911 Commission

[starvingartist]

I agree hindsight has 20/20 vision. However, there should be some accountability for the actions taken or lack there of before 9/11. I literally was speechless and in complete disbelief as Rice answered questions today. My favorite was the question in regards to what the title of the P.D.B. was, and she responded without hesitation, "I believe the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S. " Also the fact that she received a memo stating that there were cells in the U.S. and she was not sure if she warned the president etc. Additionally, she said that she was not given a plan but a set of actionable courses. Are they not one in the same? Finally, she tried to imply that they did not have sufficient time to make changes necessary to deal with the systemic problems with the C.I.A. and F.B. I. , but then goes onto say that immediately after 9/11 they made the changes. In all honesty I am not sure whether or not 9/11 could have prevented or not, but I am positive that it seems that even smallest measures to guard against any terrorists attacks were not taken since Bush took office.

[siceone]

Originally posted by starvingartist

I agree hindsight has 20/20 vision. However, there should be some accountability for the actions taken or lack there of before 9/11. I literally was speechless and in complete disbelief as Rice answered questions today. My favorite was the question in regards to what the title of the P.D.B. was, and she responded without hesitation, "I believe the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S. " Also the fact that she received a memo stating that there were cells in the U.S. and she was not sure if she warned the president etc. Additionally, she said that she was not given a plan but a set of actionable courses. Are they not one in the same? Finally, she tried to imply that they did not have sufficient time to make changes necessary to deal with the systemic problems with the C.I.A. and F.B. I. , but then goes onto say that immediately after 9/11 they made the changes. In all honesty I am not sure whether or not 9/11 could have prevented or not, but I am positive that it seems that even smallest measures to guard against any terrorists attacks were not taken since Bush took office.

And the 8 years prior to the clinton office with 3 attacks on american soil and american interests? right? cause al queda and bin laden were behnind those too.

Actionable intelligence means a being giving a who what where and a means to go get them. After clinton passed up osama 3 times there was none.

They simply did not know where he was they were still trying to find him you act like everyone just stopped.

you neglected to mention that this PDB document was a historical document there was no new data or actionable intelligence on the attacks.

you're going to give clinton a pass for 8 years but hold the bush administrations feet to the fire for 8 months? not to mention the fact that trying to change the legal structure to these agencies cannot be done over night and a legislative process must be followed in order to do so? this legislative process depending on partisan ship could take months to even a year and change.

of course after 9/11 this strucutral problem was fixed cause it was found immedieatly to be the source of the problem so the LAWMAKERS in congress and senate changed it. The Executive in this country can not change laws on a whim that doesn't happen.

this memo was 2 lines in an email saying that there are cells in the US, that does nothing with out some information to do anything about. what did you expect her to do start kicking down the doors of every muslim in this country?

the different between a plan and a set of actionable courses is that a plan is based on intelligence of how to deal with a clear threat when you know where it is and you know where it's coming from. and actionable course is one of many plans that could be used to achive those ends. It's the difference between being told to buy a red car and being told you can buy the same car in a variety of colors and trim packages each need to assesed for viability.

the PDB question was a bullshit question , plain and simple he picked parts of that document out of context, with out even explaining what the purpose of the documment was. then when she tried to explain it he cut her off many times. It would make sense how ever that this part of the 3 hours of testimony because it's the only part that can be spun to be negative when in actuallity it's not.

how comes you're not calling for Bill Clinton, Who passed up osama bin laden 3 times, and neglected to kill him twice, to tesify publicly Im sure that would be great shit. but of course what he has to say is classified.

I agree that there were problems in the bush administration but cmon there were way more in the clinton administration and a huge problem between the intelligence agencies.

let's just be a little fair a tiny bit fair I didn't hear you say anything when richard clarke said one thing in his book and then another thing on the stand. or when he laid out the failed clinton terrorist policy. Nor did I hear you talk about the LACK of the word bin laden or alqeda in the final national security report of the clinton administration.

There was also this interesting part where she did lay out the plan she was trying to implement to crush alqeda in afganista, you knwo the part where she was talking about putthing pressure on pakistan for intelligence and so on and so forth. you think that you can call up pakistan and they're gonna be like " yup one bin laden coming right up" NO. that takes alot of time and diplomacy. but of cours e when saudi arabia, sudan, and afgainistan handed bin laden over on a silver plater, Clinton refused because there was no legal basis on which he could be held. but that's ok right?

by the way how you doing it's been a while

[igloo]

THE TRUTH HURTS

By JOHN PODHORETZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives

Print Reprint

April 9, 2004 -- THE liberals and Democrats on the 9/11 commission are using the public hearings to develop a plotline about the months leading up to the attacks - a plotline whose purpose is to harm George W. Bush's chances for reelection, help John Kerry's chances and whitewash the Clinton administration's failures.

The liberal plotline was on display yesterday in the questioning of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, whose refusal to capitulate to the partisan goals of her Democratic cross-examiners resulted in some shockingly inappropriate behavior on their part.

Memo to Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: The last Democrat who sighed, rolled his eyes and shook his head when he didn't like what he was hearing was Al Gore in his catastrophic debate with George W. Bush. Not a good role model.

Memo to Commissioner Bob Kerrey: Don't complain about Condi Rice "filibustering" when she's trying to answer your questions after you spend minutes of your supposedly precious time yelling at her about the situation in Iraq. Also, Bob, you might consider anger management. And new glasses: You called Condi Rice "Dr. Clarke."

According to the liberal plotline, the Bush administration knew that attacks were coming and failed to act. Had it acted, the 9/11 plot might have been "interrupted," to quote one of the commissioners.

No matter that even Richard Clarke was forced to acknowledge during his testimony that even had his every proposal become law at the beginning of the Bush administration, 9/11 would not have been prevented.

It's an election year, and the Democrats want voters to blame Bush - or at least to muddy the administration's reputation in the eyes of voters. That's why they're recycling this old line of attack that first surfaced in 2002 - when Hillary Clinton and others demanded to know "what did the president know and when did he know it" in regard to the bits and pieces of information in and around the FBI and intelligence agencies.

What was new at yesterday's hearing was the public revelation of the contents of the president's Aug. 6 daily intelligence briefing, or PDB, headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." Commissioners Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer tried to use this document to fashion an indictment of the Bush administration.

The indictment's particulars seemed to be that as a result of this memo, the president should have called a lot more meetings.

He should have met with Clarke - even though his boss, Condi Rice, said yesterday that she has no memory of Clarke ever asking for a meeting with the president to offer a specific warning about al Qaeda.

He should have met with FBI Director Louis Freeh - except for the fact that Louis Freeh was already gone, having left the FBI in late June 2001.

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?" Ben-Veniste demanded.

Rice explained that the document contained no actionable intelligence - that it laid out the history of bin Laden's plotting. This neither interested nor deterred Ben-Veniste, who was simply following his predetermined partisan script.

"Was the president, in words or substance, alarmed or in any way motivated to take any action, such as meeting with the director of the FBI, meeting with the attorney general, as a result of receiving the information contained in the PDB?" Ben-Veniste asked.

Yeah, because that's what we need in Washington - more meetings!

Ben-Veniste didn't wait for an answer before barreling on: "Would that have possibly, in your view, in hindsight, made a difference in the ability to collect this information, [to] 'shake the trees,' as Richard Clarke had said, and possibly, possibly interrupt the plotters?"

Rice then argued that to "go back and assume that somehow maybe we would have gotten lucky by shaking the trees" is mistaken and wrong. Plenty of people were shaking the trees as a result of the threats of June and July, but the plan was already in motion.

Bob Kerrey took up the liberal plotline by quoting from the Aug. 6 memo: "The FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking."

Rice responded tartly: "That was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings." Then she pointed out that such warnings won't have teeth "when you cannot tell people where a hijacking might occur, under what circumstances."

Rice's strongest moment came when she said something that we all knew in the days after 9/11 but are now in danger of forgetting. "I think that the unfortunate - and I really do think it's extremely tragic - fact is that sometimes until there is a catastrophic event that forces people to think differently, that forces people to overcome all customs and old culture and old fears . . . you don't get" the "kind of change" that could have prevented 9/11.

That bitter and uncomfortable fact doesn't fit in with the liberal plotline. But it has the distinct advantage of being true

[starvingartist]

Originally posted by siceone

And the 8 years prior to the clinton office with 3 attacks on american soil and american interests? right? cause al queda and bin laden were behnind those too.

Actionable intelligence means a being giving a who what where and a means to go get them. After clinton passed up osama 3 times there was none.

They simply did not know where he was they were still trying to find him you act like everyone just stopped.

you neglected to mention that this PDB document was a historical document there was no new data or actionable intelligence on the attacks.

you're going to give clinton a pass for 8 years but hold the bush administrations feet to the fire for 8 months? not to mention the fact that trying to change the legal structure to these agencies cannot be done over night and a legislative process must be followed in order to do so? this legislative process depending on partisan ship could take months to even a year and change.

of course after 9/11 this strucutral problem was fixed cause it was found immedieatly to be the source of the problem so the LAWMAKERS in congress and senate changed it. The Executive in this country can not change laws on a whim that doesn't happen.

this memo was 2 lines in an email saying that there are cells in the US, that does nothing with out some information to do anything about. what did you expect her to do start kicking down the doors of every muslim in this country?

the different between a plan and a set of actionable courses is that a plan is based on intelligence of how to deal with a clear threat when you know where it is and you know where it's coming from. and actionable course is one of many plans that could be used to achive those ends. It's the difference between being told to buy a red car and being told you can buy the same car in a variety of colors and trim packages each need to assesed for viability.

the PDB question was a bullshit question , plain and simple he picked parts of that document out of context, with out even explaining what the purpose of the documment was. then when she tried to explain it he cut her off many times. It would make sense how ever that this part of the 3 hours of testimony because it's the only part that can be spun to be negative when in actuallity it's not.

how comes you're not calling for Bill Clinton, Who passed up osama bin laden 3 times, and neglected to kill him twice, to tesify publicly Im sure that would be great shit. but of course what he has to say is classified.

I agree that there were problems in the bush administration but cmon there were way more in the clinton administration and a huge problem between the intelligence agencies.

let's just be a little fair a tiny bit fair I didn't hear you say anything when richard clarke said one thing in his book and then another thing on the stand. or when he laid out the failed clinton terrorist policy. Nor did I hear you talk about the LACK of the word bin laden or alqeda in the final national security report of the clinton administration.

There was also this interesting part where she did lay out the plan she was trying to implement to crush alqeda in afganista, you knwo the part where she was talking about putthing pressure on pakistan for intelligence and so on and so forth. you think that you can call up pakistan and they're gonna be like " yup one bin laden coming right up" NO. that takes alot of time and diplomacy. but of cours e when saudi arabia, sudan, and afgainistan handed bin laden over on a silver plater, Clinton refused because there was no legal basis on which he could be held. but that's ok right?

by the way how you doing it's been a while

I am good, how are you?

Well I will agree that you raise some interesting points. But at the same time those very same arguments did little to sway my opinion in that direction. I think it is because I am somewhat cynical. History also shows how a governmental change in political parties to some degree thwarts problems on the basis of a long standing anti party sentiment. Basically, when a different party takes over, the work or beliefs of the preceding party are often rejected or neglected. I feel this was the case with the Bush Administration. Yes, he kept some of the same employees. But keeping someone on the payroll, and actually respecting them and their work are two different things.

[siceone]

Originally posted by starvingartist

I am good, how are you?

Well I will agree that you raise some interesting points. But at the same time those very same arguments did little to sway my opinion in that direction. I think it is because I am somewhat cynical. History also shows how a governmental change in political parties to some degree thwarts problems on the basis of a long standing anti party sentiment. Basically, when a different party takes over, the work or beliefs of the preceding party are often rejected or neglected. I feel this was the case with the Bush Administration. Yes, he kept some of the same employees. But keeping someone on the payroll, and actually respecting them and their work are two different things.

I think if you read the record you would also see that it ws richard clarke who didn't respect thin incoming adminsitration. Richard clarke was in the loop at the begining clearly he was given responsibility and was exepected to carry them out..

If you look the man missed meetings alot.. I mean you don Miss meetings in the white house, especially when they concern your job. when he was asked about missing meetings he said that he has more pressing matters at the time. He said more pressing matters than talking to your the woman who talks to the president daily about your job!!!! that's why he was demoted he didn't want to step in line with the current administration...

If you're such a cynical person how can this not be politically motivated.. the man comes out with a book then he testifies and now sony is making a MOVIE about it Richard Clarke just sold out the biggest tradgedy in American history. He will make millions but none of you liberals care cause you just want to tear down GW at any cost.

Not only that but he lied he contradicted parts of his book over and over again had the nerve with out proof to say that the bush adminstration did nothing abotu alqeda while saying the clinton adminstration did, which you know I mean you have to know that is patently false.

There is a double standaed here and you know it...

Bill clinton for 8 years suffered 5 if not more attacks from alqeda 5

1 on the home land and 2 on american property over seas and at least 2 military targets.

not to mention 2 foiled attackes on american soil in which no one was on alert but the work of a customs agent and a brooklyn cop got the job done.

8 years

compare that to 8 months trying to get more power to the Fbi and the CIA to talk to each other... which they cannot do on thier own an act of congress must be put through for those laws to change. Not to mention the very thing that makes that communication possible is the patriot act which you libs hate cause it takes away freedom which is bullshit.....

you monday morning quarter back and say why haven't you done this why haven't you done that. but before you even knew the cause and those things were being done immedieatly afterwards.

when the patriot act passed everyoen freaked but now it turns out that the patriot act was probably the best tool we could have had to save this country from attack. which way do you want it?

just admit it you don't like george bush because he doesn't make you feel good about your self... you don't like george bush because he doens't make europe Feel good about them selves

you don't like goerge bush because he doesn't pander to you.. so fucking what he's gotten alot done since he has been in office you should really sit down and look at the data on the economy and use your heads for second to see he's cleaning up the mess the clintons left behind.

I would be pleased to sit down with you anytime over a bottle of wine to do so.

I love italian women you know that.

[starvingartist]

When did I say I did not like Bush? Besides that I would never put complete blame on the president. There were several individuals and agencies who should hold some accountability. Such as the systemic problem between the FBI and CIA. Neither the Bush nor Clinton Adminstration solved the problem. Further, this problem has existed for quite sometime. It was identified but never properly addressed. I guess my final comment is that entire Government failed the nation. Is that a better positioning statement for you? Oh, and my first comment was that hindsight has 20/20 vision, there was no need for you to point out the monday morning quarterback garbage, hehe.

[siceone]

Originally posted by starvingartist

When did I say I did not like Bush? Besides that I would never put complete blame on the president. There were several individuals and agencies who should hold some accountability. Such as the systemic problem between the FBI and CIA. Neither the Bush nor Clinton Adminstration solved the problem. Further, this problem has existed for quite sometime. It was identified but never properly addressed. I guess my final comment is that entire Government failed the nation. Is that a better positioning statement for you? Oh, and my first comment was that hindsight has 20/20 vision, there was no need for you to point out the monday morning quarterback garbage, hehe.

mind you just wait for the testimony of louis freeh it should be interesting.