Condi Beats 9/11 Commission

[rtwngAvngr]

Condi is kicking ass against the jackals on the 9/11 commission. Her cogent answers reveal them as the partisan nincompoops they are and the commission as the witchhunt it is.

 

[remie]

Any of the comission that wants to take her on is in big trouble. She is far brighter than the comission as a whole, let alone any one of them. Mr. Benvenista (sp?) attempted to rattle her but she was having none of that. She made him look like an idiot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

She's kicking major ass, still.

 

[acludem]

I didn't have a chance to listen to her testimony except for the very last question. Then I decided to watch a few minutes from CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. CNN and MSNBC were similar. They reported that Rice defended Bush, was well-prepared, but that some questions still remain. They were complimentary of Rice but both stated that there would simply be two competing theories as to whether or not this administration did enough with the warnings it had. Fox News, however, reported that Rice basically debunked every argument that Democrats made, accused one of the commission members of trying to discredit her at every opportunity. These are the words of Brit Hume's so called "report". Liberal media? I think not. MSNBC and CNN attempted to be unbiased while Fox immediately began to spin this favorably for Rice and Bush.

acludem

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by acludem
Fox News, however, reported that Rice basically debunked every argument that Democrats made, accused one of the commission members of trying to discredit her at every opportunity. These are the words of Brit Hume's so called "report". Liberal media? I think not. MSNBC and CNN attempted to be unbiased while Fox immediately began to spin this favorably for Rice and Bush.

acludem

I think every post you make causes nausia in me.

wow.

 

[acludem]

Any time I can make a Conservative uncomfortable j/k

acludem

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by acludem
Any time I can make a Conservative uncomfortable j/k

acludem

It's not about Conservative vs. Dumbass - er...I mean Liberal...your entire thought process (assuming you use one) baffles the laws of common sense and Truth.

To think there are people out there who see and think things as distorted as you portray them amazes me.

I'm sure you're a 'good' person...but your political/social ideals are as wrong as two boys fuckin.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
I didn't have a chance to listen to her testimony except for the very last question. Then I decided to watch a few minutes from CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. CNN and MSNBC were similar. They reported that Rice defended Bush, was well-prepared, but that some questions still remain. They were complimentary of Rice but both stated that there would simply be two competing theories as to whether or not this administration did enough with the warnings it had. Fox News, however, reported that Rice basically debunked every argument that Democrats made, accused one of the commission members of trying to discredit her at every opportunity. These are the words of Brit Hume's so called "report". Liberal media? I think not. MSNBC and CNN attempted to be unbiased while Fox immediately began to spin this favorably for Rice and Bush.

acludem

The reason Fox News claims she debunked everything they threw at her is because...[drum roll]... ..............she did. That girl was on fire, I tell you. I wouldn't want to be any of those 9-11 commission guys. She answered every question, and refused to let the inquisitors get away with making her give an incomplete answer and then take it out of context. She also frustrated Ben-Veniste over and over again as she answered all of his questions instead of letting him listen to himself talk more. The only questions left, as the other news outlets put it, are those that weren't asked. She did so well that saying there were 'questions left unanswered' was as much as they could spin it without looking like TOTAL idiots.

 

[Psychoblues]

I dunno. Here's a few things you might want to think about or research on your own.

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

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida 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-Qaida."

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-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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]

Rather than be so blindly partisan, it would be of great benefit to all involved to obtain a comprehensive overview of actual circumstanses, occurances and actions taken or not as a result. Dig it?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
It's not about Conservative vs. Dumbass - er...I mean Liberal...your entire thought process (assuming you use one) baffles the laws of common sense and Truth.

To think there are people out there who see and think things as distorted as you portray them amazes me.

I'm sure you're a 'good' person...but your political/social ideals are as wrong as two boys fuckin.

Agreed.

and:
:rotflmao:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida 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-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

The proposals by Clarke were direct proposals in meetings with the current administration.

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]

All you just did was solidify what she stated. Did you even listen to the testimony? The briefing spoke of hijackings to get prisoners released, not to use planes as missiles.

Rather than be so blindly partisan, it would be of great benefit to all involved to obtain a comprehensive overview of actual circumstanses, occurances and actions taken or not as a result. Dig it?

I dig that fact that she made the commissioners look like a bunch of fools today. It was obviously a witch hunt, and they came away empty handed.

 

[Psychoblues]

Here is a Clarke rebuttal with Peter Jennings of ABC news. As is almost always the case, the discussion causes more questions than were asked. That's the value of rebuttal.

Would adopting STRATEGY in JAN instead of Feb stop 9/11?

Clarke: No but it MIGHT have effected events.

Rice & Prez needed to act PERSONALLY to shake trees WHEN the threats were occuring in June-July-August.

Prez had 40 meetings with CIA director warning attacks were imminent.

Neither Rice nor Prez convened Cabinet Meeting.

This is different than Sept 99 when Clinton DID prevent attacks.

Rice corroborated that Prez thought it INEFFICIENT to bring Cabinet together and work to stop attacks.

Rice claims structural deficiency in CIA/FBI.

Clarke says to OVERCOME these deficiencies there could have had daily meetings White House meetings
under CRISIS MODE where info buried at CIA/FBI could have been brought out.

Rice ADMITS she didn't have these daily Crisis Mode Meetings.

Clarke's Memo was supposedly in "Historical Nature" according to Rice and she sez Clarke didn't try hard
enought to meet Prez.

Clarke: His documents and attachments from Jan 25 should be declassified. Sez URGENTLY needed to have
meeting with full Cabinet to approve strategy.

Clarke presented a strategy but BUSH NEEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS

Sept 4th strategy that WAS adopted same as earlier. BUSH WASTED TIME.

Clarke DID ask for meetings after Transition but was told he couldn't meet with bush til after POLICY
DEVELOPEMENT PROCESS was completed

Clarke had Cyber-Terrorism meeting with Prez but was told NOT to talk about Al Qaeda that he would
EVENTUALLY get to talk with Prez about it in the future possibly sometime in September.

I think Condi did an excellent job of verifying Clarke's rendition of facts and failures, don't you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Liberals always have more questions, even when things are explained to them. They have comprehension trouble.


So whose fault is 9/11's , the system's, yeah, george bush could have fixed it in a few months, but clinton had eight years. Life is not a game of musical chairs. George Bush was standing when the music stopped, but only the dems are playing that silly, childish game.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Liberals always have more questions, even when things are explained to them. They have comprehension trouble.


So whose fault is 9/11's , the system's, yeah, george bush could have fixed it in a few months, but clinton had eight years. Life is not a game of musical chairs. George Bush was standing when the music stopped, but only the dems are playing that silly, childish game.

Good analogy.

You just need to find a Democrat who can understand it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Good analogy.

You just need to find a Democrat who can understand it.

Yes. Terrific irony, isn't it?

 

[Psychoblues]

Choices are just that, jimnyc, choices. Condi made choices, GWB made choices, Clarke made choices, choices were made and acted upon from the very top but at some point some accountability must be assessed and assigned. I make the choice to come here to the USMB and post my ideolgy and obtain critisism whether it be fair or not. I find some of the critisism credible and some of it not worthy of recognition or comment. The most untrustworthy of that critisism comes from those that tend to assasinate the messenger rather than the message or the questioner rather than the question. But, that's a choice as well. Just not a very smart one, IMHO.

I think I'll have another toke, er, drink. I forgot, I gave up toking about 40 years ago.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. Terrific irony, isn't it?

I don't want to derail, but I have always understood it to be that the conservatives generally THINK about things while the democrats get EMOTIONAL. One group has capacity for letting logic guide their decisions, the other would rather feel good about the decisions rather than be right.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I don't want to derail, but I have always understood it to be that the conservatives generally THINK about things while the democrats get EMOTIONAL. One group has capacity for letting logic guide their decisions, the other would rather feel good about the decisions rather than be right.

Yes. That's accurate. Bashing libs is never a derailment. It's actually the overarching meaning .

 

[Psychoblues]

I'm glad you made that clear, rtwngAvngr. Now, can we have an intelligent discussion?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
I'm glad you made that clear, rtwngAvngr. Now, can we have an intelligent discussion?

I don't know, all you want to do is convince us that musical chairs is a valuable way to judge our leadership. That's nonsense.