Registered: Aug 2001
Location: deep in the heart of...
Posts: 515

go here

click on "listen now" to hear Condi's testimony broadcast live.

good stuff!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I've been painting, so I haven't seen hardly any of it, but in what I saw she was doing pretty well, I'd say.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

she's basically saying that the plan they were given wasn't a plan; the warning they were given wasn't a warning.The problem was the FBI's fault, not the whitehouse's. She mentioned that one of the democrats questioning her had a speech after 9/11 that said we ought to go after Iraq. The same democrat called her Mrs. Clarke like 5 times at least. She discussed the difference between a tactical vs a strategic response. There was a buncha docs that the commission wanted to talk about but were still classified.

I wasn't really impressed.

"There was no silver bullet which could have prevented the attacks," she said. She also said that even Clarke acknowledged that had they acted on his plan when he gave it, it would not have necessarily prevented the attacks.

The commission chairman basically said that it seems from her and others testimony that the problem is structural. We did not have the apparatus to detect and deal with this kind of an attack.

The vice chairman says that they dont think any of their questions 'threw her.'

"august 6th memo should be released ... to the american people"

Last edited by zim on 04-08-2004 at 05:04 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

She was filibustering, although Bob Kerrey wasn't very gracious about it. I thought that they were relatively tough on her, and she reacted with considerable grace.

In what I heard, she didn't trash Clarke at all, was quite complimentary about him.

Seems that she has kept the Clarke allegations as a 'he said, she said' business, which was probably the best that she could do. I'd be interested to hear reaction in the US.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

agreed about how she dealt with clarke. -- i threw some more stuff up in my previous post if you care.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Is there something about a memo title, that is pretty indicative that there was threat of an attack inside the US (just heard it garbled on the radio)?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

i believe the august 6th memo supposively warned about hijacking attacks in the us.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

interesting... she and Al Franken seemed to agree on the issue of the meeting a few days before 11/9 to address the issue of bin Laden.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Key points from the BEEB.

quote:

---

INTELLIGENCE PRIOR TO 11 SEPTEMBER ATTACKS

# No "silver bullet" could have prevented attacks

# America's response across several administrations of both parties towards terrorism was "insufficient" - "the terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them".

# The very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration was not Russia, not missile defence, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda

# Bush administration decided immediately after entering office to continue pursuing Democrat President Bill Clinton administration's covert action and other efforts to fight al-Qaeda

# Goal of Bush administration was to "ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies" towards al-Qaeda

# Bush administration recognised that America's counter-terrorism policy had to be connected to its regional strategies and to its overall foreign policy

# US President George W Bush understood the threat of al-Qaeda and knew its importance, but told Ms Rice he was tired of "swatting flies" - ie tit-for-tat responses

# America's al-Qaeda policy "wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working." Counter-terrorism had to be connected to regional strategy and overall foreign policy

# Almost all intelligence reports spoke of al-Qaeda operations overseas, not domestically in the United States, much threat reporting was "frustratingly vague"

# US intelligence gathering and analysis "have improved" but they must be stronger

# Al-Qaeda was "on the radar screen" of anybody in the national security field, but there were other priorities such as North Korea, the Middle East

# Intelligence analysis on the possible use of planes as weapons was never briefed: "I do not remember any reports to us or warnings that planes might be used as a weapon", however "I cannot tell you there wasn't a report here or there about it"

# Had to depend on intelligence agencies to sort threats and assess what is relevant, what is based on sound sources and what is speculative

# Problem with intelligence agencies was "absence of light" - a structural problem within the US intelligence community, with legal and bureaucratic impediments keeping the FBI and CIA separate: "We did not share domestic and foreign intelligence to make a product for policy makers that people could depend upon"

# Re August 6 2001 memo (which warned of possible attacks by al-Qaeda): "It was about threats abroad, not about the United States... this was not a warning"

# Nothing in memo suggested an attack was coming in New York and in Washington DC. It was not a threat report to the president or to Ms Rice

# There were no specific threats to specific sites and the country had already taken steps, through the Federal Aviation Authority, to warn of hijackings

IRAQ CONFLICT

# Following 11 September 2001 attacks, none of Mr Bush's advisers counselled doing anything against Iraq, the focus was on Afghanistan

# At one point after the attacks the US president said he wanted contingency plans against Iraq should it act against US interests, he was concerned that it would take advantage of the country during the period after the attacks

# Was no misuse of information - "I'm quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts" on Iraq

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

interesting. richard clarke performs stunningly in his testimony to the 9/11 commission and drudge posts this:

with the headline :
"Under oath, under fire"


and when condolezza rice has her testimony, which was decent, with a bit of fillibustering and question avoidance, he posts this:

with the headline: "Thats a wrap!"


interesting

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Assuming the above key points are correct, then this one:

# Bush administration decided immediately after entering office to continue pursuing Democrat President Bill Clinton administration's covert action and other efforts to fight al-Qaeda

menas they do not think Clinton is to blame. In fact they are essentially saying that Clinton's policy was right.

Is that a concession or a back pedal to cover ones arse?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

While I think the close examination of intelligence failures is appropriate and necessary, I find this blame game thing contemptable. There is adequate blame to go around. Whether it was during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency or the nine months of the Bush administration, the fact is mistakes were made. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the 'witch hunt' atmosphere that surrounds this issue in this political season. Find the problems and fix them rather than trying to afix blame to the Clinton or Bush administrations who failed to think of the unthinkable events of 9/11. Enough of the Monday morning quarterbacking, people.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

It seems inevitable that working out what went wrong runs the risk of damaging Bush's re-election chances, even without the politicking going on. Bush wants to campaign on being strong on terror and the final report could make that more difficult unless he takes steps to reduce that risk.

The bit of Clarke's claims that interest me is not what the 9/11 commission remit covers, but the accusation that Bush wanted to go into Iraq one way or another. I don't know if we will see that accusation being significantly investigated elsewhere, though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

Just for the record, Clinton also had plans for just such an action. Such plans are always near at hand to any President. I am no fan of Clinton and I think that he made far more mistakes than Bush did and for a longer period of time, but all of this is viewed through the 20/20 lens of hindsight. I do not think that Clainton should be faulted any more than I think Bush should be. We are dealing with wild animals here and as such they are very unpredictable. The upside to all of this is we now know who we are dealing with and so will hopefully think way out of the box when trying to anticipate what these savages will try next. No guarantees, but we are more alert and wary since 9/11. A hell of a way to achieve that level of awareness, but oh so typical of humans. We only seem to learn the important lessons when we are in pain.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I think that in this case the main difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush has more to lose from this, because he is running for re-election, in part on his record on terror.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
the accusation that Bush wanted to go into Iraq one way or another.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Accusing a former ambassador of lying about that would be hard for Blair to get away with, I think, unless he has some sort of proof.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Accusing a former ambassador of lying about that would be hard for Blair to get away with

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2539

OMG YOU MEAN WE DIDNT KNOW THE DAY TIME AND MANNER OF SEPT 11TH BEFORE HAND? STARTLING NEWS!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

Everyone and no one was to "blame" for 9/11. If any one really was to shoulder direct responsibility, in my mind it would be the people responsible for not establishing working communication between intelligence agencies and policy wonks. 9/11 WAS preventable, but I don't expect Bush to have stopped it, nor do I expect Clinton to take responsbility for something that happened 8 months have he conceded control

How come no one is pointing out that if we hadn't had a worthless partisan attack on Clinton going on at the time, he would have been attacking Al Qaeda camps? He tried, but was accused of trying to distract people from his sex life. Kind of embarassing for the Republicans in charge of those accusations, eh?

Funky Rooster posted a bit about how Clinton et al had initiated the policy of preemption in regards to terrorism (In the clarke vs. bush thread, I think).

The most damaging (and only really important) point in all of this is the issue of Iraq. It has distracted us from Afghanistan and A.Q. and it is leading to an upsurge terrorism and terrorist potential. Worthless on all accounts. As bad as Saddam was, getting rid of him wasn't worth what we are getting out it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

Let us be clear about this. If we want to blame someone for 9/11, then blame the rug-thumping, knuckle-walking, savages that committed that crime against humanity on that day. For the victims to play blame ping-pong in ludicrous. It is us against the animals. The fight is out there and it is replete with primitaves.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2539

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24747

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [P]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged