TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Condi Rice heads for the Hill
Condi Rice heads for the Hill
A New Window on the War Room
Condi Rice heads for the Hill as the battle over blame for 9/11 is joined
By Michael Isikoff
NewsweekApril 12 issue - The grainy photograph rolled off the fax machine at the White House counsel's office last Monday morning, along with a scribbled note that smacked of blackmail. If the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the 9/11 commission, it read, "This will be all over Washington in 24 hours." The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF TESTIFIES read the headline over the snapshot of Leahy's very public testimony. The point was clear: the White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent.
The fax was the work of Philip Zelikow, the commission's executive director, a University of Virginia historian who had been poring over records of the Pearl Harbor inquiries for months. Those probes, Zelikow believes, are the clearest blueprint for the 9/11 panel's work. "This is what happens when you hire historians," joked commission chairman Thomas Kean.
White House aide says it is "fatuous" to say the Leahy photo forced the White House to capitulate. But after battling with the panel for nearly a year over documents and testimony, the White House finally relented and said Rice would testify publicly under oath. As part of the deal, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, who until last week insisted they would testify only before the panel's leaders, also agreed to appear. Now they will give unsworn testimony, together, before the full panel. Bush realized the controversy was a costly distraction that needed to end, and fast. GOP leaders on Capitol Hill and the president's political aides, says one commissioner, "just wanted this to go away."
That isn't likely to happen. While the commission wrestles with Bush lawyers over the release of some 9,000 pages of Clinton-era documents, Rice is set to testify Thursday. She'll try to defend herself against Richard Clarke's claims that she didn't put a high priority on terrorism. Next week, the panel is slated to hear from Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Janet Reno, and two former FBI directors, Louis Freeh and his interim successor, Thomas Pickard. People close to the commission are expecting a bitter confrontation between Pickard and Ashcroft. Pickard is expected to scorch Ashcroft for showing little interest in terrorism before 9/11, NEWSWEEK has learned. The A.G. denied proposed funding increases for FBI counterterrorism programs. Ashcroft is expected to say that Pickard could have shifted resources if he thought it was so important. Commissioners will ask both of them why bin Laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks.
The FBI lapses have led some commissioners to consider recommending an overhaul of U.S. intelligence in their final report, due July 26. That could include a proposal to break up the FBI and create a new domestic spy agency, similar to Britain's MI5, to hunt terrorists inside the country. "This is perhaps our most difficult choice," Kean told NEWSWEEK. FBI Director Robert Mueller is fighting the idea. A possible compromise: a semi-independent antiterrorist unit inside the FBI. But any such proposals are for the future. For now, the commission is still busy hashing out what went wrong in the past.
With Daniel Klaidman and Tamara Lipper
� 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4660588/
That has GOT to hurt.
The first point of this article, equating the national security advisor to the chairman of the joint chiefs, is absurd. Naturaly, the haters are going to jump all over this in some sort of knee-jerk reason to bash. They won't even attempt to look deeper.
ADM. Leahy was the equivalent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff before we had a Joint Chief (we were at war) He was an active duty full blown admiral.
The issue of precedence is completely valid regardless of the feeble attempt of grenade throwing this article is trying to do.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo The first point of this article, equating the national security advisor to the chairman of the joint chiefs, is absurd. |
On the eve of Rice's testimony, I thought this list of questions the panel should ask her would be appropriate:
1. On September 11, 2001, you were slated to deliver a speech describing national missile defense as the cornerstone of American foreign policy. No mention of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or fundamentalist Islamic terrorism appeared in the text of the speech, which you never delivered because of the attacks in New York and Washington. The White House is refusing now to release the text of that speech to the 9/11 Commission. Why?
2. That speech appears to verify claims made by former Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke that terrorism was not on the Bush administration's list of priorities before the 9/11 attacks. Why was the Bush administration so interested in national missile defense during the 'Summer of Threat' in 2001, when alarm bells about an impending attack were sounding everywhere?
3. The Hart-Rudman Report, prepared during the Clinton administration and delivered to the new Bush administration, carried many prescient warnings about the threat of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorism. That report was completely disregarded by the Bush administration. Why?
4. You and others within the administration have claimed that al Qaeda terrorism was an "urgent" priority within the White House. If so, how do you justify the demotion of Richard Clarke, who was the ranking expert in the White House on that specific threat?
5. You and others within the administration have claimed that al Qaeda terrorism was an "urgent" priority within the White House. On May 8, 2001, the White House announced that Vice President Dick Cheney would chair a task force to investigate the possibility of a terrorist attack on American soil. If terrorism was an "urgent" priority for the Bush administration, why did this Cheney terrorism task force not convene a single time for a meeting after it was created?
6. You and others within the administration have claimed that al Qaeda terrorism was an "urgent" priority within the White House. Outgoing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger warned you that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda would be the most important issue your administration would be dealing with, and he left you a massive file on the subject. By your own admission, that file went unread until September 11, 2001. Why?
7. You and others within the administration have claimed that al Qaeda terrorism was an "urgent" priority within the White House. If that is the case, why did George W. Bush tell author Bob Woodward in his book, 'Bush at War,' that he felt no sense of urgency about the terror threat? Did the "urgency" you have described somehow not translate into the Oval Office where command decisions are supposed to be made?
8. On May 17th, 2002, you said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile - a hijacked airplane as a missile." Abdul Hakim Murad, one of the bombers in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, described while under interrogation in 1995 a plot to use airplanes as missiles against the White House, the CIA, and other prominent American targets. Were you not aware of this?
9. Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, confirmed the testimony of Abdul Hakim Murad by describing in 1997 plots to use commercial airplanes as missiles. FBI agents who testified in the trial of Yousef further corroborated these statements. Were you not aware of this?
10. In 1993, the same year as the first World Trade Center attack, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Were you not aware of this?
11. The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled 'The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism.' This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House." Were you not aware of this?
12. In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building. Were you not aware of this?
13. Again in 1994, a pilot intentionally crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself. He clearly intended to smash the plane into the building. Were you not aware of this?
14. Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower. Were you not aware of this?
15. Given the testimony of Murad in 1995, the testimony of Yousef in 1997, the FBI agents who were witnesses in the trial of Yousef in 1997, the Pentagon report detailing the airplane-bomb threat in 1993, the 1999 report from the Federal Research Division which described the airplane-bomb threat and named al Qaeda specifically, the attempt by the Federal Express employee to use an airplane as a bomb, the airplane attack on the White House, and the attempt by the Armed Islamic Group to use an airplane as a bomb against the Eiffel Tower, do you find it at all inconsistent to claim that no one could have predicted the use of an airplane as a terror weapon? Isn't it more likely that you and the administration were the ones who could never imagine the use of airplanes as weapons, because you were not treating the terror threat as a priority and were therefore not privy to all the data regarding the threat that was readily available?
16. There is someone in this hearing room right now named Sibel Edmonds. Ms. Edmonds was hired by the FBI as a translator nine days after the terrorist attacks. She has already testified privately before this panel. In her testimony, she stated that she personally saw documentary evidence which proves you were wrong when you claimed there was no advance warning of air attacks on U.S. soil. Ms. Edmonds saw intelligence documents that pointed to the use of aircraft against skyscrapers and other important buildings in New York, Washington and five other cities. In an interview Ms. Edmonds gave to the Toronto Star on April 5, 2004, she said, "There was specific information on the use of airplanes. There were people issuing orders and information on people already in place in this country months before Sept. 11. But she (Rice) is saying 'we' did not know, including herself, her advisers and the FBI. That statement is not accurate. It's a lie and a lie is a lie." How do you respond to these statements from Ms. Edmonds? Remember, she is sitting right behind you.
17. Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for use in a nuclear weapons program. He returned and directly informed your deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the allegation had no merit. Despite this, George W. Bush used the Niger uranium allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech to justify the looming Iraq invasion. How is it possible that this bogus allegation made it into that speech after your own deputy was informed the charge was false?
18. Ambassador Joseph Wilson in July 2003 revealed on the editorial pages of the New York Times that he had made that trip to Niger, that he found nothing there to support the uranium allegations, and that Bush should not have used the allegation in his speech. Several days later, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was 'outed' as an undercover CIA agent by White House officials, who used proxies in the media to destroy her career. There is currently a federal investigation into this matter. Do you have any information regarding which White House officials did this to Plame that could help the investigators? Please remember that you are under oath.
19. According to American Central Command, 639 American soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been evacuated for medical reasons. Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The cost of the war is somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 billion, but the figure is hard to pin down because the White House has consistently refused to provide budget data on the amount of money we have spent there. To date, there have been no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and no connections between al Qaeda terrorism and Saddam Hussein have been established. As National Security Advisor, can you explain how all this death, all this money, and the total lack of any evidence of a threat to America posed by Iraq fits into the defense of our national security?
20. Finally, Dr. Rice, one last question. This panel was convened to determine why the 9/11 attacks happened, and to work towards ensuring that no such horror ever visits our nation again. As National Security Advisor, you held a vitally important position on the day of the attacks, and stand now as one of the people America depends on to help us keep such a thing from happening again. Yet you and the administration tried to thwart our request to interview you in this public forum. Few activities within American government are more important than that which we are undertaking here, but you refused to help us until public and political pressure made it impossible for you to do otherwise. How can you justify this behavior?
http://truthout.org/docs_04/040804A.shtml
Senator Kerrey, Condi Rice is NOT Dick Clarke. You better recognize.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I don't think that's what the writer was trying to infer. Read it again. |
Rice, as she always does, kicked serious ass. She actually changed my views on the war in Iraq. We are in a war with terrorists and we must keep fighting and fight to win. I wish Bush would drop Chenny and have Rice run as his running mate, for sure Bush would get re-elected.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Rice, as she always does, kicked serious ass. She actually changed my views on the war in Iraq. We are in a war with terrorists and we must keep fighting and fight to win. I wish Bush would drop Chenny and have Rice run as his running mate, for sure Bush would get re-elected. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Could you elaborate on how you felt she "kicked ass"? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well she factually made all of dick Clarke's claims sound like he is just trying to sell a book and that he was disgruntled over not holding a cabinet position anymore. |
| quote: |
| Also, she further eluded to the fact that the Clinton administration should share the blame for 9/11: �The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America�s response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient.� �Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last administration, and some had been on the table since 1998,� |
| quote: |
| and as fof Bush'es image: �I�m quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts.� |
| quote: |
| She handled things in typical Bush White House fashion. - She stayed on message and did not deviate. - She gave vague catch phrase responses regarding "structural problems" and "systemic change" - Accepted no responsibility for anything negative - Blamed others, like the Clinton White House, where possible - Continued to deny the existence of incriminating evidence even as it was staring her right in the face. - Did not give definitive answers. Never simply "yes" or "no". Often claimed no knowledge of events. - Never directly accepted responsibility for knowledge, usually prefacing answers with statements like "I was told..." - Heaped praise on Bush for his leadership |
| quote: |
| For me, an extremely telling moment came from one of the litany of "Yes/No" response questions asked by Thompson. He asked (I paraphrase) if she new before 9/11 that Saudi Arabia was holding the major financier of Al Queda. Her response was curt "No." I find this very hard to believe as this financier could be none other than Khalid bin Mahfouz, who was tied to the downfall of the BCCI bank and has close connections with the bin Ladin family, muslim "charities" (since proven to be funding terrorism) and shady dealings all across the world (including Manuel Noriega and CIA drugs-for-cash deals). He is also closely connected to Bush family companies and investments including Arbesto, Harken Energy and The Carlyle Group. In fact, his money helped keep Harken afloat during G.W.�s leadership of that company. And I almost forgot ... Mahfouz�s sister is married to Osama bin Ladin. But Rice had no knowledge that the Saudi�s were holding him? Please. Her ignorance (feigned or real), may be the same reason Bush won�t approve $12 million for the IRS to further investigate and trace the money trail. It hits too close to home. |
Here's some rebuttals on her opening testimony:
| quote: |
| 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] http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=44887 |
More rebuttals on her testimony:
| quote: |
| 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 6th. [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-Qaida 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 period, 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] http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=44918 |
That's some crazy shit right there.
I didnt know about 1/2 of that stuff.
How can anyone argue with those facts? (Im not tracking down to verify them 
)
One more thing to add and then I'm done.
You know when Scott McClellan complained last month that when Rice met privately with the 9/11 Commission members with only 5 of them showing up (accusing a lack of interest on the Commissioners' part)? Well, he kind of left off that part about the White House sending the Commission a letter on Nov.21, months before her March inquiry, saying that no more than 3 commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's ranks:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iticismdisputed
Kind of an important tidbit to leave out to the Press, isin't it Mr. McClellan?
When you leave out facts in a story, does that not constitute a lie?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 One more thing to add and then I'm done. You know when Scott McClellan complained last month that when Rice met privately with the 9/11 Commission members with only 5 of them showing up (accusing a lack of interest on the Commissioners' part)? Well, he kind of left off that part about the White House sending the Commission a letter on Nov.21, months before her March inquiry, saying that no more than 3 commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's ranks: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iticismdisputed Kind of an important tidbit to leave out to the Press, isin't it Mr. McClellan? When you leave out facts in a story, does that not constitute a lie? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo theres no doubt thats what whoever sent the fax in the article was trying to infer. What the hell were you trying to infer by posting it? How about you read it again? "The point was clear: the White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent" crystal! |
MisterOpus is the liberal messiah of TA
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Okay, one more time for you. You said, "The first point of this article, equating the national security advisor to the chairman of the joint chiefs, is absurd." The point of it was the disclosure of the fact that the White House was wrong in claiming that Condi's appearance would be a breach of precedent, not an equation of one position to another. It's easy to tell that you're a propagandist by the way you try to skew the article - and the facts presented. |
| quote: |
| Condoleezza Rice Has Nothing To Hide, Inks Deal With PlayBoy March 30, 2004 By Staff Washington, DC- Claiming she has nothing to hide, Condoleezza Rice announced today that she has signed a deal to appear in PlayBoy magazine. Rice will appear in PlayBoy's "April Fools", for fools edition, which hits news stands April 1st. The DH has learned that Rice will share the cover with famed pop star Janet Jackson, who herself proved she had nothing to hide during this year's Super-Bowl half time show. During a press conference earlier today, Rice confirmed she reached a deal to appear in PlayBoy for a rumored $86. "I've decided to bare my hole soul to the American people", said Rice. Condoleezza continued, "I can't think of any better method to prove I have absolutely nothing to hide, it just seemed like the natural thing to do". Most Democrats present at the press conference wanted to wait and see their own "April Fools" edition before passing any judgment on Condoleezza Rice's attempt to come clean. Some Democrats were more than glad to exercise their tongue. "I'm happy to hear she wants to come clean", said Senator John Kerry. "I have the highest respect for a woman who can come clean, there's nothing worse than a sloppy National Security Adviser ", added Kerry. Senator John Edwards told the Daily Hog that he's been placed in difficult the position of choosing between two Bush's. "Although the decision is a difficult one, if forced to, I'd choose to come clean between Condoleezza's Bush", said the Senator. |
Mister Opus good post. It's clear the tools of the current administration are lies and more lies. Reminds me of Regan�s famous defense I do not recall. All their schemes are slowly unraveling before our very eyes. Condi looks like she's fighting a war inside her head, one I might add she appears to be losing.
It's ironic that Bush has repeatedly criticized Kerry for flip flopping, but all Bush has done of late is flip-flop. First he said he didn't want a commission, then he said it should be only done after the elections, then he claimed executive privilege preventing Condi from testifying. After each decision he made he reversed himself. He has as much back bone as a jellyfish. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow Mister Opus good post. It's clear the tools of the current administration are lies and more lies. Reminds me of Regan�s famous defense I do not recall. All their schemes are slowly unraveling before our very eyes. Condi looks like she's fighting a war inside her head, one I might add she appears to be losing. It's ironic that Bush has repeatedly criticized Kerry for flip flopping, but all Bush has done of late is flip-flop. First he said he didn't want a commission, then he said it should be only done after the elections, then he claimed executive privilege preventing Condi from testifying. After each decision he made he reversed himself. He has as much back bone as a jellyfish. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PHALPAX MisterOpus is the liberal messiah of TA |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo Enlighten us on what their "scheme" was. |
| quote: |
| The only time I remember him saying that he didn't want a commission was when his first 9/11 commission fell apart for reasons that he had no control over. |
| quote: |
| He didn't claim executive privilege, he had executive privilege. After two weeks of pressure, Rice testified. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow I thought Bush was such a man of principle, he would stand by his convictions no matter what and wouldn't cave into public pressure? |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.