Part 2 of New National Security Advisor?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Palestinian Jew, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    In my previous post I asked whether you thought Condi was incompetent or a liar, well, I think its safe to say its the former.

    Condi made the claimed "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. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking. You take a plane -- people were worried they might blow one up, but they were mostly worried that they might try to take a plane and use it for release of the blind Sheikh or some of their own people"

    And yet here are CIA reports saying the opposite:
    http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/CIAKnew.htm
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain509471.shtml
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer\

    And Clarke has also said that he and others had asked questions about planes being used to fly into buildings and crowded areas.

    But now the washington post reveals a new Condi gem. In a speech she was to deliver the day of 9/11:

    The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

    The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

    The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

    "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway," according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post. "[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42287-2004Apr1.html
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I can sort of understand that nobody thought al-Queda was an urgent threat, but to say that missle defense is the most urgent threat is ridiculous.
     
  3. st8_o_mind
    Online

    st8_o_mind Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Just a question. I also read accounts that Condi spent part of 9/11 in a bunker. Also, that she turned the situation room over to Clark. That has been confirmed by numerous sources.

    I'm just wondering if she left the situation room because she was following some procedure that directed her to go to such and such a place in the event of an attack, or if she chose to turn the situation room over to Clark and ran for safety.

    I wonder because it seems likely that she would follow a pre-determined emergency plan but at the same time it seems logical that the national security advisor would be in charge of the situation room during a crisis, not out of the loop in some bunker.

    Anyone hear anything on this?
     
  4. gaffer
    Offline

    gaffer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +44
    Did you or anyone posting here ever hear of al qada before 911?

    The administration would have had info on them but no one, including clarke had any inkling that they would do what they did.

    Its the usual monday morning quarterbacking.

    Who did you think was responsible when you saw or heard about the attack? What was the first country or group to come to mind?

    Did Afganistan leap instantly to the forefront of your thoughts?

    The simple fact is, like Pearl Harbor, it wasn't expected. There were signs and indications but nothing concrete. Like a 1000 piece puzzle where you only have 30 pieces.

    All this finger pointing and blaming is a waste of time and takes people away from doing their jobs in the war. Dr. Rice will spend the week putting together her presentation to the commitee. Then spend half a day talking to them and answering politically motivated questions when she should be concentrating on war issues.
     

Share This Page