no false dichotmy---you cannot pick and choose the threats pre 9/11 that were in the ambient noise of our intel. If flying planes into the pentagon was likely in the groupthink before the attacks, that forces you to act on ALL of the unlikely possibilities.
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.
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.
no false dichotmy---you cannot pick and choose the threats pre 9/11 that were in the ambient noise of our intel. If flying planes into the pentagon was likely in the groupthink before the attacks, that forces you to act on ALL of the unlikely possibilities.
It's not logical, and it just wasn't possible.
The false dichotomy is pretending that the only possibilities are (1) thinking everything you hear about terrorism is non-actionable ambient noise, and (2) Paranoid Fortress America.
You can't see that that's a blatant false dichotomy?
What about something in between, like, oh, I don't know... having kept Clarke at cabinet level instead of demoting him to staff, having paid attention to memo or two marked "URGENT", having held maybe one or two top-level meetings on terrorism, or how about this...
...taking some LEADERSHIP (we'll be seeing this word in a lot of Bush campaign ads, of course), and, like, say, if you know the CIA and FBI don't communicate to well, then when something important comes up making a few phone calls so the Whitehouse can be the conduit for vital information?
Based on Rice's testimony, Bush's campaign slogan should be "TRUST BUSH FOR LEADERSHIP THAT'S NOT HUGELY WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S". How stirring... my flag is all aflutter now.
no false dichotmy---you cannot pick and choose the threats pre 9/11 that were in the ambient noise of our intel. If flying planes into the pentagon was likely in the groupthink before the attacks, that forces you to act on ALL of the unlikely possibilities.
It's not logical, and it just wasn't possible.
That's a false characterization of the threat assessment. An attack by al-Quaeda involving airplanes was not an "unlikely possiblility" blending into the noise. The intel pointed to it as a primary concern. Witness the White House personal that stopped flying on commercial jets in the months leading up to 9/11.
Moreover, the response to specific, credible intel in re bin Laden need have hardly resorted to "fortress America". There were any number of relatively low impact measures that could have been taken, primarly involving increased monitoring of flight rosters and expiditing the sharing of intelligence across agencies.
I think you mean highjacking threats addabox. No one expected this kind of attack. Except a handful in FBI of CIA.
There are multiple threats, multiple ways of dealing death, car bombs, silkworm missles on cargo ships, Surplus subs from Argentina, and on and on and on. You guys don't to pick and choose.
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
i only watched a few minutes. she did seem flustered. well can you blame her with all the hoopla surrounding this??? She was probably nervous as hell and on the defensive. they say she did quite well in the private sessions
sorry if anyone else pointed this out, but i was too lazy to read all the threads right now
I think you mean highjacking threats addabox. No one expected this kind of attack. Except a handful in FBI of CIA.
There are multiple threats, multiple ways of dealing death, car bombs, silkworm missles on cargo ships, Surplus subs from Argentina, and on and on and on. You guys don't to pick and choose.
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
Except as far as we know there was no intel suggesting Argentinian subs, silk worm missles, etc.
So although it is possible to imagine any number of channels of attack, in reality we have evidence that the intel centered around airplanes. Prevent the highjacking, prevent the attack, so it really doesn't matter if anybody connected the dots to get highjacked planes flown into buildings.
Huge bureaucracies needn't turn a dime when what is called for is taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough to take some, any, measures. Wresting your attention from missle defense and Iraq isn't about far reaching changes to Washington culture, it's about getting your priorities in sync with the information at hand, instead of your a priora assumptions.
Are you serious? I didn't think she was doign well at all, and many of her detailed answes seemed like filabustering to me.
I correctly characterized the nature of the "questioning" in my first post.
Here is a good example from the AP transcript, amazingly already available. (Do we really want to know how fast those people type?)
Quote:
BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6th PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26th before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6th PDB.
Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6th PDB.
The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.
You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al-Qaida cells were in the United States.
Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?
Look how many assertions and accusations are made before the actual question is asked. He sets up the entire history of the question, from his perspective, before he is willing to ask his question. The question is a "gotcha" question and is not meant to investigate. She has to reply to the entire mischaracterized background. Give the proper context to avoid the "gotcha" and then actually answer the true intent of the question, what did Bush ask and know.
I really don't find it surprising that when someone takes 5 minutes to ask a question, someone would take 5 minutes to answer it.
Here is Rice's response to that question.
Quote:
RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.
First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president - and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al-Qaida's operations.
Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al-Qaida cells in the United States.
Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?
And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al-Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.
I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
I dunno addabox, I have to agree some, but I really feel that any clever group of terrorists could do 9/11 all over again. Every time I check my PowerBook through security, It would seem like a simple thing to pack in all you would need to take the plane over.
I don't believe the system will save, us or ever really has.
Ben-Veniste was pretty frustrated. Serves him right for using the commission member's chair as a pulpit. You can't make claim and assertion after claim and assertion and not expect a response from a person like Dr. Rice.
Even though I do not really like Bob Kerrey, I think he was most on-topic and I think he was actually there to carry out his (research rather than partisan) duty.
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.
Nobody (at least, nobody with half a brain) is suggesting that any admin should be held responsible for not having created a 'fortress America' prior to 9/11. But if the Bush admin had information on the threat posed by al Quada that was ignored or deprioritized when every indication was that the greatest threat facing the US was al Quada...then they ****ed up.
And why should we focus on the Bush admin? Because this happened on their watch. Because they are running things right now and want to do so for another four years. Because we need to know if the mass murder of 3,000 people was allowed to happen as a direct result of the Bush admin's collective obsession with Iraq.
I dunno addabox, I have to agree some, but I really feel that any clever group of terrorists could do 9/11 all over again. Every time I check my PowerBook through security, It would seem like a simple thing to pack in all you would need to take the plane over.
I don't believe the system will save, us or ever really has.
Nope... there is no room inside that PowerBook left, just as the 1" thick engineering team.
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?
There is this little thing called seperation between the various branches of government. I'm certain you noted it when Scalia went fishing with Cheney.
The congress just can't demand that the executive branch do their bidding and forgo all the documentation of their own business getting done.
Let me get this reasong clear. Fishing = collusion. Finding files/papers on a shared service that relate to public business of public officials on public matters within the same branch of government = watergate theft type break in.
But the Congress should be able to demand the Executive Branch turn over and attend to whatever business they demand.
But suppose I were say.. Ken Starr and wanted to ask the entire executive cabinet to say, testify against Clinton on impeachment matters.
I'm sure you would support that.
But the point isn't even that is it because it is obvious Rice has given this commission her time in private and now in public proceedings. This is really about trying to make some news. Sorry Rice didn't flub enough to give you a sound bite to attack.
As for the questions regarding the Iraq war, the 9/11 commission was half Democrats, perhaps you should ask them as well.
There is this little thing called seperation between the various branches of government. I'm certain you noted it when Scalia went fishing with Cheney.
The congress just can't demand that the executive branch do their bidding and forgo all the documentation of their own business getting done.
Let me get this reasong clear. Fishing = collusion. Finding files/papers on a shared service that relate to public business of public officials on public matters within the same branch of government = watergate theft type break in.
But the Congress should be able to demand the Executive Branch turn over and attend to whatever business they demand.
But suppose I were say.. Ken Starr and wanted to ask the entire executive cabinet to say, testify against Clinton on impeachment matters.
I'm sure you would support that.
But the point isn't even that is it because it is obvious Rice has given this commission her time in private and now in public proceedings. This is really about trying to make some news. Sorry Rice didn't flub enough to give you a sound bite to attack.
As for the questions regarding the Iraq war, the 9/11 commission was half Democrats, perhaps you should ask them as well.
Nick
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?
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.
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.
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?
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. It may be, yes... but it may contain data that is relevant to ongoing operations. Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents. Do you just distrust the US Govt, or just Bush and Condi ? ... because things have been classified and claimed under Exec Priv for many many decades now.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Calm down, people. Posts are bordering on personal attacks, and if the thread is to stay open, that pattern has to stop.
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.
Yes it's politic
It's not logical, and it just wasn't possible.
Those with favorable opinions of the administration are pleased with Dr. Rice's testimony.
Those with unfavorable opinions of the administration are skeptical of Dr. Rice's testimony.
The two sides are now arguing over who is right.
Originally posted by Gilsch
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.
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 dmz
no false dichotmy---you cannot pick and choose the threats pre 9/11 that were in the ambient noise of our intel. If flying planes into the pentagon was likely in the groupthink before the attacks, that forces you to act on ALL of the unlikely possibilities.
It's not logical, and it just wasn't possible.
The false dichotomy is pretending that the only possibilities are (1) thinking everything you hear about terrorism is non-actionable ambient noise, and (2) Paranoid Fortress America.
You can't see that that's a blatant false dichotomy?
What about something in between, like, oh, I don't know... having kept Clarke at cabinet level instead of demoting him to staff, having paid attention to memo or two marked "URGENT", having held maybe one or two top-level meetings on terrorism, or how about this...
...taking some LEADERSHIP (we'll be seeing this word in a lot of Bush campaign ads, of course), and, like, say, if you know the CIA and FBI don't communicate to well, then when something important comes up making a few phone calls so the Whitehouse can be the conduit for vital information?
Based on Rice's testimony, Bush's campaign slogan should be "TRUST BUSH FOR LEADERSHIP THAT'S NOT HUGELY WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S". How stirring... my flag is all aflutter now.
Originally posted by dmz
no false dichotmy---you cannot pick and choose the threats pre 9/11 that were in the ambient noise of our intel. If flying planes into the pentagon was likely in the groupthink before the attacks, that forces you to act on ALL of the unlikely possibilities.
It's not logical, and it just wasn't possible.
That's a false characterization of the threat assessment. An attack by al-Quaeda involving airplanes was not an "unlikely possiblility" blending into the noise. The intel pointed to it as a primary concern. Witness the White House personal that stopped flying on commercial jets in the months leading up to 9/11.
Moreover, the response to specific, credible intel in re bin Laden need have hardly resorted to "fortress America". There were any number of relatively low impact measures that could have been taken, primarly involving increased monitoring of flight rosters and expiditing the sharing of intelligence across agencies.
So, yeah, false dichotomy.
PBS (KCTS-Seattle) is currently rebroadcasting the full session.
Check listings for affiliates in your timezone.
otherwise http://cspan.org has a Realplayer stream of 2h55min,
but perhaps due to traffic, I haven't been able to get farther than 20 minutes before it degrades/downsamples.
There are multiple threats, multiple ways of dealing death, car bombs, silkworm missles on cargo ships, Surplus subs from Argentina, and on and on and on. You guys don't to pick and choose.
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
sorry if anyone else pointed this out, but i was too lazy to read all the threads right now
Originally posted by dmz
I think you mean highjacking threats addabox. No one expected this kind of attack. Except a handful in FBI of CIA.
There are multiple threats, multiple ways of dealing death, car bombs, silkworm missles on cargo ships, Surplus subs from Argentina, and on and on and on. You guys don't to pick and choose.
And shetline, your slogan is just about correct. Huge bueracracies don't turn on a dime.
Except as far as we know there was no intel suggesting Argentinian subs, silk worm missles, etc.
So although it is possible to imagine any number of channels of attack, in reality we have evidence that the intel centered around airplanes. Prevent the highjacking, prevent the attack, so it really doesn't matter if anybody connected the dots to get highjacked planes flown into buildings.
Huge bureaucracies needn't turn a dime when what is called for is taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough to take some, any, measures. Wresting your attention from missle defense and Iraq isn't about far reaching changes to Washington culture, it's about getting your priorities in sync with the information at hand, instead of your a priora assumptions.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
Are you serious? I didn't think she was doign well at all, and many of her detailed answes seemed like filabustering to me.
I correctly characterized the nature of the "questioning" in my first post.
Here is a good example from the AP transcript, amazingly already available. (Do we really want to know how fast those people type?)
BEN-VENISTE: I want to ask you some questions about the August 6, 2001, PDB. We had been advised in writing by CIA on March 19, 2004, that the August 6th PDB was prepared and self-generated by a CIA employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26th before us, the CIA clarified its version of events, saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the August 6th PDB.
Now, you have said to us in our meeting together earlier in February, that the president directed the CIA to prepare the August 6th PDB.
The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well-documented. And Richard Clarke's testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well-documented.
You acknowledged to us in your interview of February 7, 2004, that Richard Clarke told you that al-Qaida cells were in the United States.
Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?
Look how many assertions and accusations are made before the actual question is asked. He sets up the entire history of the question, from his perspective, before he is willing to ask his question. The question is a "gotcha" question and is not meant to investigate. She has to reply to the entire mischaracterized background. Give the proper context to avoid the "gotcha" and then actually answer the true intent of the question, what did Bush ask and know.
I really don't find it surprising that when someone takes 5 minutes to ask a question, someone would take 5 minutes to answer it.
Here is Rice's response to that question.
RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.
First of all, yes, the August 6th PDB was in response to questions of the president - and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al-Qaida's operations.
Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al-Qaida cells in the United States.
Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?
And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al-Qaida cells. I believe in the August 6th memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it.
I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al-Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
Nick
I don't believe the system will save, us or ever really has.
Even though I do not really like Bob Kerrey, I think he was most on-topic and I think he was actually there to carry out his (research rather than partisan) duty.
This commission is not about fixing blame.
It is about fixing the problem.
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.
Nobody (at least, nobody with half a brain) is suggesting that any admin should be held responsible for not having created a 'fortress America' prior to 9/11. But if the Bush admin had information on the threat posed by al Quada that was ignored or deprioritized when every indication was that the greatest threat facing the US was al Quada...then they ****ed up.
And why should we focus on the Bush admin? Because this happened on their watch. Because they are running things right now and want to do so for another four years. Because we need to know if the mass murder of 3,000 people was allowed to happen as a direct result of the Bush admin's collective obsession with Iraq.
Originally posted by dmz
I dunno addabox, I have to agree some, but I really feel that any clever group of terrorists could do 9/11 all over again. Every time I check my PowerBook through security, It would seem like a simple thing to pack in all you would need to take the plane over.
I don't believe the system will save, us or ever really has.
Nope... there is no room inside that PowerBook left, just as the 1" thick engineering team.
Originally posted by pfflam
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?
There is this little thing called seperation between the various branches of government. I'm certain you noted it when Scalia went fishing with Cheney.
The congress just can't demand that the executive branch do their bidding and forgo all the documentation of their own business getting done.
Let me get this reasong clear. Fishing = collusion. Finding files/papers on a shared service that relate to public business of public officials on public matters within the same branch of government = watergate theft type break in.
But the Congress should be able to demand the Executive Branch turn over and attend to whatever business they demand.
But suppose I were say.. Ken Starr and wanted to ask the entire executive cabinet to say, testify against Clinton on impeachment matters.
I'm sure you would support that.
But the point isn't even that is it because it is obvious Rice has given this commission her time in private and now in public proceedings. This is really about trying to make some news. Sorry Rice didn't flub enough to give you a sound bite to attack.
As for the questions regarding the Iraq war, the 9/11 commission was half Democrats, perhaps you should ask them as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There is this little thing called seperation between the various branches of government. I'm certain you noted it when Scalia went fishing with Cheney.
The congress just can't demand that the executive branch do their bidding and forgo all the documentation of their own business getting done.
Let me get this reasong clear. Fishing = collusion. Finding files/papers on a shared service that relate to public business of public officials on public matters within the same branch of government = watergate theft type break in.
But the Congress should be able to demand the Executive Branch turn over and attend to whatever business they demand.
But suppose I were say.. Ken Starr and wanted to ask the entire executive cabinet to say, testify against Clinton on impeachment matters.
I'm sure you would support that.
But the point isn't even that is it because it is obvious Rice has given this commission her time in private and now in public proceedings. This is really about trying to make some news. Sorry Rice didn't flub enough to give you a sound bite to attack.
As for the questions regarding the Iraq war, the 9/11 commission was half Democrats, perhaps you should ask them as well.
Nick
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?
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.
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.
thought so.
Why does anyone even bother anymore in these threads? The topic is Dr. Condi Rice's testimony.
Originally posted by pfflam
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?
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. It may be, yes... but it may contain data that is relevant to ongoing operations. Bush has learned once that you cannot compromise field agents. Do you just distrust the US Govt, or just Bush and Condi ? ... because things have been classified and claimed under Exec Priv for many many decades now.