Condoleezza Testimony

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Aquarian
think it was the 'm' word, for mistake.

LOL, thank you. That would have been a delightfull political gem.

Gawd, this is so disgusting how politically "outraged" the Dems all come off in what is supposed to be about fixing the problem, not the blame.

 

[OCA]

Favor please sirs, could somebody post the link to this feed? I went to the yahoo home page and didn't find a link. I'd appreciate it and thank you in advance.

 

[Aquarian]

can't post a link directly, it's a popup. on http://news.yahoo.com just under the more top stories section, under 'live video' the link says "Rice Testifies at 9/11 Hearings"

 

[JIHADTHIS]

hey OCA,

On main page under Condi's picture:

Hit refresh, not sure if it was there a few minutes ago

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Bob Kerrey..........

 

[OCA]

Got it, thanks guys.

Now will somebody tell me how the hell this helps anything?

 

[Aquarian]

certain things jingle bells in my head, one of them is repeated phrases. Happens a lot in poorly written movie scripts (can't think of a good example offhand for movies, one playscript for 'a perfect murder' used the phrase "fingerprints are unique" 5 times...). The one that struck me from this testimony was 'historical document' from rice, and maybe 'warning' from the commissioners. Is there a better example of a repeated phrase that the commissioners used? I ask because I've missed a good bit and 'warning' is not so much of a phrase...

ps. anyone who's seen galaxy quest will understand why 'historical document' stands out for reasons other than repetition

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
funny, I feel the same way when condi skirts the questions asked.

Specifically, what questions did she skirt around?

I thought her testimony was outstanding and she was quite direct. I didn't hear one question that wasn't appropriately answered.

 

[Aquarian]

I'll have to get back to you once the transcripts are available as I'm multitasking here. The exchanges between her and ben-veniste are probably the ones I'm thinking of. Let me be clear tho, I'm not saying that she was skirting in an over-the-top way, or that she was not 'forced' into answering in the precise manner that she did due to the nature of commision hearings, but that some portions of the questions put to her went unanswered, or were answered in a fashion that appeared to me to be 'skirting'.

I have the same issues with court hearings. The lawyers want yes and no answers, the witnesses usually want to say more in order to give insight into why the answer is yes or no, usually before they actually answer. There should be a way both can happen imo. ala yes, and here's why... to rephrase for clarity: once a question is asked, it should be answered as directly and clearly as possible in short form, but then the witness should be allowed to explain the answer as well. This commision, and most I've seen, and one trial I served on the jury for, do not allow for this. A hard line to tow as it were, the balance between clarity and full explanation.

Maybe that made my point less clear... need fresh coffee...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I'll have to get back to you once the transcripts are available as I'm multitasking here. The exchanges between her and ben-veniste are probably the ones I'm thinking of. Let me be clear tho, I'm not saying that she was skirting in an over-the-top way, or that she was not 'forced' into answering in the precise manner that she did due to the nature of commision hearings, but that some portions of the questions put to her went unanswered, or were answered in a fashion that appeared to me to be 'skirting'.

Here you go. I personally don't see any skirting going on. If anything, I see a commissioner that's not allowing her to respond fully and clearly. The public demanded ALL the facts, the commission should allow her to fully answer. Expecting her to answer yes/no questions without elaborating is ridiculous.

BEN-VENISTE: Good morning, Dr. Rice.

RICE: Good morning.

BEN-VENISTE: Nice to see you again.

RICE: Nice to see you.

BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6th PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26th before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6th PDB.

Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6th PDB.

The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.

You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al-Qaida cells were in the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important ...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president ...

RICE: ... that I also address ...

(APPLAUSE)

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will ...

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president - and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al-Qaida's operations.

Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al-Qaida cells in the United States.

Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?

And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al-Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.

I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

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.

BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al-Qaida involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct?

You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al-Qaida attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.

As of the August 6th briefing, you learned that al-Qaida members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.

And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheik warning of hijackings to free the blind sheik indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6th consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not - you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations - not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al-Qaida cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

(APPLAUSE)

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB - exceptional access. But let me address your question.

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al-Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do - speculative, much of it - in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

RICE: It had a number of discussions of - it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States - Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing ...

RICE: Now, we had already taken ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: We have explored that and we will continue to with respect to the muscularity and the specifics of those efforts.

The president was in Crawford, Texas, at the time he received the PDB, you were not with him, correct?

RICE: That is correct.

BEN-VENISTE: Now, was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?

RICE: I want to repeat that when this document was presented, it was presented as, yes, there were some frightening things - and by the way, I was not at Crawford, but the president and I were in contact and I might have even been, though I can't remember, with him by video link during that time.

The president was told this is historical information. I'm told he was told this is historical information and there was nothing actionable in this. The president knew that the FBI was pursuing this issue. The president knew that the director of central intelligence was pursuing this issue. And there was no new threat information in this document to pursue.

BEN-VENISTE: Final question, because my time has almost expired.

Do you believe that, had the president taken action to issue a directive to the director of CIA to ensure that the FBI had pulsed the agency, to make sure that any information which we know now had been collected was transmitted to the director, that the president might have been able to receive information from CIA with respect to the fact that two al-Qaida operatives who took part in the 9-11 catastrophe were in the United States - Alhazmi and Almidhar; and that Moussaoui, who Dick Clarke was never even made aware of, who had jihadist connections, who the FBI had arrested, and who had been in a flight school in Minnesota trying to learn the avionics of a commercial jetliner despite the fact that he had no training previously, had no explanation for the funds in his bank account, and no explanation for why he was in the United States - would that have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, made a difference in the ability to collect this information, shake the trees, as Richard Clarke had said, and possib ly, possibly interrupt the plotters?

RICE: My view, Commissioner Ben-Veniste, as I said to Chairman Kean, is that, first of all, the director of central intelligence and the director of the FBI, given the level of threat, were doing what they thought they could do to deal with the threat that we faced.

There was no threat reporting of any substance about an attack coming in the United States.

RICE: And the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA, had they received information, I am quite certain - given that the director of the CIA met frequently face to face with the president of the United States - that he would have made that available to the president or to me.

I do not believe that it is a good analysis to go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by, quote, shaking the trees. Dick Clarke was shaking the trees, director of central intelligence was shaking the trees, director of the FBI was shaking the trees. We had a structural problem in the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of the FBI?

RICE: We had a structural problem in the United States, and that structural problem was that we did not share domestic and foreign intelligence in a way to make a product for policymakers, for good reasons - for legal reasons, for cultural reasons - a product that people could depend upon.

BEN-VENISTE: Did the president meet with the director of ...

KEAN: Commissioner, we got to move on ...

BEN-VENISTE: ... the FBI between August 6th and September 11th?

KEAN: ... to Commissioner Fielding.

RICE: I will have to get back to you on that. I am not certain.

KEAN: Commissioner Fielding?

 

[jimnyc]

If there was any 'injustice' going on today, it was on the commission. I want to hear questions answered as thoroughly as possible.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world.

Why is this still tolerated from the administration? why isn't anyone calling them to task about being honest about this blatant lie?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Why is this still tolerated from the administration? why isn't anyone calling them to task about being honest about this blatant lie?

How is this a lie?

 

[DKSuddeth]

its a lie because thats ALL that they use to describe them.

Did terrorism against the US start just because americans are free?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
its a lie because thats ALL that they use to describe them.

Did terrorism against the US start just because americans are free?

Of course not. It's a holy war, but everybody is too politically correct to admit it. They hate us because we're not islamic.

 

[jimnyc]

But they weren't using that as a basis to describe exactly why 9/11 happened.

Furthermore, just because they didn't give MORE info at the time, that doesn't make what WAS said a lie.

Did terrorism against the US start just because americans are free?

"Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world"

I don't think anyone is saying that they attacked 'because americans are free'. They labeled the terrorists as "freedom hating". In other words, trying to free other nations from the stronghold of oppression and bring democracy into the fold.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Of course not. It's a holy war, but everybody is too politically correct to admit it. They hate us because we're not islamic.

Its NOT a holy war, except for the bastards using their religion to manipulate the populace for their terrorist activities.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Terrorism started on Americans because we had troops in their "holy land," (to protect Kuwait from Iraq) we support Israel (the only democracy in the region which is attacked by terrorists weekly) and we are a free people, living in a capitalist, freedom of religion nation, and that pisses off the likes of people like Ayman al-Zawahiri.

That's why we were attacked.

And ya know what... we're not changing.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
But they weren't using that as a basis to describe exactly why 9/11 happened.

Furthermore, just because they didn't give MORE info at the time, that doesn't make what WAS said a lie.



"Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world"

I don't think anyone is saying that they attacked 'because americans are free'. They labeled the terrorists as "freedom hating". In other words, trying to free other nations from the stronghold of oppression and bring democracy into the fold.

We've seen what happens when partial statements or descriptions are given as reasons to half of the ignorant states of america, right?

 

[DKSuddeth]

It's perpetuating the myth that terrorists attacked us because 'they hate our freedoms', a statement that came out of our presidents mouth days after 9/11.