That little bit of absurd apologia for obviouse collusion twixt Scalia and Cheney and the even more absurd dismissal of the crime of Hacking by the GOP in no way answers my questions
which were:
What was the name of that memo?
WHy not declassify it?
If it lacks any pertinent info, then why not declassify it?
If this issue, (911), is important beyond partisan politics in a way that is unprecidented, why not declassiy it?
and,
Were the real reasons for the Iraq war the same ideological laundry list of eventual 'benefits' envisioned by the Admin and mentioned by Rice in her testimony?
They're not avoiding your questions. They are showing your hypocracy and how your standards change for political purposes.
There is this little thing called precedent. Bush can be absolutely clean in every possible regard in this matter. However he still has a responsibility to the executive branch and in framing how it deals with the other branches of our federal government. If the Congress believes they can just order up any papers from any president they believe are not pertinent, even though it deals with the day to day workings of the executive branch. It sets a bad precedent for future administrations to get their work done.
Come now Pfflam, do you honestly want what you seem to be indicating? Imagine a Republican Congress ordering around a Democratic president to turn over all the papers of their day to day workings and business. Do you want future Republican congresses to be able to just conduct fishing expeditions into say, how the Democratic president is going to use a recess appointment to put a judge onto the bench for example.
In other words you can't prove that she didn't make any suggestions? We haven't heard of any from the commission or from her either have we?
I'm extremely disappointed for the contradictions, her 'I wash my hands attitude" failing to take ANY responsibility for anything and for putting the blame on everyone and everything else even though she's the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. No responsibility my butt. She blamed the structural changes they were unable to make in 7 months(yet somehow managed to, in her own word, make "IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11), she blamed memos that "weren't warnings" etc.
That whole "national unity" that made those large number of Democrats vote for things like the Patriot Act was just my imagination?
9/11 made it very easy to take action in Washington on exactly the matters Rice was mentioning. The fact that not even three full years later, there is plenty of carping and suspicion about those changes shows exactly why it would have been impossible before hand.
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
This is much more than a matter of how large bureaucracies behave. If the Bush administration really had anything special going in its self-touted "leadership" skills, then why this:
Quote:
From Richard Clarke's testimony:
Let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. ... Every day they [the Clinton admin] went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information.
Contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.
When there is willingness, and interest, and LEADERSHIP, at least something can be done to work with these large bureaucracies much more effectively than the Bush admin has. No one in the Bush Whitehouse was "shaking the trees" for much of anything other than tax cuts and reasons to attack Iraq.
Look how many assertions and accusations are made before the actual question is asked.
He seemed to be pointing out discrepancies in the testimonies and changes made afterwards, March 2004, by the CIA. Then he reminds her that somethings are documented...so think about your answer.
Quote:
He sets up the entire history of the question, from his perspective, before he is willing to ask his question.
So it's just his "perspective" that the written testimony "changed" in a few months?I think he may have been talking factually?
Quote:
The question is a "gotcha" question and is not meant to investigate. She has to reply to the entire mischaracterized background.
Do you have proof that the background was mischaracterized or is it just your opinion?
That whole "national unity" that made those large number of Democrats vote for things like the Patriot Act was just my imagination?
Probably,because nothing happened "immediately".
Quote:
9/11 made it very easy to take action in Washington on exactly the matters Rice was mentioning.
The probability of a SPECTACULAR Al Qaeda attack ANYWHERE,should've done the same thing. And 9/11 made it very easy to draw up the Iraq plans aswell. Just ask the PNAC loonies of Cheney, Wolfowitz,Rumsfeld, Libby etc.
Quote:
The fact that not even three full years later, there is plenty of carping and suspicion about those changes shows exactly why it would have been impossible before hand.
Irrelevant. A full blown Patriot Act was not necessary to get some information sharing done. I understand there were difficulties in "streamlining" everything back then, but under an inminent threat related to National security, I think we could've gotten both the CIA and FBI to sit down and synchronize info. at least once. And that's where part of the problem lies. Rice for one, thought the intel and other info. about potential attacks did not merit even doing that.
There is a reason it was, and remains, classified. There are a hundred reasons why it cannot be declassified at this point- you have decided, without seeing it, that a CYA is involved.
Please do tell. What are some of those 100 reasons? I mean, Ms. Rice went to the trouble of telling us time and time again that said memo/paper(conveniently made available just this morning)or whatever you want to call it was just "historical" in nature.
Quote:
Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents.
Did he learn that from the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame that Novak assured us came from high ranking administration officials??
In other words you can't prove that she didn't make any suggestions? We haven't heard of any from the commission or from her either have we?
I'm extremely disappointed for the contradictions, her 'I wash my hands attitude" failing to take ANY responsibility for anything and for putting the blame on everyone and everything else even though she's the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. No responsibility my butt. She blamed the structural changes they were unable to make in 7 months(yet somehow managed to, in her own word, make "IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11), she blamed memos that "weren't warnings" etc.
I'm not attempting to prove she did or did not make any suggestions.
I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes? Her responsibility is to advise. Beyond that she can't make anyone do anything, and all one can fault her for is that she didn't offer good advice.
[B]I'm not attempting to prove she did or did not make any suggestions.I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes?
I never implied she was in charge of making those "structural" changes. Did she suggest ANY changes if any? We should know if she did, because after all, to quote you, "her responsibility is to advise".
Quote:
and all one can fault her for is that she didn't offer good advice.
Ok, fair enough. So if, quoting you again, "her responsibility is to advise" , and " she didn't offer good advice", why the hell is she there still after one of the most important tragedies in our country's history that cost us the lives of 3000 people? Why didn't she claim some responsibility like Clarke did? Especially considering that now the public knows that she knew more than she was letting in on.
Quote:
"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. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking."
Oh, ok. Nevermind. It was just "traditional" hijacking .
I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes? Her responsibility is to advise.
Her job was to take the suggestions of Clarke's groups to the president for him to authorize, and then have Clarke's Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group do exactly what the name implies.
Clarke asked for reassignment because his recommendations were falling on deaf ears, not to mention the removal of terrorism from the NSC principals group. It was Rice's responsibility to not only drive the point home, but it was also her staff that were in charge of coordinating various agencies in fighting terrorism.
Perhaps the most severe problem, as pointed out in the last spet 01 GAO report, was that the the decision to remove Clarke's position from the principals group meant that there was no longer a clear focal point for counter-terrorism strategy at the top level. It clearly was Rice's responsibility since Clarke was under her, and coordination was clearly the responsibility of her staff.
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted. Before the first tower fell, there were already those thinking "who can we MAKE PAY for this"- either militarily (Iraq, Afghanistan) or politically (Bush)
No one's mind is being changed here. I am just amazed at the number of people here who cannot bear to say "that is a good point, but" or "I understand where you are coming from" or whatever. Part of having a rational discourse is not flaming away because you "know" you are right- it is helping other to see your point so that they might be affected. Not around here. It has to always be a nasty, baiting reply that gets us all nowhere. AO is just a place to vent and argue. It's easy to get sucked in to a flamewar, as we all know. Segovius and I disagree about a lot, but the tone at the beginning of his "Fundies" thread actually benefitted everyone.
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted.
Maybe yours was, but some of us are more concerned with knowing the facts before forming opinions. For example, the issues surrounding declassification of PDBs is complicated and complex, with multiple cases and much discourse. So why would someone unfamiliar with the history of classification issues surrounding the PDB believe they understand the issues surrounding the current debate?
Glish is absolutely justified in asking what these reasons you cite are. It's likely what it has been in the past: continued classification to avoid setting precedent and, as Steven Aftergood frequently calls it, "fetishism."
Disclaimer: haven't watched yet. Where can I see the testimony online? (Realmedia doesn't count. Honestly why is Real still around?)
How about that speech she was supposed to give on 9/11 about how Clinton was stupid for looking at problems of the past instead of the future, and that he was stupid for focusing on terrorism instead of missile defense, because of course the Twin Towers were hit by ICBMs. It would have been great if she had given that speech before the planes hit. Then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They still shouldn't, but we don't have the opportunity to do a split screen with Condi on one side talking about missile defense and how terrorism is not a problem anymore, and the Twin Towers burning on the other side. Sort of like Cheney talking about Iraq being A-OK and then on the split screen, more attacks.
[B] Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents.
I am honestly curious as to what you mean when you say this. Again, are you referring to the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame at the hands of two "highly ranked Administration officials"(according and VIA Novak), or is it something else?
Wonderful. It's possible she didn't make suggestions. Maybe she did. I still don't see how this measures up to your original comment of being "extremely disappointed" for her not taking responsibility for something she has no responsibility over: "grave structural problems" within the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Well if you want to argue that, I believe you have a valid point to argue. It was your former assertion that I think was an incorrect statement.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Her job was to take the suggestions of Clarke's groups to the president for him to authorize, and then have Clarke's Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group do exactly what the name implies.
Clarke asked for reassignment because his recommendations were falling on deaf ears, not to mention the removal of terrorism from the NSC principals group. It was Rice's responsibility to not only drive the point home, but it was also her staff that were in charge of coordinating various agencies in fighting terrorism.
Perhaps the most severe problem, as pointed out in the last spet 01 GAO report, was that the the decision to remove Clarke's position from the principals group meant that there was no longer a clear focal point for counter-terrorism strategy at the top level. It clearly was Rice's responsibility since Clarke was under her, and coordination was clearly the responsibility of her staff.
Apparently you need the short version: yes, it is the responsibility of Rice's staff to coordinate the various agencies in counter-terrorism efforts.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
That little bit of absurd apologia for obviouse collusion twixt Scalia and Cheney and the even more absurd dismissal of the crime of Hacking by the GOP in no way answers my questions
which were:
What was the name of that memo?
WHy not declassify it?
If it lacks any pertinent info, then why not declassify it?
If this issue, (911), is important beyond partisan politics in a way that is unprecidented, why not declassiy it?
and,
Were the real reasons for the Iraq war the same ideological laundry list of eventual 'benefits' envisioned by the Admin and mentioned by Rice in her testimony?
They're not avoiding your questions. They are showing your hypocracy and how your standards change for political purposes.
There is this little thing called precedent. Bush can be absolutely clean in every possible regard in this matter. However he still has a responsibility to the executive branch and in framing how it deals with the other branches of our federal government. If the Congress believes they can just order up any papers from any president they believe are not pertinent, even though it deals with the day to day workings of the executive branch. It sets a bad precedent for future administrations to get their work done.
Come now Pfflam, do you honestly want what you seem to be indicating? Imagine a Republican Congress ordering around a Democratic president to turn over all the papers of their day to day workings and business. Do you want future Republican congresses to be able to just conduct fishing expeditions into say, how the Democratic president is going to use a recess appointment to put a judge onto the bench for example.
All of the branches are seperate for a reason.
Nick
Originally posted by Gilsch
In other words you can't prove that she didn't make any suggestions? We haven't heard of any from the commission or from her either have we?
I'm extremely disappointed for the contradictions, her 'I wash my hands attitude" failing to take ANY responsibility for anything and for putting the blame on everyone and everything else even though she's the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. No responsibility my butt. She blamed the structural changes they were unable to make in 7 months(yet somehow managed to, in her own word, make "IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11), she blamed memos that "weren't warnings" etc.
That whole "national unity" that made those large number of Democrats vote for things like the Patriot Act was just my imagination?
9/11 made it very easy to take action in Washington on exactly the matters Rice was mentioning. The fact that not even three full years later, there is plenty of carping and suspicion about those changes shows exactly why it would have been impossible before hand.
Nick
Originally posted by dmz
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
This is much more than a matter of how large bureaucracies behave. If the Bush administration really had anything special going in its self-touted "leadership" skills, then why this:
From Richard Clarke's testimony:
Let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. ... Every day they [the Clinton admin] went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information.
Contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.
When there is willingness, and interest, and LEADERSHIP, at least something can be done to work with these large bureaucracies much more effectively than the Bush admin has. No one in the Bush Whitehouse was "shaking the trees" for much of anything other than tax cuts and reasons to attack Iraq.
Originally posted by trumptman
Look how many assertions and accusations are made before the actual question is asked.
He seemed to be pointing out discrepancies in the testimonies and changes made afterwards, March 2004, by the CIA. Then he reminds her that somethings are documented...so think about your answer.
He sets up the entire history of the question, from his perspective, before he is willing to ask his question.
So it's just his "perspective" that the written testimony "changed" in a few months?I think he may have been talking factually?
The question is a "gotcha" question and is not meant to investigate. She has to reply to the entire mischaracterized background.
Do you have proof that the background was mischaracterized or is it just your opinion?
A quick Google for "August 6 2001 PDB Title Rice Testimony" reveals that Ari Fleisher named it in a press briefing in 2002.
"In fact, the label on the President's -- the PDB was, "bin Laden determined to strike the United States."
Originally posted by trumptman
That whole "national unity" that made those large number of Democrats vote for things like the Patriot Act was just my imagination?
Probably,because nothing happened "immediately".
9/11 made it very easy to take action in Washington on exactly the matters Rice was mentioning.
The probability of a SPECTACULAR Al Qaeda attack ANYWHERE,should've done the same thing. And 9/11 made it very easy to draw up the Iraq plans aswell. Just ask the PNAC loonies of Cheney, Wolfowitz,Rumsfeld, Libby etc.
The fact that not even three full years later, there is plenty of carping and suspicion about those changes shows exactly why it would have been impossible before hand.
Irrelevant. A full blown Patriot Act was not necessary to get some information sharing done. I understand there were difficulties in "streamlining" everything back then, but under an inminent threat related to National security, I think we could've gotten both the CIA and FBI to sit down and synchronize info. at least once. And that's where part of the problem lies. Rice for one, thought the intel and other info. about potential attacks did not merit even doing that.
Originally posted by Jubelum
There is a reason it was, and remains, classified. There are a hundred reasons why it cannot be declassified at this point- you have decided, without seeing it, that a CYA is involved.
Please do tell. What are some of those 100 reasons? I mean, Ms. Rice went to the trouble of telling us time and time again that said memo/paper(conveniently made available just this morning)or whatever you want to call it was just "historical" in nature.
Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents.
Did he learn that from the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame that Novak assured us came from high ranking administration officials??
Originally posted by Gilsch
In other words you can't prove that she didn't make any suggestions? We haven't heard of any from the commission or from her either have we?
I'm extremely disappointed for the contradictions, her 'I wash my hands attitude" failing to take ANY responsibility for anything and for putting the blame on everyone and everything else even though she's the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. No responsibility my butt. She blamed the structural changes they were unable to make in 7 months(yet somehow managed to, in her own word, make "IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11), she blamed memos that "weren't warnings" etc.
I'm not attempting to prove she did or did not make any suggestions.
I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes? Her responsibility is to advise. Beyond that she can't make anyone do anything, and all one can fault her for is that she didn't offer good advice.
Originally posted by rageous
[B]I'm not attempting to prove she did or did not make any suggestions.I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes?
I never implied she was in charge of making those "structural" changes. Did she suggest ANY changes if any? We should know if she did, because after all, to quote you, "her responsibility is to advise".
and all one can fault her for is that she didn't offer good advice.
Ok, fair enough. So if, quoting you again, "her responsibility is to advise" , and " she didn't offer good advice", why the hell is she there still after one of the most important tragedies in our country's history that cost us the lives of 3000 people? Why didn't she claim some responsibility like Clarke did? Especially considering that now the public knows that she knew more than she was letting in on.
"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. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking."
Oh, ok. Nevermind. It was just "traditional" hijacking .
Originally posted by rageous
I'm asking you what responsibility Dr. Rice had to make structural changes? Her responsibility is to advise.
Her job was to take the suggestions of Clarke's groups to the president for him to authorize, and then have Clarke's Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group do exactly what the name implies.
Clarke asked for reassignment because his recommendations were falling on deaf ears, not to mention the removal of terrorism from the NSC principals group. It was Rice's responsibility to not only drive the point home, but it was also her staff that were in charge of coordinating various agencies in fighting terrorism.
Perhaps the most severe problem, as pointed out in the last spet 01 GAO report, was that the the decision to remove Clarke's position from the principals group meant that there was no longer a clear focal point for counter-terrorism strategy at the top level. It clearly was Rice's responsibility since Clarke was under her, and coordination was clearly the responsibility of her staff.
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted. Before the first tower fell, there were already those thinking "who can we MAKE PAY for this"- either militarily (Iraq, Afghanistan) or politically (Bush)
No one's mind is being changed here. I am just amazed at the number of people here who cannot bear to say "that is a good point, but" or "I understand where you are coming from" or whatever. Part of having a rational discourse is not flaming away because you "know" you are right- it is helping other to see your point so that they might be affected. Not around here. It has to always be a nasty, baiting reply that gets us all nowhere. AO is just a place to vent and argue. It's easy to get sucked in to a flamewar, as we all know. Segovius and I disagree about a lot, but the tone at the beginning of his "Fundies" thread actually benefitted everyone.
Just FYI- there is no "winning" here.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Everyone's minds were made up LONG before this thread was posted.
Maybe yours was, but some of us are more concerned with knowing the facts before forming opinions. For example, the issues surrounding declassification of PDBs is complicated and complex, with multiple cases and much discourse. So why would someone unfamiliar with the history of classification issues surrounding the PDB believe they understand the issues surrounding the current debate?
Glish is absolutely justified in asking what these reasons you cite are. It's likely what it has been in the past: continued classification to avoid setting precedent and, as Steven Aftergood frequently calls it, "fetishism."
How about that speech she was supposed to give on 9/11 about how Clinton was stupid for looking at problems of the past instead of the future, and that he was stupid for focusing on terrorism instead of missile defense, because of course the Twin Towers were hit by ICBMs. It would have been great if she had given that speech before the planes hit. Then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They still shouldn't, but we don't have the opportunity to do a split screen with Condi on one side talking about missile defense and how terrorism is not a problem anymore, and the Twin Towers burning on the other side. Sort of like Cheney talking about Iraq being A-OK and then on the split screen, more attacks.
Originally posted by Jubelum
[B] Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents.
I am honestly curious as to what you mean when you say this. Again, are you referring to the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame at the hands of two "highly ranked Administration officials"(according and VIA Novak), or is it something else?
http://www.audible.com/adbl/entry/la...11Hearings.jsp
Originally posted by Gilsch
I never implied she was in charge of making those "structural" changes.
<travels back in time>
Originally posted by Gilsch
Her refusal to take any responsibility for the "grave structural problems" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
...
Originally posted by Gilsch
[BDid she suggest ANY changes if any? We should know if she did, because after all, to quote you, "her responsibility is to advise". [/B]
Well if you want to argue that, I believe you have a valid point to argue. It was your former assertion that I think was an incorrect statement.
Originally posted by rageous
Wonderful. It's possible she didn't make suggestions. Maybe she did. I still don't see how this measures up to your original comment of being "extremely disappointed" for her not taking responsibility for something she has no responsibility over: "grave structural problems" within the US.
Originally posted by rageous
Well if you want to argue that, I believe you have a valid point to argue. It was your former assertion that I think was an incorrect statement.
Originally posted by giant
Her job was to take the suggestions of Clarke's groups to the president for him to authorize, and then have Clarke's Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group do exactly what the name implies.
Clarke asked for reassignment because his recommendations were falling on deaf ears, not to mention the removal of terrorism from the NSC principals group. It was Rice's responsibility to not only drive the point home, but it was also her staff that were in charge of coordinating various agencies in fighting terrorism.
Perhaps the most severe problem, as pointed out in the last spet 01 GAO report, was that the the decision to remove Clarke's position from the principals group meant that there was no longer a clear focal point for counter-terrorism strategy at the top level. It clearly was Rice's responsibility since Clarke was under her, and coordination was clearly the responsibility of her staff.
Apparently you need the short version: yes, it is the responsibility of Rice's staff to coordinate the various agencies in counter-terrorism efforts.