PDA

View Full Version : Condoleeza Rice Testimony - They are starting to crumble



bgzee
04-09-2004, 08:56 AM
Anyone watch this? I caught bits and peices. At one point she was asked something to the extent, "Did Mr. Clarke ever mention the possibility of an attack within the US" (during the PDB, Presidents Daily Briefing)

To which she responded, "No, only about outside attacks..."

Later she was asked, "What was the title of that PDB?" to which she replied, "Al quada's intent to strike within the US"

IS THIS A ****ING JOKE??? are you kidding me?

At another point she claimed that the Clinton era had not left them with a plan for terrorism, only an "Actionary list of objectives"

Please tell me, what is the ****ing difference between an actionary list of objectives and a PLAN???

I'm looking for a transcript right now so I have the exact quotes.

bgzee
04-09-2004, 09:04 AM
Here are some additional links

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/911.commission.memo/index.html

And some quotes from the transcript:


"Rice insisted the memo did not give any advance warning of what was to happen.

'It did not warn of attacks inside the United States,' Rice said. 'It was historical information based on old reporting.'"

Then later in the testimony...


"Asked by Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor who has read the memo, to recall the title, Rice said: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' ""

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/911.commission/index.html

Willie_Bosket
04-09-2004, 10:00 AM
I saw some of the footage on the news, and yah it didn't come across too good.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 10:32 AM
They ripped her apart on the Daily Show last night, especially that part about the PDB. It was hilarious.

Ak47
04-09-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
They ripped her apart on the Daily Show last night, especially that part about the PDB. It was hilarious.

yea i saw that too :D

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
They ripped her apart on the Daily Show last night, especially that part about the PDB. It was hilarious.

I missed it, fell asleep too early :(

supergarr
04-09-2004, 11:20 AM
so basically the administration was caught with their pants down

jestros
04-09-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by supergarr
so basically the administration was caught with their pants down
Ewww, thats not a pretty sight.
:D

JigaroKagan
04-09-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by supergarr
so basically the administration was caught with their pants down

They must have taken a cue from Clinton.

Starsky
04-09-2004, 01:05 PM
The US recieves hundreds of different reports on terror threats. Ranging from suitcase bombs, suitcase nukes, gas attacks, mailing chem/bio weapons, skyjackings, carbombs, train bombs, planting bombs, timed bombs, terror on the sea, terrorists using C4 and Semtex, assasination plots etc, taking hostages in the US, hostages Abroad, making demands.


Then, they are criticized for not preventing a terror attack. Imagine if the terrorists used Anthrax and made a big bomb and blew it up in the city. You guys would criticize Bush for not acting on intelligence about gas attacks. Its impossible to prevent all terrorist attacks, you can only reduce likelihood and mitigate the situation. The intelligence reports the Whitehouse recived stated it was far more likely the terrorists would use methods different than on 9/11.


Its easy to play monday-morning counter-terrorism expert. In hindsight, anyone can pretend to say what they would have done. On 9/10/01, I dont remember any liberals or Clinton Holdovers screaming about impending attacks.


If you are an ignorant, infantile leftist with the intelligence of a primordial rhesus monkey, blame 9/11 on Bush.

ironhead31
04-09-2004, 01:26 PM
The is the way it is. There is a difference between KNOWING that these clowns where going to strike us and knowing that they would LIKE to strike us. Think about that.They would LIKE to strike us. There is also a difference between KNOWING that someone is going to whip your ass and knowing that they would like to whip your ass. Do you think that Bush KNEW that they where going to strike the US? Hell know he didn't! I am sure he knew that they would sure like too but to say he knew they where and did nothing to prevent it is crazy ****! As as far as Mrs Rice goes well you try and sit there with twenty people at a time giving you hell, putting you down and trying to smear you in the ground and see if you don't get frustrated. She is doing pretty damn good if you ask me considering the pressure she is under.All this is is another example of these democrates trying too come up with something to down grade the Bush administration with.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Starsky

Then, they are criticized for not preventing a terror attack.

the issue is not that they did not stop the attack the issue is that they did not try hard enough. Clarke said it, there was no surefire way to stop the attacks, but they could have done more.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 01:32 PM
ive got a question for you. why was bill clinton allowed to testify in private? since he was president during the planning stages of a couple different attacks, wouldnt he be someone they would have questioned a little harder if they wanted the truth?

why was rice called into testify TWICE? she already testified once in private, for hours, how could bringing her out in public really help the "investigation"?

this is just a big political hoax, and frankly, these people should be ashamed to use such a tragedy as 9/11 for political gain.

bgzee
04-09-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
ive got a question for you. why was bill clinton allowed to testify in private? since he was president during the planning stages of a couple different attacks, wouldnt he be someone they would have questioned a little harder if they wanted the truth?

Bush and Cheney are only willing to testify privatly, under oath, so really there is no difference.


why was rice called into testify TWICE? she already testified once in private, for hours, how could bringing her out in public really help the "investigation"?

The American people have a right to the answers.




this is just a big political hoax, and frankly, these people should be ashamed to use such a tragedy as 9/11 for political gain. [/B]

Kinda like what bush did in his new campaign commercials?

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:00 PM
"Kinda like what bush did in his new campaign commercials?"

wow, and the spin begins. the reason why its hard to hold a conversation with people like you is that i have to wade thru the bull**** and try to find a solitary fact or atleast something based in logic , not just a knee jerk. first off, the commericals were done tastefully and with plenty of respect, and saying otherwise is purely foolish and partisan.


"The American people have a right to the answers."

youre exactly right. thats why they need to look for awnsers instead of playing the blame game. if you were truely interested in "awnsers" you would be outraged by the fact that the clinton administration is getting off so light. but i believe you have an agenda other than the truth.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 02:02 PM
so far everyone is getting off easy, and the focus is on bush because he was the president at the time.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:06 PM
God, if people actually think that Bush could have prevented 9-11 and knew about the attacks beforehand is a MORON.

Both presidents would have done everything in their power to prevent 9-11. Your are simply a fool if you believe that it's just some big conspiracy, and it was Bush's fault.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
so far everyone is getting off easy, and the focus is on bush because he was the president at the time.


bill clinton was president when the markets started to drop, why isnt he taking most of the heat for that? he was also president when the first twin towers attack happened, why isnt that under the microscope? he was also in charge during the embassy bombings, why arent these attacks significant?

bgzee
04-09-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
God, if people actually think that Bush could have prevented 9-11 and knew about the attacks beforehand is a MORON.

Both presidents would have done everything in their power to prevent 9-11. Your are simply a fool if you believe that it's just some big conspiracy, and it was Bush's fault.

Nobodys saying it was a conspiracy.

However, more and more evidence is being brought to light that this administration was specifically warned about what became 9-11. Who knows, time will tell.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Nobodys saying it was a conspiracy.

However, more and more evidence is being brought to light that this administration was specifically warned about what became 9-11. Who knows, time will tell.


Well to imply that the Bush adminstration knew about a terrorist attack and did nothing to prevent it is absurd.


Also if people were warning the Bush adminstration about an attack, the Clinton adminstatration must have known about an attack then right? So why didn't the Clinton adminstration do anything to prevent it, while they still had power?

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:24 PM
bush will be burned at the stake because thats what the liberals want, and they will stop at nothing until he is sacraficed. they want bushes head, and if they have to attack his charactor, make **** up, blackmail his kids, or kidnap his dog they will do it. it dosent matter how many toes they step on, or how much they have to tramble on the democratic process, they will make sure at the end of the day, their puppet is in office.

so much for bipartisan efforts.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye

Both presidents would have done everything in their power to prevent 9-11.

the basic idea is that Bush did not do everything in his power, that is the problem

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
the basic idea is that Bush did not do everything in his power, that is the problem

What did Clinton do then? If it was his adminstration with the intel, they just sat around and did nothing with it then. Because Clintons intelligence people were not working for Bush. So obviously they had the info BEFORE Bush took office.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Well to imply that the Bush adminstration knew about a terrorist attack and did nothing to prevent it is absurd.


Why? No one is saying that Bush specifically knew that people were going to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon at about 9 AM on 9/11/01, and did nothing. Clearly, that would be nothing short of criminal negligence, but no one's really accusing them of that.

But there WAS plenty of chatter that something very big was going to happen, that there were plans that involved planes, and that bin Laden was looking to attack inside the US. Is that vague? Sure. But the Bush administration didn't show any interest in pursuing any of it further. And that is their failing.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
the basic idea is that Bush did not do everything in his power, that is the problem

i rest my case!!! these people dont care about the truth, they just want to trash bush, by any means nessacary.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
What did Clinton do then? If it was his adminstration with the intel, they just sat around and did nothing with it then. Because Clintons intelligence people were not working for Bush. So obviously they had the info BEFORE Bush took office.


jimineye, we might as well not even reply to this garbage. they have demonstrated time and time again they arent interested in finding out who is really responsible.

for proof look no further than your own alligation. your question about clintons involvement has been dodged many times.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
jimineye, we might as well not even reply to this garbage. they have demonstrated time and time again they arent interested in finding out who is really responsible.

for proof look no further than your own alligation. your question about clintons involvement has been dodged many times.

Yeah, I'm still waiting on a response for those.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:33 PM
i hope youre patient, because youre not going to get one.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 02:34 PM
well it seems like from the testimonies that clinton put much more emphasis on fighting terrorists than bush did, combine that with the fact that this is an investigation into 9/11 which happened almost a year after bush took office that is why he is under more scrutiny. If it shows that clinton was also asleep at the wheel so be it. But I think that it is pretty clear now that Bush was not doing everything he could do.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
well it seems like from the testimonies that clinton put much more emphasis on fighting terrorists than bush did, combine that with the fact that this is an investigation into 9/11 which happened almost a year after bush took office that is why he is under more scrutiny. If it shows that clinton was also asleep at the wheel so be it. But I think that it is pretty clear now that Bush was not doing everything he could do.


heres my follow up question, if clinton appears to have done all he could do, than why didnt he call for an investigating of the intelligence after the embassy or twin towers attacks?

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 02:40 PM
i am not sure, i was about 13 (it was 93 right?) when the 1st twin tower attack happend so I dont remember that much going on around it, maybe there should have been. I liked clinton better than I like Bush, but I am not a democrat, and I think everyone should answer for their mistakes. but I can not say if clinton made a mistake with thoes or not.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 02:42 PM
I'd like to point out that simply saying Clinton didn't do anything doesn't clear Bush of any criticism, all it does it say that neither of them had a good track record, it doesn't accomplish anything in terms of what either administration did or did not do.

Coliones
04-09-2004, 02:44 PM
Aren't they trying to figure out if he was asleep at the helm? or should I say on vacation in texas. He is an inept president who gets his way through bullying and lying. There was already another thread about Clinton and what he did (he actually blew the hell out of a few training camps). He had TONS of intel coming in, and was making tons of it up as he went, saying these bastards were up to something and DID NOT act upon it. What could have he done? who knows but instead of being reactive he should have been proactive and started hunting the terrorists. Nuff said :mad:

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 02:47 PM
this is when i defer back to my statements about how the left continues to prove that they are blinded by hatred, and will make **** up in order to have bush tossed.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 02:51 PM
who made what up?

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 03:02 PM
My question is still being dodged.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Yeah, I'm still waiting on a response for those.

Clinton should have done more, no question. I've said it before here. He should have made more of a public issue of it, and went after the Taliban more aggressively. He was, I should point out, also facing the obstacle of (1) no one giving a $hit about foreign affairs when the economy was booming and (2) Republicans ready to pounce on him for absoltuely ANYTHING he did.

But he did do some things. He jacked the antiterrorism budget of the FBI way up. He appointed a counterterrorism administrator. He signed off on plans to assassinate bin Laden. Under his administration, many attacks were thwarted. They were paying attention.

The Bush administration, OTOH, doesn't appear to have thought much about al-Qaida at all before Sept. 11.

supergarr
04-09-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
heres my follow up question, if clinton appears to have done all he could do, than why didnt he call for an investigating of the intelligence after the embassy or twin towers attacks?

we won't know that yet. There was a lot of classified information discussed between Clinton and the panel members. But he did say that there really wasn't anything that he would have done differently as a president

bgzee
04-09-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
What did Clinton do then? If it was his adminstration with the intel, they just sat around and did nothing with it then. Because Clintons intelligence people were not working for Bush. So obviously they had the info BEFORE Bush took office.

Clinton prevented an attack on LAX.

Not only that, but when asked about whether or not the Clinton admin had given them a plan on terrorism, rice said something to the extent of, "They did not give us a plan. They gave us an actionary list of objectives"

Sounds like a plan if I ever heard of one...

supergarr
04-09-2004, 03:10 PM
read
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nss_dec2000_contents.htm

RedheadHardBody
04-09-2004, 04:05 PM
She is lying out her ass now.

Dorian
04-09-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by RedheadHardBody
She is lying out her ass now.

and you know this because... you were there? God how I hate democrats and their insistent Bull****!

RedheadHardBody
04-09-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
and you know this because... you were there? God how I hate democrats and their insistent Bull****!

I'm sure she is covering up for Bush in some way or another. We will find out soon enough.

bgzee
04-09-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
and you know this because... you were there? God how I hate democrats and their insistent Bull****!

Did you even watch the testimony? Or are you just sputtering the same uninformed BS you typically do?

honeybbqgrundle
04-09-2004, 04:22 PM
Maybe they couldn't stop the attacks, and shouldn't have been expected to- who knows exactly what intelligence they had? But when you say stuff like you weren't sure if there were threats made toward the US then 5 minutes later say the name of a document specifically refers to attacks on the US, it doesn't look good. Also, she said so many times how some "other" department didn't tell them something or she wasn't informed about certain things. WHY THE HELL NOT? They were even talking about how the FBI and CIA don't communicate with each other. Idiots.

And I know there's a lot of information to deal with, but it's their damn jobs to do it and if there's no communication between departments, then they're not doing all that they can.

bgzee
04-09-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
Maybe they couldn't stop the attacks, and shouldn't have been expected to- who knows exactly what intelligence they had? But when you say stuff like you weren't sure if there were threats made toward the US then 5 minutes later say the name of a document specifically refers to attacks on the US, it doesn't look good. Also, she said so many times how some "other" department didn't tell them something or she wasn't informed about certain things. WHY THE HELL NOT? They were even talking about how the FBI and CIA don't communicate with each other. Idiots.

And I know there's a lot of information to deal with, but it's their damn jobs to do it and if there's no communication between departments, then they're not doing all that they can.

add that to the list of all the "flawed" intellegence they gathered and one might wonder what the hell is wrong with this administration.

Dorian
04-09-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Did you even watch the testimony? Or are you just sputtering the same uninformed BS you typically do?

I listended to it and found the democrats would not even attempt to let her fully answer ****. They don't want answers they want a fukkin three ring circus.

You don't like me thats cool, but keep it to your self, I said nothing about you!

RedheadHardBody
04-09-2004, 04:52 PM
I listened to it and then I shut off the tv.

Dorian
04-09-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by RedheadHardBody
I listened to it and then I shut off the tv.

I listened a bit for like 15 minutes and when the questions turned foolish I shut it off and listended to some tunes.
It reminds me of the Jerry springer show.

JigaroKagan
04-09-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
I listened a bit for like 15 minutes and when the questions turned foolish I shut it off and listended to some tunes.
It reminds me of the Jerry springer show.

Our government is the Jerry Springer show on steroids.

Dorian
04-09-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
Our government is the Jerry Springer show on steroids.

I would have to agree on that one. It seems like a three ring circus. I do not agree with Bush on everything he says and does, but you gotta remember it takes democrats and republicans together to make this circus. But it is one I aint paying to see!

benefit
04-09-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
What did Clinton do then? If it was his adminstration with the intel, they just sat around and did nothing with it then. Because Clintons intelligence people were not working for Bush. So obviously they had the info BEFORE Bush took office.

One wrongdoing doesn't justify another.

Now that I answered your question, you must REALLY wish it was dodged.

BigKazWSM747
04-09-2004, 07:24 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept__11_bush_memo_4

Ryo
04-09-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
God, if people actually think that Bush could have prevented 9-11 and knew about the attacks beforehand is a MORON.

Both presidents would have done everything in their power to prevent 9-11. Your are simply a fool if you believe that it's just some big conspiracy, and it was Bush's fault.

He could have had the FAA tighten checkpoint security, continuous checks, air marshalls, locked cockpits, etc. Don't talk about things you don't know about.

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 09:12 PM
i love it how they refuse to hold clinton responsible for anything, not even the three attacks that happened in his presidency. they will continue to ignore the clinton, and skip straight back to bush.

this is useless, like i said, they dont care about the truth, they care about blaming bush, and kicking him out of office.

benefit
04-09-2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
i love it how they refuse to hold clinton responsible for anything, not even the three attacks that happened in his presidency. they will continue to ignore the clinton, and skip straight back to bush.

this is useless, like i said, they dont care about the truth, they care about blaming bush, and kicking him out of office.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. I said, one wrongdoing doesn't justify another. What part of it doesn't penetrate your ignorant skull?

Why do you have to use Clinton's actions to justify Bush's? Are you that ****ing stupid?

enjoyincubus
04-09-2004, 09:44 PM
why do you feel as if you are justified to judge an action in which you have no knowledge of, and have motives other than fixing the problem? you have all but given clinton a free ride when it comes to his testimony. how many people know that he tesified yesterday? this was a mere "in other news...." instance, when he was president during the majority of the terrorist activity.

but in truth, i dont give a flying ratts ass what you believe, or who you blame. but i do know one thing, you are a hypocrit who only cares about one thing, and that is making bush look bad. you have blatently proved your partisan nature time and time again.

you are using peoples fear in order to mold reality, and frankly its disgusting to see such a double standard in your posts.

i dont blame either, only a hypocrit picks and chooses what person he wants to attack.

like i said, theres no point for me even wasting my time with *******s such as yourself. you are set in your ways, you have shaped your views to the point where anything that dosent fit into them is cast off as lies or unimportant.

benefit
04-09-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
why do you feel as if you are justified to judge an action in which you have no knowledge of, and have motives other than fixing the problem? you have all but given clinton a free ride when it comes to his testimony. how many people know that he tesified yesterday? this was a mere "in other news...." instance, when he was president during the majority of the terrorist activity.

but in truth, i dont give a flying ratts ass what you believe, or who you blame. but i do know one thing, you are a hypocrit who only cares about one thing, and that is making bush look bad. you have blatently proved your partisan nature time and time again.

you are using peoples fear in order to mold reality, and frankly its disgusting to see such a double standard in your posts.

i dont blame either, only a hypocrit picks and chooses what person he wants to attack.

like i said, theres no point for me even wasting my time with *******s such as yourself. you are set in your ways, you have shaped your views to the point where anything that dosent fit into them is cast off as lies or unimportant.

You're the freaking *******.

I will gladly tear up your post to pieces.

Let me start off with saying that I understand that as a Republican, you have adapted the "offense is the best defense" mentality, as witnessed by your prattling on about inane things like me blaming Bush (which, ironically, I still can't find in either of my two posts on this thread), and generally attacking my personal character.

You called me a hypocrite. Now tell me, boy, how in the hell am I a hypocrite? I'm NOT the one who justifies Bush's wrongs with Clinton's wrongs. Clinton had his share of mistakes, I NEVER said otherwise. However, Clinton was out of the office 4 years ago, and has nothing to do with what Bush did prior to 9/11 (hard to believe, I know).

You accused me of blaming Bush, yet you were the one who was blaming Clinton and using his actions to justify Bush's actions (or lack thereof). You are a stupid prick that doesn't deserve to breath the same air that I do if you resort to such lowly tactics as blaming a past President for current President's mistakes and using the former's wrongdoings to justify the latter's wrongdoings.

Please, for the sake of your own credibility, do us those three favors:

1) Find my exact post in which I was blaming Bush although he is deserving of blame just as much as Clinton
2) Enlighten us as to how my "one wrongdoing doesn't justify another" comment is hypocritical
3) When you're done with the first two (though I'm completely sure you would not get past the first one), go out and have a nice meeting with a fast traveling bus - then the world would be rid of one more dummy.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Ryo
He could have had the FAA tighten checkpoint security, continuous checks, air marshalls, locked cockpits, etc. Don't talk about things you don't know about.


And Clinton didn't do this because??? After all if Clinton had the intel none of this went into effect during his presidency...

irpker
04-09-2004, 11:25 PM
First of all, the public is kept in the dark, even with the public testimonies. Any significant information is kept behind closed doors, where the cameras and recorders aren't.

There is also an intense competition between the FBI and CIA, and they refuse to share information with one another. This has been going on since these departments were created. Too much male bravado, that's the problem.

Also, Clinton was a big pussy. He knew of Al-Qaida and of their terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and DID NOT act on it. He didn't need congress's approval for an executive order to kill terrorists in Afghanistan, especially when Al-Qaida was being funded by the same man who funded the first WTC bombing. He was too concerned about his approval rating to take any serious action.

Starsky
04-09-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Ryo
He could have had the FAA tighten checkpoint security, continuous checks, air marshalls, locked cockpits, etc. Don't talk about things you don't know about.


You are using political motivation to try and blame 9/11 on Bush. Its like plaque trying to eat through tooth enamel.


This is getting ridiculous. Could have, would have, should have. They could put continous security checks on, bus marshalls, maximum security on every large vehicle, bus, train, plane, semitruck, seagoing vessel or anything that can move explosives. You recieve 100's of intelligence reports, and all of a sudden you want to spend billions on stopping one of the lesser ones. Considering there hadn't been a skyjacking in years, thats strategically ridiculous. The ONLY way this would be feasible is if you expected impending attack by Hijacked jetliners. NO ONE expected this, which is why it happened. In the overall scheme of things, hijacked jetliners are a very small threat, compared to suitcase nukes and chembio weapons, yet you want to selectively act on one.


That is whats called a monday morning counterterrorism expert.

Debaser
04-09-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
You are using political motivation to try and blame 9/11 on Bush. Its like plaque trying to eat through tooth enamel.


This is getting ridiculous. Could have, would have, should have. They could put continous security checks on, bus marshalls, maximum security on every large vehicle, bus, train, plane, semitruck, seagoing vessel or anything that can move explosives. You recieve 100's of intelligence reports, and all of a sudden you want to spend billions on stopping one of the lesser ones. Considering there hadn't been a skyjacking in years, thats strategically ridiculous. The ONLY way this would be feasible is if you expected impending attack by Hijacked jetliners. NO ONE expected this, which is why it happened. In the overall scheme of things, hijacked jetliners are a very small threat, compared to suitcase nukes and chembio weapons, yet you want to selectively act on one.


That is whats called a monday morning counterterrorism expert.

Yeah, I completely agree.

1) There's no way the public would settle for increased security and delays at airports and other government buildings. All you would hear would be incessant whining and complaining.

2) Yeah, great, you get a threat. There are many flights a day that go across the United States. How in the hell can the US administration monitor all of this activity? That's right, we can't. And what about the many international flights? I am sure terrorists could find a loophole around this.

They are just playing the game of politics.

The only criticism I have towards the Gov't is the *alleged* argument that Bush was focusing more on Saddam than finding the real person/people behind the attacks. This seems to be very plausible considering all of the evidence gathered from inside sources against Bush.

Ryo
04-10-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Debaser
2) Yeah, great, you get a threat. There are many flights a day that go across the United States. How in the hell can the US administration monitor all of this activity? That's right, we can't. And what about the many international flights? I am sure terrorists could find a loophole around this.

Actually it was possible before Sept 11 to monitor flights across the US because all the private companies were contracting under the FAA. If there is a problem, the FAA calls ALL the shots concerning security and private companies can not do anything about it or else they will be put out of business by the FAA. Yes, it was very difficult but nonetheless our goverment could have drastically reduced the risk of an attack.

honeybbqgrundle
04-10-2004, 02:02 AM
The real problem is the handling of the threats and the inexcusable lack of communication between govt. agencies. Only a fool would think that all terror attacks can be avoided, but that's not the issue. The issue is the way threats are dealt, or should I say, not dealt with. Apparently with all these hundreds of leads and threats Rice and the President were never notified. At least she kept saying that as if it were a valid excuse.

LordNeon
04-10-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by irpker
Also, Clinton was a big pussy. He knew of Al-Qaida and of their terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and DID NOT act on it. He didn't need congress's approval for an executive order to kill terrorists in Afghanistan

Totally false. Clinton signed off on more than one secret executive order to have bin Laden assassinated.

Reborn79
04-10-2004, 03:39 PM
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228#1


I advise any liberals, moderates on this board who are politically active to sign up for the daily e-mail from this group...they do an extremely thorough job of analyzing the current political issues.


Anyway, the link goes to a review of the rice testimony. Before you say it is 'biased', read the arguments it makes.

irpker
04-10-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Totally false. Clinton signed off on more than one secret executive order to have bin Laden assassinated.

Even if he had been killed, would that have destroyed the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan? No, B-52 bombers would have, not an assassination of one man.

BigKazWSM747
04-11-2004, 04:38 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/11/911.investigation/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html