Furthermore, she said that those 7 months they were in office(before 9/11) hadn't been enough to make the required structural changes between the CIA and the FBI ....only to immediately say "that those changes were done IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11. WTF? Hello?
Umm...safeguards built into the relationship between the FBI and CIA. To protect US citizens, there was a strictly enforced division of responsibilities between the domestic and foreign intelligence agencies. You couldn't just go in a say 'OK, you guys get to share information and work together much more closely.' Post 9/11, those bariers and divisions were seen as a major reason for the intelligence failures that led up tp 9/11. Much less institutional resistence to putting changes in place after 9/11, that before 9/11 would have been considered an affront to American freedoms by some, much like the Patriot Act.
Without specific threats, and only vague chatter, what should she have suggested to Bush to prevent 9/11?
How about suggesting a high-level meeting about terrorism? Is that too much to ask for? Is anything short of a specific time and target just too trivial to bother the President about?
If the threats are vague, but serious, that's just not enough to bother oh-so-busy President Bush while he's chopping wood out on the ranch, to maybe discuss what could be done to sharpen that information and remove some of that vagueness?
Certainly there's no guarantee that any meeting or meetings would have stopped the attack -- but it might have, it might. Hundreds of meetings on topics like Iraq and missile defense, but not one single meeting to focus on terrorism? With Clarke making a fuss the whole time about the need to take the terrorism issue more seriously?
How about suggesting a high-level meeting about terrorism?
Exactly. There just is no excuse for this.
Add to this all of the information given to us by the list of administration officials and staffers that have left the bush admin and we get a pretty clear picture of an admin that at *best* has no clue what's going on.
I'm sorry to be so flippant about this but the only way we'll get some truth ( assuming there's truth to get at which I think there is ) is for them to get caught with some kind of new evidence.
It sounds like to me she's just using Reagun's famous " I can't remember " technique.
Without specific threats, and only vague chatter, what should she have suggested to Bush to prevent 9/11?
There was a lot more going on than just "chatter". Give me a break. Did you miss the title of that memo that was just declassified this morning(how convenient), according to someone in the panel??
Quote:
The whole 'well you knew something was maybe going to happen, so you should have been able to prevent it' argument makes no sense.
Who is making that arguement? No one even tried to connect the dots. The FBI and CIA had much more info. they could've shared between them...if only Dr. Rice wasn't allergic to "shaking trees".
Quote:
Yes, there was chatter, yes there were the same threats from extremists. Any move on the part of the Admin to counter these threats would have been argued against by the Left, in exactly the same way they have against Iraq and the Patriot Act, except without the backdrop of 9/11. The Left would still have accused Bush of encouraging Islamic extremists, perhaps even more, if he'd moved against the Taliban pre-9/11. Bush would still have been condemned for Patriot Act-like measures, especialy pre-9/11[
So that excuse is only allowed or extended to the Bush admin? I mean, how many times do we hear attacks on the Clintonians for their supposed lack of action against Osama? Like we wouldn't have accused him of just "wagging the dog". Shouldn't we apply the excuse Dr. Rice gave for NOT doing anything about the Cole to the Clinton's admin. aswell?
By the way, I don't think we would have had to go all the way with Patriot Act style measures to get the CIA and FBI together to exchange info. We knew something spectacular was going to happen. The FBI knew about the flying lessons....why the big deal about getting CIA and staffs together with the national security advisor to see what they had on anything related to domestic attacks?? That's unforgivable. Surely someone's head shoul've rolled by now?
One more thing, since according to Dr. Rice, the August 6th memo was just historical type stuff....should we expect the whole document to be de-classified? Hmmmm....
Add to this all of the information given to us by the list of administration officials and staffers that have left the bush admin and we get a pretty clear picture of an admin that at *best* has no clue what's going on.
Of course loooking at it in this light it's possible the new evidence will surface because of things brought up by this testimony.
It doesn't need to be Bush bashing per se to ask why were there no fighter jets in Washington? No missile batteries in Washington? or N.Y. already a known target?
N.Y and D.C. were at the mercy of foreign terrorism and the best we could do was two F-15 Eagles scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts?? (although I am grateful for those pilots. I remember watching them patrol from maine to NY and flying over my Boston).
Going supersonic should not be required to protect D.C. and N.Y.
Would it have taken 7 months to station a few fighters at D.C. and N.Y. as well as a few mobile missile batteries near the big 3, Capitol, White House and Pentagon (if not the CIA which was already specifically named a target using a plane)?
Would it have taken 7 months to station a few fighters at D.C. and N.Y. as well as a few mobile missile batteries near the big 3, Capitol, White House and Pentagon (if not the CIA which was already specifically named a target using a plane)?
\
Good questions. There are even more regarding what Bush did after hearing about the first plane hitting one of the towers.
Re: the missile batteries etc....there was already precedent about something of the sort at the Genoa meeting.(In a previos post I said Geneva, self correcting myself here).
Quote:
"U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday. Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." - -Los Angeles Times 9-27-2001
Explain to me what the National Security Advisor can do about structural problems, other than make suggestions?
How about making suggestions to begin with? I don't know of any made(please lead me to the info. if you have it) just as no one knows of the FBI "tasks"("FBI had been tasked") Ms. Rice alluded to time and time again in her answers.
You guys are quoting liberal spin cites faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well, which is this:
If, pre9/11, you take the known information on all threats---every wild threat assesment from every FBI and CIA anaylist that MIGHT be in the cards---and "tasked it", started the rock fight in Congress to get airport security nationalized, a new cabinet level department, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
You would bankrupt the country and literally be doing nothing else in the meantime---and by the way---look like a pack of paraniod, Xenophobic Nazis.
Agian, the pure and simple truth has been furnished, free of charge. Again, my apologies to Oscar Wilde and Dennis Miller.
This is just dumb.You guys are quoting liberal spin cites faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
Don't be a hypocrite. Weren't you not too long ago quoting from some ridiculous wacko site you were even too embarrassed to post a link to? You wouldn't even tell us the name of the site to begin with even after repeated requests. By the way, I'll go check those "liberal spin sites" and research a little before I dismiss them. You should do the same.
Quote:
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well, which is this:
Witch hunt? Don't be so sensitive. Who cares if 99% of America wasn't even imagining such an attack? 99% of America is not getting paid to analyse intel or try to thwart attacks.
Quote:
If, pre9/11, you take the known information on all threats---every wild threat assesment from every FBI and CIA anaylist that MIGHT be in the cards---and "tasked it", started the rock fight in Congress to get airport security nationalized, a new cabinet level department, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.You would bankrupt the country and literally be doing nothing else in the meantime---and by the way---look like a pack of paraniod, Xenophobic Nazis.
Ummm, How about just taking the intel that made it to the PDBs(such as the August 6th one)and doing something about it? Anything? And leave the Nazi shit out of the thread thank you.
I've been watching it. Dr. Rice intellectually makes me feel like an idiot.
Nick
Well . . . if the shoe fits?!
By the way . . .what was the name of that memo again?
and if it was only "historical," why not de-classify it?!?!
Still...
the larger question to me is, after Dr Rice went on about the eventual benefits of the Iraq war . . . on and on about how good it will eventually be . .
The question should have been, are those reasons the REAL ideological reasons for the War?
and were those reasons ready and waiting for just an excuse as 911 to be put into place?
You guys are quoting liberal spin cites (sic) faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
Funny that a right-winger would accuse people of regurgitating packaged arguments...(get many freeper emails in your inbox every morning?)
Quote:
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well
Sure, investigate the Clinton admin too. But, before we look at an administration that is no longer in office, shouldn't we make really ****ing certain that the administration running the country right now can at least find its ass with both hands?
Quote:
Agian, the pure and simple truth has been furnished, free of charge.
Funny that a right-winger would accuse people of regurgitating packaged arguments...(get many freeper emails in your inbox every morning?)
what is a freeper email?
Quote:
Sure, investigate the Clinton admin too.
Why?
You guys can't have this both ways. Either we have fortress America prior to 9/11 with Bush/Clinton carted off in a straight jacket for paranoid delusions of persecution, or you have groupthink as usual. Pick one.
You guys can't have this both ways. Either we have fortress America prior to 9/11 with Bush/Clinton carted off in a straight jacket for paranoid delusions of persecution, or you have groupthink as usual. Pick one.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
Furthermore, she said that those 7 months they were in office(before 9/11) hadn't been enough to make the required structural changes between the CIA and the FBI ....only to immediately say "that those changes were done IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11. WTF? Hello?
Umm...safeguards built into the relationship between the FBI and CIA. To protect US citizens, there was a strictly enforced division of responsibilities between the domestic and foreign intelligence agencies. You couldn't just go in a say 'OK, you guys get to share information and work together much more closely.' Post 9/11, those bariers and divisions were seen as a major reason for the intelligence failures that led up tp 9/11. Much less institutional resistence to putting changes in place after 9/11, that before 9/11 would have been considered an affront to American freedoms by some, much like the Patriot Act.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Without specific threats, and only vague chatter, what should she have suggested to Bush to prevent 9/11?
How about suggesting a high-level meeting about terrorism? Is that too much to ask for? Is anything short of a specific time and target just too trivial to bother the President about?
If the threats are vague, but serious, that's just not enough to bother oh-so-busy President Bush while he's chopping wood out on the ranch, to maybe discuss what could be done to sharpen that information and remove some of that vagueness?
Certainly there's no guarantee that any meeting or meetings would have stopped the attack -- but it might have, it might. Hundreds of meetings on topics like Iraq and missile defense, but not one single meeting to focus on terrorism? With Clarke making a fuss the whole time about the need to take the terrorism issue more seriously?
Originally posted by Jubelum
Next stop, Bush Bashing Thread. Alllllll aboard!
Hey! Another sound bashing might be just what he deserves!
Originally posted by giant
I also wonder what's responsible for her inability to 'recall' anything.
Selective memory loss!
Originally posted by Tulkas
... only vague chatter...So, there was chatter.
There was a lot more than just communication intercepts. 'Chatter,' anaylsis of the volume of communication, is *by definition* vague.
Or were you just using the term wrong? Learn the basics first, then tackle the big stuff.
Also, take a peek at just the screw-up part of the timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...e=incompetence
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...e&startpos=100
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...e&startpos=200
Originally posted by shetline
How about suggesting a high-level meeting about terrorism?
Exactly. There just is no excuse for this.
Add to this all of the information given to us by the list of administration officials and staffers that have left the bush admin and we get a pretty clear picture of an admin that at *best* has no clue what's going on.
It sounds like to me she's just using Reagun's famous " I can't remember " technique.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Without specific threats, and only vague chatter, what should she have suggested to Bush to prevent 9/11?
There was a lot more going on than just "chatter". Give me a break. Did you miss the title of that memo that was just declassified this morning(how convenient), according to someone in the panel??
The whole 'well you knew something was maybe going to happen, so you should have been able to prevent it' argument makes no sense.
Who is making that arguement? No one even tried to connect the dots. The FBI and CIA had much more info. they could've shared between them...if only Dr. Rice wasn't allergic to "shaking trees".
Yes, there was chatter, yes there were the same threats from extremists. Any move on the part of the Admin to counter these threats would have been argued against by the Left, in exactly the same way they have against Iraq and the Patriot Act, except without the backdrop of 9/11. The Left would still have accused Bush of encouraging Islamic extremists, perhaps even more, if he'd moved against the Taliban pre-9/11. Bush would still have been condemned for Patriot Act-like measures, especialy pre-9/11[
So that excuse is only allowed or extended to the Bush admin? I mean, how many times do we hear attacks on the Clintonians for their supposed lack of action against Osama? Like we wouldn't have accused him of just "wagging the dog". Shouldn't we apply the excuse Dr. Rice gave for NOT doing anything about the Cole to the Clinton's admin. aswell?
By the way, I don't think we would have had to go all the way with Patriot Act style measures to get the CIA and FBI together to exchange info. We knew something spectacular was going to happen. The FBI knew about the flying lessons....why the big deal about getting CIA and staffs together with the national security advisor to see what they had on anything related to domestic attacks?? That's unforgivable. Surely someone's head shoul've rolled by now?
One more thing, since according to Dr. Rice, the August 6th memo was just historical type stuff....should we expect the whole document to be de-classified? Hmmmm....
Originally posted by giant
There was a lot more than just communication intercepts. 'Chatter,' anaylsis of the volume of communication, is *by definition* vague.
Or were you just using the term wrong. Learn the basics first, then tackle the big stuff.
Also, take a peek at just the screw-up part of the timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...e=incompetence
Exactly. There just is no excuse for this.
Add to this all of the information given to us by the list of administration officials and staffers that have left the bush admin and we get a pretty clear picture of an admin that at *best* has no clue what's going on.
Of course loooking at it in this light it's possible the new evidence will surface because of things brought up by this testimony.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Next stop, Bush Bashing Thread. Alllllll aboard!
It doesn't need to be Bush bashing per se to ask why were there no fighter jets in Washington? No missile batteries in Washington? or N.Y. already a known target?
N.Y and D.C. were at the mercy of foreign terrorism and the best we could do was two F-15 Eagles scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts?? (although I am grateful for those pilots. I remember watching them patrol from maine to NY and flying over my Boston).
Going supersonic should not be required to protect D.C. and N.Y.
Would it have taken 7 months to station a few fighters at D.C. and N.Y. as well as a few mobile missile batteries near the big 3, Capitol, White House and Pentagon (if not the CIA which was already specifically named a target using a plane)?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Her refusal to take any responsibility for the "grave structural problems" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
Explain to me what the National Security Advisor can do about structural problems, other than make suggestions?
Originally posted by johnq
Would it have taken 7 months to station a few fighters at D.C. and N.Y. as well as a few mobile missile batteries near the big 3, Capitol, White House and Pentagon (if not the CIA which was already specifically named a target using a plane)?
Good questions. There are even more regarding what Bush did after hearing about the first plane hitting one of the towers.
Re: the missile batteries etc....there was already precedent about something of the sort at the Genoa meeting.(In a previos post I said Geneva, self correcting myself here).
"U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday. Italian officials took the reports seriously enough to prompt extraordinary precautions during the July summit of the Group of 8 nations, including closing the airspace over Genoa and stationing antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." - -Los Angeles Times 9-27-2001
Originally posted by rageous
Explain to me what the National Security Advisor can do about structural problems, other than make suggestions?
How about making suggestions to begin with? I don't know of any made(please lead me to the info. if you have it) just as no one knows of the FBI "tasks"("FBI had been tasked") Ms. Rice alluded to time and time again in her answers.
You guys are quoting liberal spin cites faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well, which is this:
If, pre9/11, you take the known information on all threats---every wild threat assesment from every FBI and CIA anaylist that MIGHT be in the cards---and "tasked it", started the rock fight in Congress to get airport security nationalized, a new cabinet level department, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
You would bankrupt the country and literally be doing nothing else in the meantime---and by the way---look like a pack of paraniod, Xenophobic Nazis.
Agian, the pure and simple truth has been furnished, free of charge. Again, my apologies to Oscar Wilde and Dennis Miller.
Originally posted by dmz
This is just dumb.You guys are quoting liberal spin cites faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
Don't be a hypocrite. Weren't you not too long ago quoting from some ridiculous wacko site you were even too embarrassed to post a link to? You wouldn't even tell us the name of the site to begin with even after repeated requests. By the way, I'll go check those "liberal spin sites" and research a little before I dismiss them. You should do the same.
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well, which is this:
Witch hunt? Don't be so sensitive. Who cares if 99% of America wasn't even imagining such an attack? 99% of America is not getting paid to analyse intel or try to thwart attacks.
If, pre9/11, you take the known information on all threats---every wild threat assesment from every FBI and CIA anaylist that MIGHT be in the cards---and "tasked it", started the rock fight in Congress to get airport security nationalized, a new cabinet level department, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.You would bankrupt the country and literally be doing nothing else in the meantime---and by the way---look like a pack of paraniod, Xenophobic Nazis.
Ummm, How about just taking the intel that made it to the PDBs(such as the August 6th one)and doing something about it? Anything? And leave the Nazi shit out of the thread thank you.
Originally posted by trumptman
I've been watching it. Dr. Rice intellectually makes me feel like an idiot.
Nick
Well . . . if the shoe fits?!
By the way . . .what was the name of that memo again?
and if it was only "historical," why not de-classify it?!?!
Still...
the larger question to me is, after Dr Rice went on about the eventual benefits of the Iraq war . . . on and on about how good it will eventually be . .
The question should have been, are those reasons the REAL ideological reasons for the War?
and were those reasons ready and waiting for just an excuse as 911 to be put into place?
Originally posted by dmz
You guys are quoting liberal spin cites (sic) faster than Mark Furman at the Apollo theater.
Funny that a right-winger would accuse people of regurgitating packaged arguments...(get many freeper emails in your inbox every morning?)
This is one threat---in a couple of spots at one time---and beyond the imagination of 99% of the US citizens. This witchhunt logic you guys apply to Bush---should be Applied to Clinton as well
Sure, investigate the Clinton admin too. But, before we look at an administration that is no longer in office, shouldn't we make really ****ing certain that the administration running the country right now can at least find its ass with both hands?
Agian, the pure and simple truth has been furnished, free of charge.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Funny that a right-winger would accuse people of regurgitating packaged arguments...(get many freeper emails in your inbox every morning?)
what is a freeper email?
Quote:
Sure, investigate the Clinton admin too.
Why?
You guys can't have this both ways. Either we have fortress America prior to 9/11 with Bush/Clinton carted off in a straight jacket for paranoid delusions of persecution, or you have groupthink as usual. Pick one.
None us is as stupid as all of us.
My apologies to demotivators.com.
One thing is clear from this: judging only from this thread, people are seeing and hearing what they want to see and hear from Condi's testimony.
Originally posted by dmz
You guys can't have this both ways. Either we have fortress America prior to 9/11 with Bush/Clinton carted off in a straight jacket for paranoid delusions of persecution, or you have groupthink as usual. Pick one.
Have you ever run across this little phrase?
FALSE DICHOTOMY
Look it up some time.