply
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
didn't tent get appointed by clinton also ? and isn't there another one who left like 6 or 7 month ago and joined the kerry campain ?
and i think most terroiest groups wanted to hit the USA , they couldn't do one on USA land so they hit the nearest thing to them ( beirot , africa ..etc )
Registered User
Posts: 1689
(4/9/04 5:07 pm) Reply
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
ADD/Aidden summary (coincidence that aidden almost = ADD btw?~): Rice testified in front of 9/11 committee and defended bush administration, saying everyhing was someone else or something elses fault, which if chain of information breaks down, i suppose it could be. A memo from Aug/01 entitled "Bin Laden wants to strike inside the US" was released under Freedom of Information Act, but no specifics were released, leading us only to ponder. Nothing else really, she answered a lot of questions already answered or known.
Re: Condoleeza Rice's 9-11 testimony
Daily show had some fun showing how silly she sounded.
John - Well we never knew they wanted to attack within the country.
Rice - The afore mentioned memo
Rice - List of actionable items, but no plan was left to us.
John - remarking on the fact that sounds a heck of alot like a list :P
Then they had their "Senior Political Correspondent" Ed Helms in washington live :P acting like a complete bush drone, defending everything that Rice said.
I can't make it near as funny as it was. Maybe they have the clip on comcentral.com.
Thanks. Let's keep this friendly, everyone.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies