Reaction to Rice's Testimony

Of course there was no proper transition following the Clinton Administration, Bill and Hillary were too busy carting away all the White House furniture and silver that they could load into a moving van!

John

 

VERY small.

 

I'll let my "libbie" money do the talking for me if such a thing comes to pass. What do we say... I give you $1000 if it happens and you give me $10 if it doesn't?

 

<<Was anybody derelict in their duty? I dunno.>>

Of course they were.

The CIA alone get $30B per year to know what is happening in the world. Add $ from the FBI (who apparantly can only find bank robbers), the DIA, NSA, Esilon, etc. These morons did not have a clue that 20 Arabs (mostly Saudis) were here in the country bent on learning to fly aircraft for no other reason than to kamakasi into buildings. These idiots had friends, wives, families, and financers. Why couldn't the morons (read FBI) who were paid to know whats happening in this country figure this out??

If I were president I would have fired these pricks!

Bob

 

its all just a show,

The funniest thing is how much the dems contradict themselves. here is a sample

They claim Rice did not even know who al qaeda were prior to 9/11
but they say Rice wrote a memo prior to 9/11 saying al qaeda would attack us in the US

they claim that Bush should have done something prior to sept 11 and he let al qaeda roam free in the US but they complain things put in place after 9/11 restrict freedoms

They love to have it both ways, does anyone else see the contradictions here??

 

Couldn't agree more. A bunch of complete morons pulled this hijacking off, and if there was a "value for money" approach taken for the intelligence gathered and the manner by which it was acted upon then the American public has been ripped off badly over the past 20 years. Bleating about Republicans Vs. Democrats share of the blame diverts attention from the real issue here and isn't making the world a safer place.

 

Yeah I agree it's a Kangaroo court run by the Democrats, but you all are pretty naive to think she's telling the complete truth. My personal opinion and this stems not from the hearings, but from the perod leading up to the war and shorlty thereafter, is that she IS an arrogant *****.

The Bush administration knew she would have to eventually testify but stalled as long as they could to get all the ducks in order.

Do I think the commission is a complete waste of time....I do, but I also think Rice isn't telling even half the story.

She lost all credibility with me during the Iraqi war with here arrogant smug attitude about why we needed to go to war.

I'd rather see her and Hillary in a steel cage match than on any Presidential ticket.

I want Rudi G. to run in 2008! If he ran I might even come back to the Republican party!

Regards,

Jon P. Kofod
www.flatoutracing.net

 

I can't believe you guys are saying she's so smart and that she should be the next president. How you came away from that testimony with those thoughts is beyond me... She has the be the most worthless puppet bureaucrat that ever lived. Her entire testimony centered on the fact that "no one told me what to do." Hello! YOU'RE the National Security Advisor! It's YOUR job to tell OTHER people what to do!

re: AQ cells in the U.S.
"Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?...there was no recommendation that we do something about this"

re: AQ sleeper cells in the U.S.
"In the memorandum that Dick Clarke sent me on January 25th, he mentions sleeper cells. There is no mention or recommendation of anything that needs to be done about them."

re: "structural" problems (FBI not cooperating with CIA)
"Because the real lesson of September 11 is that the country was not properly structured to deal with the threats that had been gathering for a long period of time." Oddly enough, the president's PDB, Clarke's information, etc all point to the fact that the FBI had knowledge of the sleeper cells and AQ plans to attack us. So why did Bush only meet with the CIA director?

re: FBI recommendations
"They don't tell anybody anything. They don't put anybody at battle stations." Because that's YOUR job dumbarse!!

re: Why the FBI wasn't tasked to dig into the sleeper cells in the U.S.
"If there was any reason to believe that I needed to do something or that Andy Card needed to do something, I would have been expected to be asked to do it. We were not asked to do it." Dumbarse, YOU'RE the National Security Advisor! How about doing some ADVISING for once?

re: August 6 PDB:
"Well, August 6 is most certainly an historical document that says, "Here's how you might think about al Qaeda." A warning is when you have something that suggests that an attack is impending." This is interesting because CNN just released some bits and pieces of this document, which is expected to be declassified in the next few days. It states several important things:

1) The title of the memo is "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US"

2) An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating al Qaeda was attempting to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives.

3) Al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999

4) Osama bin Laden was set on striking the US as early as 1997 through early 2001

5) Some intelligence suggested suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the U.S

6) At least 70 FBI investigations were underway in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the U.S. (which is interesting, since Bush never met with the FBI director pre 9/11, but he did meet with the CIA director "almost every day." WTF?

That seems like enough stuff to at least START talking about the issue don't you think, especially considering the increased chatter that warned of something "very, very, very big" about to happen? She blames "structural problems" for not getting this information passed around. The structural problem was that she never told anyone to do anything about it, and never convened a meeting of principles and department heads to get together and share information, similar to what occured before Jan 1, 2000 when an attempt to blow up LAX was successfully averted. The commission made it clear that they found plenty of information flowing UP the chain of command, but nothing flowed back DOWN. Rice just says over and over again that no one told her to do anything. Worthless. Typical government employee...

-R

 

When calling this a Democratic witch hunt, please remember that some of those folks asking questions were actually Republicans and they asked tough questions which she passed the buck on as well. The panel was formed because of pressure by people who lost loved ones on 9/11. I've heard several intereviews with these folks after Clarke and Rice's testimony and it's obvious they were not satisfied with Rice's evasive testimony.

 

I don't think the commission is even coming close to trying to place the blame on someone nearly as much as the administration is trying to avoid responsibility. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"??? They stalled on the initiation of the committee, they stalled on having Rice testify, they stalled on Bush/Cheney testifying (and now they're only going to do it together, off the record (wtf is that? Dick needs to hold GW's hand?).. They've stalled on declassifying documents that provide insight into what happened... I'm not into the blame game, and I'm not placing blame on anyone. I just think the administration needs to be a little more open with what's going on...

"When you are dealing with secretive regimes that want to deceive, you're never going to be able to be positive"
-Condi Rice

-R

 

Slim, I got a thousand to you. We each post guarenteed funds with an escrow agent, to be dispersed in 10 years.

Our corporate attorney, Louis Larsen, will be happy to frame the escrow agreement, free of charge, on Tuesday, and I will deposit my $1000 to the trust at that time.

Your end is $100,000

Stop yacking about 10 years from now. The issue is now, today - put up or shut up with the betting nonsense. I'll wager that you will not agree.

Perhaps you can gather up enough libbie losers to back this play, but again, I'll wager that you do not.

If that is too much, then I extend the same agreement in somewhat lesser terms that might be more to your liking. But again, I'll wager that you do not.

 

If this whole thing wasn't grandstanding instead of fact finding, Ben Veniste wouldn't have made such a big deal out of getting Rice to cite in public the title of the August 6 PBM, which he had already seen and read in full, along with all of the others on the Commission. What he did was try to get out partial information on the content of the memo that he felt would be damaging to the Administration, without regard to the actual content of the memo.

Anyone who doesn't recognize the partisan maneuvering in an election year is in a major state of denial, which ain't just a river in Egypt.

John

 

What, no J. McCain?

The nomination of Hilariious clinton presupposes, of course, no merry kerry win.

 

Funniset comparison I saw was a Chinese newspaper here saying they thought her rhetoric in support of her boss reminded them of interviews they have done with North Koreans who provide answers to nothing while repeatedly extolling the virtues of their great leader Kim.

 

I was bothered by that for the same reasons. Despite some searches with same search criteria I used today on Google, I couldn't find it on Thursday, yet turns out it was published on Thursday. Looks again - ah, Thursday night.

Here's the actual exchange from the now-available transcript:

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 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.
__

In other words, BEN-VENISTE = OWNED!

 

Actually, Rice said the memo didn't indicate anything about Bin Laden attacking the U.S. in the future. The title of the memo completely wipes out her answer. The reason for calling her out on it is to show that she's BS'ing her way through this, while at the same time letting the American people know that she's BS'ing. You said it yourself, the commission got to see the memo.. we didn't (until today that is.. they just released it). We wouldn't know that she's full of crap unless he had called her out on it. I think it's completely fair to ask her why she got the impression that the memo had nothing to do with Bin Laden trying to attack the US when the title of the memo is "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."

-R

edit: just read the memo. Rice says there was no indication that planes would be used as missiles. Um... but it does say quite clearly:

"...FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Does it matter if we knew or didn't know that they were going to use planes as missiles, only that they were going to hijack them? The commission has said that their inquiries have found no evidence that airports and airlines were warned of this threat.

 

I was surprised that there were no better follow-up questions to Rice's "no silver bullet" response.

I think a good lawyer would have made Rice corner herself and commit to a position that there was nothing the government could have done to prevent the attacks.

Then Rice should have been asked to testify about all the "good things" the government has done since then to prevent terrorism: the reinforcement of the cockpit doors, increased airport security procedures and air marshals and asked the question, "Dr. Rice, a minute ago you testified that there was nothing the U.S. could have done to prevent this attack, are you saying that these measures [reinforcement, security etc.] would not have prevented the Sept. 11 attack? If so, why did we spend billions of tax payer dollars if you are now saying that these measures would not have prevented the attack. If this is not your position, do you now desire to change your testimony and state that the government could have prevented the attack?"

 

LA Swede]I was surprised that there were no better follow-up questions to Rice's "no silver bullet" response.

would have made Rice corner herself and commit to a position that there was nothing the government could have done to prevent the attacks.

We could nuke most of the rest of the world.

WTF??
Corner herself??? Oh, no preconceived notions here, huh? You are the GOD of impartiality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>I think a good lawyer

There is no such thing!!!

Oh, excuse me. Were you looking for some way to convolute such juvenile nonsense into a logical train of thought???

Then, by all means: Bring on your bottom feeders!!

LA Swede, you suck!

I'll laugh as you chafe the next 4 years after Bush is re-elected.

If, that is, you are old enough to vote...

 

Gabriel, in this case (Content/Context), saying "you suck" is simply instigating.

 

"Wow!", maybe, "Great". Probably, "It's a frikkin' miracle". I would be thrilled if democracy caught on in Iraq. It is a strategically important country for us, economically, and getting democracy to catch on there would be amazing.

However, expecting democracy to take hold in a country that we took over by force, that has no experience or history, at all, with the democratic process, is being pretty optimistic, don't you think? Remember, the Brits made Iraq from three different provinces, Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, after WWI, before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire, it has not, to my knowledge, ever been a true democracy.

I'm looking for a parallel situation where our curent approach has worked in another country, overthow the government, even a vile, evil and corrupt one, insert democracy, and it prospers.

Can anyone site me where this has actually worked? I'm actually pretty open minded for a "liberal".

 

Wax, you are correct.

LA, my apology.