Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
Rice Falsely Claims Bush’s Pre-9/11 Anti-Terror Efforts Were ‘At Least As Aggressive’ As Clinton’s
This morning, in the Fox-owned New York Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reacts angrily to President Clinton’s criticisms of how the Bush administration approached the terrorist threat during their first eight months in office. (The Post headlines the article “Rice Boils Over Bubba“) An excerpt:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
… “What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.
The 9/11 Commission Report contradicts Rice’s claims. On December 4, 1998, for example, the Clinton administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks.” Here’s how the Clinton administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
On August 6, 2001, the Bush administration received a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.” Here’s how the Bush administration reacted, according to the 9/11 Commission report:
[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so.[p. 260]
We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. [p. 262]
Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate: “I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We’ve been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
How has Bush been able to skate on Pre-911 innaction for this long?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:09 amTake a closer look at the very words you are writing,
1998 – “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks”
Actionable. Specific.
2001 – “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.”
uh, we’ve Generally known that since at least 1993.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:12 amI would love to see this debated somewhere on TV with a large audience. Last nite’s Daily Show moment of Zen showed the hard hitting question to Bill Clinton juxtaposed with Katie “big gums and teeth” Couric asking Rice about dating. For the love of shit’s sake!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:12 amRead Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies”. It’s all in there, and it’s consistent with what Bill Clinton said and what the 9/11 Commission said.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:13 amThe 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan commission charged with investigating the facts in the aftermath of 9/11. It was not a body that served to deliver a referendum on who did what. In fact, it failed to directly blame any one individual or individuals in the US Government for their failings.
President Clinton and his staff were there.
President Bush and his staff were there.
Both Presidents know the facts and were involved in this, which means that someone is lying.
My bet is the current Administration, which chooses to hide behind the fig leaf of the 9/11 Commission that continues to be corrupted and shredded by sellouts like Tom Kean.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:13 am“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” SoS Rice.
And we’re supposed to take her word for it? Why? Because she’s always been so honest in the past?!?!?
“She was caught spreading a false story about Sept. 11, claiming that Air Force One flew the President to Oklahoma after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because “intelligence” indicated that terrorists were aiming for the White House and the Presidential jet. Later she testified that the U.S. government had never anticipated an assault by airliner, when in fact there had been many warnings of exactly such tactics — most notably during the summer of 2001, when Western intelligence services set up anti-aircraft batteries around the Genoa summit to protect the President.”
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15306
“CLAIM: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally “received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.” In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01] ”
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520
So sorry, Dr. Rice. We won’t be fooled by your mendacity again.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:17 amCondi! Oh snap!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:18 amLOL Condi Rice is as much a criminal liar as Bush the King Of Lies! The Bush Regime did absolutely ZERO in regards to Osama till 9/11/01 attack occured, then afterwards they have done next to nothing about him!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:22 amNice try, Condi liar! Does she really believe that everyone was born yesterday and have no recollection of the events AS THEY ACTUALLY OCCURRED??
Surely most people recall what occurred pre-9/11 and all the “spin” in the world won’t change their recollections of those days leading up to it……she’s only showing her stupidity and qualifications for the job she has…which amounts to “how well one can lie” these days. I certainly hope Condi has no further aspirations to higher diplomatic/administrative ranks because she’s certainly losing any credibility she may have had with her attempts to cover her SORRY butt and her obvious complicity in all of this.
It’s pathetically clear that she’s fighting a losing battle or she’d have nothing to attempt to defend with her lies and cover-up. When this administration finally gets out of town, it will be a case of “condi who?” for the american public as she leaves with her tail between her legs. They’re all losing it and the GOP “show” is becoming quite pathological and pathetic for the american public to witness.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:22 amWe’re not falling for that crap anymore, you evil woman.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:22 amBesides, most americans have read “against all enemies” which sums it all up and adds to Clinton’s credibility a thousandfold.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:23 amI didn’t realize Fox owned the NY Post. So that’s why Steve Doucey held up a copy of the paper with the photo of Ms. Rice and read the headline. I turned the channel after that because I knew what was coming.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:25 amHow dare Condi kick Richard Clarke like that? Disgraceful.
He tried to reach and warn Bush, but was kept out of the inner circle. Bush Co had their Iraq war plans on the boil all through 2001 and ignored Clarke’s attempts to get them to focus on Bin Laden and terrorism in general.
This is the man, a real man, who faced the families who were destroyed by 9/11 and said. “I’m sorry. We failed you.”
Not one single member of Bush Co has EVER faced 9/11 widows and said anything like that.
Bush Co are really hanging off a cliff by their nails if they try and ramp up the “Blame Clinton And His Gang For 9/11″ rhetoric.
If that sort of game is Rove’s ‘October Surprise’ then the Repubs will get well and truly flogged in the November elections.
More than a third of all Americans, maybe more, don’t trust the Bush Co story of what happened on 9/11, or why it happened. If I was Rove I would be CC-ing everyone involved and saying “DROP THIS NOW!”
If Bush Co keep pushing, I hope some of the Demos find their balls and ask Bush Co to answer some of the 9/11 questions that the 9/11 Commission wouldn’t touch. For good reason.
Richard Clarke has made numerous appearances on Australian current affairs shows and he has never been anything other than honest and straightforward, completely lacking in spin. I don’t agree with everything he has to say, but it’s wonderful to hear someone like him tell the truth, even if they don’t like the truth they’re telling.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:26 amSince Rice did not say they reacted to that particular PDB (which obviously contained no actionable intel) in any particular way, Judd’s post contains no point. Again, Judd is a propaganda-spewing fraud.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:26 amREPUBLICANS : FACTS :: DRACULA : LIGHT
September 26th, 2006 at 10:28 amWasn’t the 9/11 Commission report edited by the Bush admin? Bush and Cheney only testified together and not under oath. Who ya’ gonna beleave?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:29 am#2 Jay – you are being economical with the truth. The PDB actually says:
(my bold – but you get the point.
Now try reading it again and see it you draw the conclusion that to do jack sh*t is the right answer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
September 26th, 2006 at 10:31 am#14 – “Again, Judd is a propaganda-spewing fraud.”
So are you, sweetheart. So are you.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:34 amThe rewrite of history has swung into high gear. It started with “The Path to 9/11″, and now Clinton’s version of “The Dean Scream” is allowing the administration to tee-off. A new blitz of half truths, mistruths, and outright lies – echoed without question by the media – are set to mold the mushy American mind. Soon people everywhere will agree: “It’s all Clinton’s fault“
September 26th, 2006 at 10:35 amCommission warned Bush and the Hart-Rudman Commission spoke directly to Rice and others in the incoming rouge criminals. Bush chose to trash the Hart-Rudman report and assign Cheney to protect us from attack. I’m sooooo sick of the mother f*cking LIARS.
Link to article on Hart-Rudman report: http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2F%2Farticle%2F20060925%2FD8KC62R00.html
September 26th, 2006 at 10:35 amThe retroactive Swift Boating of Clinton continues…
theworstpresidentever.org
September 26th, 2006 at 10:36 amSince Rice did not say they reacted to that particular PDB (which obviously contained no actionable intel) in any particular way, Judd’s post contains no point. Again, Judd is a propaganda-spewing fraud.
Comment by Yes_I_Question_Your_Patriotism
Aug. 6, 2001: Crawford, Texas. President Bush receives a President’s Daily Brief entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.†It warns that the FBI has intelligence indicating that terrorists might be preparing for an airline hijacking in the U.S. and might be targeting a building in lower Manhattan.
Have you read the PDB of that day YIQYP? No actionable intel…..so you are saying the whole PDB is the title? Um..you have to try harder than that.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,†Rice added.
Ummm…doesn’t this statement freely admit, then, that the Clinton administration did in fact act agressively? But in the next breath they’ll say that Clinton did nothing. FREAKS!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 amWhich group of people has apologised for their failures before 9/11? Here’s a hint: they’re voluntarily no longer part of the US government.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 amOoops … posted the incorrect link on previous comment. Here’s the correct one: http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/print.html
September 26th, 2006 at 10:37 amRice is a serial dissembler. It’s what she does. It’s why she has the job. The real war is between Bush’s supporters, and his opponents. No amount of fact, reason, or scientific inquiry has a hope of influencing their opinion. Their belief is absolute. You might as well say that the political war is between authoritarian absolutists, for whom, all truth is revealed by their Dear Great Leaders, infallible, and inviolate, VS the anti-authoritarian, reality based, science wielding opposition, for whom scepticism and doubt are expressions of mental health.
There is no way out of such an impasse except by……..
September 26th, 2006 at 10:41 amShut up!!!!! Condi is lying? Stop it!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 amWell I see dead eyed rice is yet again weighing in to protect her lover man..Lies, lies and more lies from this evil shell of a person with no sole…And the reich think’s this female devil is a good choice for the next pres…..Please spare us all troll’s for the day…Most of us here saw the hearing’s and can re read at will all the question’s and answers…She is a lier and so is this entire administration….If the american public were well informed they would storm the white house, house and senate and put all these people in jail….Sadly many of the voting public are bypolar in their voting and never connect the dot’s…..Blessings
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 amYes, we know what the record it, but that doesn’t stop the liars from lying.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:43 amKatie Couric interviewed the Secretary of State and asked her about dating, and reported that she’s much more “girly” and “warm” in person.
Thank God for our Establishment Journamalists.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:43 amYou Reich-wingers are just stupid. The PDB spacifically mentioned hijacking planes and a desire to strike the WTC. It was at least as actionable as what the Clinton Administration acted on.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:44 amThey know they’re in trouble over this.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:45 amMany people are concerned thay have Osama on ice ready to bring out as an October surprise.
Pre 911 must be the issue here.
Condi, please start reading your memos. Especially the ones that state that BL is determined to strike within the U.S.
Thanks. We appreciate it.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:45 amThis transcript and video should be retrieved and receive more play now.
April 9, 2004
Commissioner Bob Kerrey, former Democratic senator from Nebraska: . . . . You’ve used the phrase a number of times, and I’m hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future: You said the president was tired of swatting flies. Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaeda prior to 9/11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was . . .
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on . . .
KERREY: No, no . . .
RICE: . . . when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah . . .
KERREY: He hadn’t swatted . . .
RICE: . . . or go after this guy . . .
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn’t . . .
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once, on the 20th of August 1998. We didn’t swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at — I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that’s what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.
She can’t cite a single example of a concrete initiative or response to terrorist threats before 9/11
September 26th, 2006 at 10:50 am#2 Didn’t Condi and her bosses say, “Nobody would have thought that someone would hijack airplanes as a weapon”? Now take a look at the headline on that 1998 memo again. The Bushies didn’t pay attention to anything they were handed because stopping terrorist attacks wasn’t on the plate. We know now what they WERE planning, and didn’t 9/11 just help out their agenda for Middle East incursions? “Dropping the ball” doesn’t even begin to describe the murderous criminality of the Rovians and their Government of Fear.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:57 amif Dumbass Repblicans just want a headline because they cannot read body copy… here’s one ::
“911 happened on Bush’s watch”
September 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am1998 – “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacksâ€
Actionable. Specific.
2001 – “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.â€
uh, we’ve Generally known that since at least 1993.
I didn’t realize that a PDB consisted of a headline only. I always assumed that it had, you know, actual text that went on to describe the areas of concern after the headline.
But, hey, now that I know that the President’s Daily Briefings are headlines only, we know who to blame for 9/11 — the guy who wrote the headline for Bush’s PDB. Because, really, with a boring headline like that, how was Bush to know there was any actual danger from a guy who had attacked us four times before?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:03 amSo, is this furor over Clinton a deliberate election tactic of the GOP or not? Steve on #21 calls it the “Swiftboating” of Clinton. The strategy of running on terror and not on Iraq is clear to me, so yes, this is part of it. So why then are the Democrats not running adverts with Condi’s 9-11 performance and Bush’s non-performance in 2001? Why is America’s political opposition doing nothing? With Diebold and ESS and vote supression in the GOP pocket, all they have to do is get close enough to pull a 2-3% surprise.
My prediction of 2006 stands – the GOP will get close enough in the opinion polls, the Dems will pick up a few seats, but not gain either house.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:05 amDont fall into the trap set by KARL ROVE
All this discussion about what Clinton did or didnt do is taking the focus off of the MONUMENTAL failure that the current War in Iraq is….and the monumental failure that the War on Terror has become…
NBo one is reporting the NIE that was released this weekend
ITS ALL CLINTON ALL THE TIME ….JUST LIKE KARL WANTS IT
September 26th, 2006 at 11:06 amGreat work. This is exactly what is needed, a rapid response team to quickly swat down the false claims. Rice’s thin skin is becoming a signature trademark of hers. Besides, she never did answer why Richard Clarke was demoted then passed over for a promotion. Why was Richard Clarke pushed out the door? And don’t blame Clinton for his response to a loaded question from Chris Wallace. Did Wallace do this on his own or did somebody put him up to it, like Karl Rove.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/rice.clinton.ap/index.html
September 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am– Aug 6, 2001 PDB
– Bush Administration response to Aug 6, 2001 PDB
September 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am#39 – right on 100% lib4
September 26th, 2006 at 11:12 amWhat got me on the day of 9/11 was that Osama bin Laden was identified as the most likely perpetrator shortly after noon of that day. That has to be either extremely fast detective work or, perhaps, heavens forbid, foreknowledge.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:13 amYour final paragraph includes the following: “Rice acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission report is the authoratative source on this debate….”
That word is “authoritative.”
September 26th, 2006 at 11:15 amIt’s a package deal.
America knows Iraq is a failure
America knows Iraq is making the world less safe
America needs to know Bush never looked for Osama
Trust me, this is the keystone.
Bush quit looking for Osama when he became president.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:16 amCondi please resign and go do what you do best….shopping for shoes
September 26th, 2006 at 11:17 amuh, we’ve Generally known that since at least 1993.
Uh, Jay, was Bin Laden connected to the first WTC bombing? No.
And Jay, the NYT and other Clinton-haters who took their cues from the RNC kept insisting that Bin Laden was just an innocent little old Saudi banker for the better part of Clinton’s tenure.
And you remember what you guys shouted whenever Clinton tried to go after Osama? That’s right — “WAG THE DOG!!!! WAG THE DOG!!!! KLINTOON IZ EVIL!!!!!”
September 26th, 2006 at 11:17 amThere is an error in the post above. The 08.06.2001 PDP is titled “Bin Laden determined to strike IN US (emphasis added).
The first paragraph of the briefing says:
Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”
It also says:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
hint, hint, George…
We also know from Richard Clarke’s published account in Against all Enemies that he was trying aggressively at this time to get the Bush administration to take preventative measures, but that they did nothing.
Heck, Bush never even made a single speech on the subject of terrorism before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 amLet’s hope a Democrat goes after Condi this week. Throw the facts in her face. Get the big dog on TV again b/c only he can draw a big audience these days.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 amBEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.â€
Now, the…
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
Rice has zero credibility just like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:26 amCondoLIEza stop protecting the men you are screwing! You lied, they lied, now look at the mess. The Senate needs to call your sorry ass into a hearing, place you under oath, and then charge you for the purgery you will commit. You are a disgrace not only to your race, but all the people of the World. Your ugly ass needs to be in prison. It is because of you that 9/11 happened because you ignored and did not care about the intells that were handed to you from the previous Administration and Richard Clark. If we had the guillotine, we’d have your head on it!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:27 amCondi lies for her man Bush.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:32 am39, you may be right. It fits with Rove’s previous strategy.
But I think we can turn it against him. We should respond with, “No. Clinton did a better job than Bush, and when the Democratic party is returned to power by the voters, we will do a better job than Bush and the republicans, yet again. All Bush can do is strut like a peacock and talk about how great he is. We will actually make America safer.”
Bush and Rice change their stories daily on what they were doing before 9/11. Clinton and Clarke have been consistent every time. Which seems more honest to you.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:33 amPEOPLE… PEOPLE….
Let’s stop worrying about the past and just let the GOP write the history. I’m sure they’ll be fair and balanced.
In the meantime, we’ve got torture and spying legislation to roll over for in congress. Let’s keep our lack of any sort of priority straight….
September 26th, 2006 at 11:34 amThe Clinton interview/smackdown is what we as Americans needed. The Repubs responding and being caught in their lies are just digging a deeper hole for themselves. This is positive for progressives.
remember the NY Post is a right-wing newspaper. They are acting desperatly trying to take some of the sting out of Clinton’s attack.
Don’t believe the media, most people believe that Clinton stepped up here and told the flat truth and people have started to look at Democrats as the straight shooters and the Repugs as the spinners.
This was our Sept surprise. Lets see what Rove pulls out of his ass in October.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:34 amOMG! Clinton had 8 years, and multiple opportunities to have Bin laden killed, but didn’t take em, Bush had 8 months to overcome Clintons erosion of our military, and screwed up administration.
Get a freaking life.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:35 amCondi was obviously dispatched by the WH to shill the latest talking points. It’s election time, and the Repubs are terrified. Therefore
they are determined to terrify the public, who – thank God – don’t seem to have the same appetite for BS as they once did, only a few months ago.
It’s amazing to watch Condi deliver what she obviously knows is pure BS.
The nervousness is her voice is startling. It’s actually all very sickening.
I can’t WAIT til the day after the election!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:37 am[from: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seal01.htm ]
…Vladimir Putin was so certain of the information he received in the summer of 2001 of an impending attack that he personally instructed Russian intelligence to tell Bush “in the strongest possible terms” (his own words on September 15, 2001) of an impending attack involving airports and government. The Russians told the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specially trained to execute suicide missions…
Even when intelligence agencies from other countries told Emperor Bush attacks were about to take place, Boy George did nothing!
If Condi were truthful, she would recall that Asscroft ignored overseas terror threats in favor of bolstering initiatives around gun ownership prior to 9/11.
If Condi were truthful, she would recall how the Bush Crime Family was doing business with the bin Ladens prior to 9/11.
If Condi were truthful, she would recount how Dick Clark’s requests to meet with the Emperor’s Team of WhizNuts on the topic of terrorism were roundly ignored.
Dereliction of duty, anyone?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:39 amRice is clearly lying, and lied in the past as well about 9/11. However, ultimately, 9/11 was an “inside job”. There is simply no doubt.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:39 am#56 OMG!! OMG!! bushbots lie, alot!!!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amOnce again the leaders of this country illustrate that the “lie” rather than the truth will further their goals of wealth and power.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amTheir demise will come only with the vote or when China calls the debt.
I’m wondering which will be first.
OMG! Clinton had 8 years, and multiple opportunities to have Bin laden killed, but didn’t take em, Bush had 8 months to overcome Clintons erosion of our military, and screwed up administration.
Get a freaking life.
Comment by Douglas.G — September 26, 2006 @ 11:35 am
I served under Bush Sr. and Clinton and our military was very strong. Now they are letting in criminals and punks to fill the ranks. Don’t tell veterans that our military sucked. Please move to Cuba and do that, you unAmerican fuck.
And read yesterday’s articles on how the Republicans stopped Clinton from going all out to get Bin Laden. Here’s the link, you draft dodging knucle-dragger…
September 26th, 2006 at 11:42 amFurther… [from: http://elandslide.org/view.cfm?id=7437 ]
… One of Bush’s favorite lines is that his government is much tougher than Clinton’s was at keeping Americans safe. But the only group Bush has seemed seriously interested in cracking down on is innocent American citizens. In 1996, terrorist activity warnings that were considerably less specific than those Bush received in 2001, were coming into the Clinton administration and suggested that the summer Olympics in Atlanta would be the most likely focus of such activity. In response, Clinton (whose administration commissioned the original “Terrorism 2000″ report) deployed Black Hawk helicopters and special jets to intercept any suspicious aircraft. That same summer, federal agents monitored crop duster flights within hundreds of miles of Atlanta, while agents combed through airports throughout northern Georgia on the lookout for potential hijackers.
From 1996 until Bush took office, FBI agents actively investigated activities of Muslim students at flight schools. It was well known by that time to the FBI that terrorists used U.S. Flight schools for their training. Yet under Bush, even urgent requests by FBI agents to act on tips about suspicious students (like the tip from the Phoenix flight school) were ignored…
The most glaring lie Bush is using in his current spin is his claim that the warnings he received were too vague to act upon. But the facts all by themselves scream “Liar!”
From April, 2001 right up to the day the WTC and Pentagon were slammed, urgent warnings of impending large-scale attacks by terrorists had been issued to the Bush administration from multiple sources. Germany, Egypt, Russia and Israel all delivered alerts that accurately foretold the scale of the attack and that it would involve a prominent landmark of some type. This would automatically put the WTC and Pentagon on the short list, especially as both landmarks had been targeted before (as mentioned above, the Pentagon attack was averted).
Through Echelon, the German intelligence agency BND warned the U.S. and Israel both in June that Middle Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” This is hardly vague, and hardly refers to an “overseas danger” to Americans (which of our prominent landmarks is in Europe or Asia, pray tell?).
On June 13, Egypt sent an urgent warning that a plane stuffed with explosives could be used as a weapon against George Bush. It was assumed, incorrectly at that time that the target could be the G-8 summit in Genoa, held in June 2001…
… In August, 2001, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad warned the CIA and FBI that as many as 200 Al Qada members were infiltrating the U.S. and planning “a major assault on the U.S. ” against “a large-scale target” in a setting where Americans would be “very vulnerable.”…
As I suggested, dereliction of duty. Condi CANNOT cover for her “husbands” failures. Sorry. It just won’t wash.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:44 amIt’s a shame that most of the people in this country have already forgotten or forgiven the lies and deception of the Bush Administration. It’s also a shame that a lot of our country is populated by stupid people that that do not and probably will never understand what could have been done. These are the same people that accepted lie after lie feed to them by Bush and his puppeteers regarding our invasion (YES IT WAS AN INVASION!) of Iraq. There also the people that still believe that Saddam supported The 9/11 attack! What is he on trial for? Not terrorism!
- Majur Bludd
September 26th, 2006 at 11:46 amExcellent work. The difference in response between the administrations couldn’t be more stark. This slap-fight about who did what needs to stop, though. It is a distraction and will never really be resolved, despite the fact that evidence is freely available. The deadly repercussions of official laxity in the face of an imminent threat have been unleashed. No amount of rewriting history will undo the damage.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:48 amRe: #60 . . .
I cannot believe we’ve actually just experienced a sighting of that absurd little list. After all this time . . .
September 26th, 2006 at 11:53 am“I just can’t imagine using our own planes as bombs . . .”
And I can’t imagine anyone so rigid and fixed and unimaginative being secretary of state! That’s your job, Condi.
Also, Condi, see a dentist, for crying out loud.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:54 amExcellent work. The difference in response between the administrations couldn’t be more stark. This slap-fight about who did what needs to stop, though. It is a distraction and will never really be resolved, despite the fact that evidence is freely available. The deadly repercussions of official laxity in the face of an imminent threat, and the results of unimaginable hubris displayed in the aftermath, have been unleashed. No amount of rewriting history will undo the damage.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:54 amCondaliar Rice distorting the truth? No way!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pmCondaliar Rice distorting the truth? No way!
September 26th, 2006 at 12:03 pmCondi was going to give references to support her arguments, but there was an urgent announcement that interrupted the interview, Ferragamo’s was having a 24 hour sale.
This woman has no credibility, none. She’s an “escort” for the Bush Administration and truly serves at the pleasure of the president.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:08 pm.
Bush and Cheney were obsessed with two things from the moment they accepted a corrupt supreme court’s decision to put them in the White House.
Of primary importance to them was to pay back their wealthiest campaign contributors with a tax-cut that forced all Americans to pay for the republican campaign to take the White House.
Of secondary importance was the plan to loot Iraq.
Both were cynical frauds. Both were approved of by the mainstream media. Both were criminal acts.
They were so jubilent about overthrowing democracy and defrauding the American public when they emptied the Treasury to pay back their wealthiest contributors that Bush took a month long vacation to celebrate.
Bush did not have time for such trivial matters as some scruffy stateless hicks living in the mountains of Afghanistan threatening to attack the U.S., and Cheney was busy making sure that it would occur on schedule.
Shortly after the two criminals were inaugurated they received the national security assessment from the democrats leaving office.
Bush ceremoniously threw the democratic assessment in the trash stating that the republicans would write their own national security assessment. The republicans assessment was not completed until September 5, 2001, six days before Cheney allowed the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The so-called 9/11 Commission report was not authoritative, because it was and remains nothing more than a cover-up for the criminal activities of a handful of top executives and their facilitators in the current administration.
The right wing in our nation had the Pearl Harbor it stated it needed to “galvanize the American public” to sustain a war against Iraq.
I do not believe in coincidences. Everything is causal.
I do not believe the conspiracy theory that nineteen lone hijackers pulled off the greatest loss of American lives on American soil by by foreign expatriots without assistance.
Proof of this is easy to find, though the individuals have not been exposed. A handful of people profitted from the stock market decline of two airlines involved in the tragedy and a couple of brokerage companies located in the WTC. Since those people knew enough to gamble on those companys’ losses, others knew as well.
Anonymous purchases on the stock exchange do not exist.
The majority of what we see and hear on 9/11 is BS.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pm67. Funny. The idea of planes being used as missiles was imagined enough in July 2001 when the G-8 Summit was surrounded with anti-aircraft guns to protect the meeting from just such an event.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:17 pmFunny. A plane in Europe was grounded when a group of Israeli Mossad carrying stolen Palestinian passports attempted to board a plane carrying box cutters, flight manuals, and copies of the the Koran shortly before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pmFunny. A plane in Europe was grounded when a group of Israeli Mossad carrying stolen Palestinian passports attempted to board a plane carrying box cutters, flight manuals, and copies of the the Koran shortly before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pmFunny. A plane in Europe was grounded when a group of Israeli Mossad carrying stolen Palestinian passports attempted to board a plane carrying box cutters, flight manuals, and copies of the the Koran shortly before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pmFunny. A plane in Europe was grounded when a group of Israeli Mossad carrying stolen Palestinian passports attempted to board a plane carrying box cutters, flight manuals, and copies of the the Koran shortly before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pmI hope none of you here voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 (thank Geia I didn’t, I admit I almost voted for W. in 2000 because I was a näive 22 year old living in RED Utah, but my gut told me that would be a bad move), and if you did, I’m sure you feel regret and I’m glad you’ve changed. Now please, help bring down the neo-con machine with real action. Join a local party, give time, money if you have it, talk to people, change minds, bring about change any which way you can! Condi is obviously lying. Chris Wallace is a puppet. Clinton is spot on. New Dean scream my ass, Clinton was composed. I would have been throwing shit all over the interview stage and kicking Wallace in the nuts. Well, maybe not really, but I would never have stayed as calm as Willy. The only thing he lied about is sex… who hasn’t?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#74-78 – Dude, if you are going to come on here and push your ‘Protocols of the Elders of Sion’ stuff, you’d better have some kung fu to back it up. Links please – credible sources only. Alternatively, you could stop posting that stuff. Your choice.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#60 Douglas G.
Go to snopes.com and type in the words Clinton and deaths. Educate yourself regarding urban legends and stop trying to be like your heros at Faux News.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThe serious goals of the actions mentioned above is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy and to get away with robbing America as much as those in power can get away with without causing a revolution that they did not have the power to suppress.
Reinstitute the draft so that the military is made up of all Americans not just volunteers and mercenaries. Drafties prevent the government from using the military against U.S. citizens, because it is truly made up of U.S. citizens, not just brain-washed children and greedy murderers.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWhy isn’t it mentioned in the mainstream media that those who order torture and those who carry it out are criminally insane?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pmWhat I fail to understand is this:
With the overwhelming body of evidence showing that Bush knew of the 9-11 attacks before they happened, why haven’t the families of the victims filed a class-action lawsuit against Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.? That would get the evidence into court where it belongs.
Imprison these murderers!
Brian
September 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pmSorry, read snopes, also researched this myself, and actually the list is longer than what I quoted. additionally, all od these people are not just KNOWN by clinton, but were directly associated with him. Death certificates were altered, doctors findings were altered, there is a LOT of questions involved. Snopes has interesting info, but raises a lot of questions with all the conflicting REAL information also available.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThis lying BITCH will keep covering for her boyfriend/boss, W, for the next 2 years. She should be brought up on charges, too.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pmMr. “Douglas G.”
# 60
What a silly post …
Wow ….. just like one of those “made for TV” conspiracy murder mysteries ….. wow ….
You want to talk about lists, you f#cking putz – we’ll talk about lists …
How about this tidbit … if the Bush administration had done THIS:
The (Clinton) group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports. [pg. 128-30]
Instead of this:
No indication of any further discussion before September 11 among Bush and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.
Maybe the list of people who died on 9/11 wouldn’t be 3,000 names long !!!
Maybe if there had been some push from the top about this hijack potential – maybe FBI agent Dave Frasca would have thought differntly about cutting off the attempts by the FBI agents to move their suspicions up the ladder.
Maybe if the FAA had received a heads up from the president – maybe then, when FBI agent Harry Samit tried to contact the FAA, they would have been more vigilant and better able to connect the dots.
Maybe if the FBI and CIA had received a directive from the president to be vigilant on this – maybe the FBI’s already existing plan to assemble a list of Arab students taking flight courses could have been accelerated and cross checked with names known to the CIA. I understand that there is debate as to whether or not Atta was known to the CIA before 9/11. But he didn’t have to be known to the CIA. before 9/11, several FBI agents thought the number of Middle Eastern men taking courses at flight schools was suspicious. Atta was a Middle Eastern man who took flight lessons under the same name he purchased his ticket. His name could have been put on a list and he could have been confronted at the airport. Even if this just resulted in a more thorough search of him and revealed his “box cutter” – that would have helped.
But when you have leadership like this:
“No indication of any further discussion before September 11 among Bush and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States,” moves that could have helped to prevent that day are not set into motion and the resulting odds for success are not very good – are they Mr. “Douglas G.”
September 26th, 2006 at 1:27 pm“Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.†That title may not sound specific, but any sane, responsible person would certainly read the report that follows, right? And that report specifically mentions airplanes being used as weapons.
Yet Rice and Bush did nothing. NOTHING!! Not a single meeting, and meanwhile they FIRED Richard Clarke. Dick Cheney, in charge of anti-terrorism? NOTHING. They just sat back and waited for Cheney’s “new Pearl Harbor,” and they got it.
Condoleeza Rice is a liar, and like the rest of them, she belongs in prison for criminal negligence. And that’s just for their actions BEFORE 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pmSo Douglas, you were able to obtain all this “information” about Clinton doing computer “research” But Newt Gringo, and Kenny Star and the Republican lead congress spent 40 MILLION DOLLARS and all they could nail Clinton with was lying about a blow job?! Let’s see republicans spending a sit load of money and missing all that evidence. Sounds about right and just a little too familiar. Republicans can’t find their asses with both hands and 40 MILLION DOLLARS.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmHelp me understand something here, did Condi actually say Bush was as aggressive as Clinton? If so, does that mean Bush was just as bad as Clinton, or Clinton was just as good as Bush?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.†–
Dear Dr. Rice:
Then search on “Project Bojinka”
September 26th, 2006 at 1:44 pmTake a closer look at the very words you are writing,
1998 – “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacksâ€
Actionable. Specific.
2001 – “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.â€
uh, we’ve Generally known that since at least 1993.
Comment by Jay Cline — September 26, 2006 @ 10:12 am
Maybe you might want to try READING the PDB and not just the title, Mr. Cline.
“A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” – Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
Thanks for playing!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:53 pmJudd when are you going to correct that incorrectly titled Aug 6 PDB. Many posters have called out the obvious error. It should read:
September 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Pfft ! ! !
September 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pmSomeone please tell me why – ?
When I disagree, I do not name call, I do not use filthy language, why is it necessary when you disagree with me, you call me names, and use filthy guttermouth talk.
in response to my post I am told, “You want to talk about lists, you f#cking putz – we’ll talk about lists …”
I mean really.
This was said about Ms. Rice. “This lying BITCH will keep covering for her boyfriend/boss, W, for the next 2 years. She should be brought up on charges, too. ”
Filthy talk, name calling.. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to tak some people seriously. Whan all you can do is name call, and use gutter mouth language, it’s impossible to dialogue and even find a common ground on which to meet. Increase your vocabulary, and learn to discuss without the filthy talk and name calling, and you will go much further.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:28 pmSomeone please tell me why – ?
When I disagree, I do not name call, I do not use filthy language, why is it necessary when you disagree with me, you call me names, and use filthy guttermouth talk.
in response to my post I am told, “You want to talk about lists, you f#cking putz – we’ll talk about lists …”
I mean really.
This was said about Ms. Rice. “This lying BITCH will keep covering for her boyfriend/boss, W, for the next 2 years. She should be brought up on charges, too. ”
Filthy talk, name calling.. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to tak some people seriously. Whan all you can do is name call, and use gutter mouth language, it’s impossible to dialogue and even find a common ground on which to meet. Increase your vocabulary, and learn to discuss without the filthy talk and name calling, and you will go much further.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:28 pmI’d like to see a campaign ad that has GWB saying we must attack Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, followed by an excerpt from his speech that we were never that interested in Bin Laden, followed by other contradictory comments, maybe 30 or so in a one minute spot…followed by him commenting that Kerry is a “flip-flopper” and Americans shouldn’t vote for him.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:46 pmThen I’d like to see a parts of Republican ads saying, “restore dignity to the White House, vote for GWBush”, and then a couple of shots of him saying “nukeular”, and the video of him cleaning his glasses on the back of a woman’s dress, and trying to give the German Prime Minister an unsolicited backrub at a heads of state meeting…followed with his inability to open the door video…
And then a shot of him calling Democrats, “tax and spend democrats” followed by how much money he wants congress to approve for increases in government spending, over and over again. And then showing him saying we have to cut down social security because it’s going to cost x bllion dollars, and followed by him asking for the same amount of money for his wars in the middle east.
And then add some of the stuff above!
What?
September 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pmThis is all one giant Red Herring and is part of the ABI Strategy (Anything But Iraq).
Everyone is pulling there hair out and I appreciate Clinton showing us all how effective it is to show some backbone, but this is another example of reactive politics on the Dem side. The whole Path to 9/11 piece is jsut a distraction to the issues that votors care about.
Once there is some balance in Congress and Dems have subpoena power, then the truth will come out on this subject and many others.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:50 pmIf the Clinton Administration knew of plans back in 1998 and wasnt nipped in the bud then, I understand that it became The Bush Administrations problem to deal with. But why the heck is everyone defending the Clinton Administration when they clearly failed at resolving this? Fine, chastize Bush and crew, but chastize Clinton and crew also. They are all liars.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:59 pmIf the Clinton Administration knew of plans back in 1998 and wasnt nipped in the bud then, I understand that it became The Bush Administrations problem to deal with. But why the heck is everyone defending the Clinton Administration when they clearly failed at resolving this? Fine, chastize Bush and crew, but chastize Clinton and his clowns as well. They are all liars.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pm# 90, just because I can research verify information surrounding these people, does nto mean there is enough information to file charges against anyone.
I am simply saying, it’s healthier to be Clinton’s enemy, than his friend. His friends tend to die at an alarming rate.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pmDid to! Did not! Did to!! Did not!! DID TO!!! DID NOT!!! DID, DID, DID TO!!!! DID NOT, NOT, NOT!!!!
BA-BOOM!!!!!
Repeat until true enemy identified. (Hint: they aren’t American.)
September 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pmUGH I HATE POLITICS. Do we as Americans really believe this crap? Do we really think that there is a single person on either side of the isle that is honest or trustworthy?? Some may put on a good show, but deep down, it’s still politics. Republicans and Democrats still can’t agree on anything and never will. If they did, well then they just might be shunned by their respective party. I’m sick of partisanship, I’m sick of finger pointing, I’m sick of lying.
I may be the only person reading this blog that may think that life would be no better if W wasn’t in office. In my opinion they all lie, cheat and steal. Just once I wish there was someone running for an office that I could actually believe. As of now, I’m not aware of any.
I think the title of this post sums it up. Politics… the ability of two people to read the same document and get two different stories. I bet if the right person read the 9/11 Commision, we may be able to find out who killed Kennedy or where Hoffa is buried. Or at the very least, someone in Washington will be willing to make up a story about.
Bottom line… W, Clinton (pick one), Dean, McCain, and any of the rest of you… I don’t trust any of you.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#97
Mr. “Douglas G”
It is true that there is name calling and sometimes it gets to be “too ugly.”
Fair enough.
But there is also a lot of substance in these posts – substance that you seem to side-step and avoid.
Just answer one thing – if the Bush administration had simply replicated in August of 2001 what the Clinton Administration did in December of 1998, wouldn’t that have at least improved the odds for stopping 9/11?
Can you explain how not doing what was done in December of 1998 was a good idea?
So there you have it. No bad words. Nothing “filthy.”
Just a question for you to answer.
I am eagerly awaiting your polite response.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pmG.W. Is so full of it! OIL! OIL! OIL! WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE? IT’S DISTURBING TO SEE HOW OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SELL US OUT FOR PERSONAL GAIN!
September 26th, 2006 at 3:57 pmFlying a plane into a building isn’t new. Samuel Byck tried to hijack a DC-9 on Feb 22, 1974, with the purpose of crashing it into the White House, to kill then President Nixon. He didn’t make it off the ground, slowed down after shooting both the pilots. This incident was mentioned in the 9/11 report.
to other purposes…
Poor DouglasG. He can’t back up his hearsay lies, so he calls us mean. Waaaaah! Waaaaaah!
Your list is ridiculous and very well debunked at Snopes. I would take the list of elderly family members, business associates, neighbors, tragic deaths and suicides from high school, college and grad school and come up with a “Robster is a murderer” list twice as long as the hoax on Clinton. But knowing dead people, or people who know dead people, doesn’t make for a crime.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pmThis is another smoke screen,like the one last week of the supposed mavericks in the republican Senate,who after one whole week surrendered to the Bush-Cheney Cabal about the torture bill.It was all to prevent news of the devastation in Iraq.This thing about Bush did this and Clinton didnt do that will last till congress votes to okay Bush’s torture bill and then the troops are really screwed.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pmI am simply amazed that people argue that Clinton had 8 years and Bush had 8 months to catch Bin Laden. Clinton pushed hard to get him, but before 911 he was ridiculed for his efforts. But let’s give Bush a pass on not having caught Bin Laden prior to 911. What about the 5 years since the worst attack ever on American soil? What has Bush done since then to catch the most reviled criminal for all Americans? Squat. He’s too bogged down in the Iraq disaster, which will be left to his succesor to clean up because he knows he can avoid taking responsibility for it that way. But don’t take my word for it about Bin Laden- let’s listen to what Bush himself had to say about it:
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
September 26th, 2006 at 5:03 pm- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Regardless of which side you are on, this whole debate is very very interesting. Well, that is except for the people who use Nixonian language. I am still laughing at Conde’s claims. Would be funny if the lives of so many Americans were not lost in Iraq and if the future of this planet were not in the hands of the now-stronger terroristas.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:12 pmAbsolutely fabulous. The comments are rich in diversity of opinion. But it is fairly clear that Condi’s comments are more of the same from the Bush administration. How unfortunate for us.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pmIf any of you are smart enough to read the actual President’s Brief, which I’ve conveniently posted for you, you will see that it simply contains a re-hash old old intel that is in no way actionable, exactly what Condi has claimed. This country would be much better off if peolpe would attempt to discover the truth on their own. Make the effort look at both sides of disagreements and the evidence supporting alternative views. Once you have enough REAL evidence to support an informed opinion, decide which way you think. Too many people take articles like this one and assume that all conclusions drawn from it are true because of a few quoted lines from the 9/11 report. No attempt is made to put things in perspective. Unfortunately, doing the things I suggest requires reason, logic, common sense, etc. Liberals have shown an abject aversion to these things and will remain wrong.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#113 – yes I have read it. Did you see that little ‘continued’ at the bottom of the page? It has two pages….go ahead read the second page….70 current FBI investigations into Al Qaeda activity on US soil….preparations for hijacking underway… George Tenet “the lights were blinking red
” – post #41:
“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this countryconsistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New Yorkâ€
- Aug 6, 2001 PDB
“All right, you’ve covered your ass, nowâ€
- Bush Administration response to Aug 6, 2001 PDB
September 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pmMy letter to letters@nypost.com :
The very fact that there was no mention whatsoever of Chris Wallace’ interview of Bill Clinton in Monday’s (9/25) edition of your paper is proof positive of 2 things: 1) Bill Clinton laid out the facts, took total control of the interview and caused the opposite effect of what Wallace had intended, and 2) you people at the NY Post were in serious “panic mode” on Sunday over just how you could spin it best to make Clinton look as though he had egg on his face. When all you can essentially come up with 2 days after a major news story is “Condi said it’s not true” and a silly comic strip depicting Clinton getting sweaty and emotional, your headlines should have read, “PATHETIC!” instead of, “WRONG!”.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pmCondoleeza also said that Richard Clarke was the anti-terrorism czar on 9/11.
If that is true, as much as I prefer Clinton over chimpy, I’m disappointed that Bush implied that he was demoted before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pmWasn’t it Condi who had a speech scheduled to be delivered on 9/11/01 – about “the threats and problems of today and the day after” – that didn’t contain a single mention of groups like Al-Qaeda?
“The speech provides telling insight into the administration’s thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.”
(Source: Washington Post)
September 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThe Washington Post article also contained this rather damning summary:
“The text of Rice’s Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances. Although the administration did address terrorism, it devoted far more attention to pushing missile defense, a controversial idea both at home and abroad, the review shows.
Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism rated lower on the list of priorities, as outlined by officials in their own public statements on policy.“
September 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm#113
David.
Same question to you as to “Douglas G”
Why not at least do in August 2001 what was done in December 1998?
How is not doing this a good idea?
Particularly when you have FBI agents sending reports to their NY Headquarters about suspicious flight school students right around the same time?
Don’t you think that knowing there was a directive from the White House putting airports on maximum security that the FBI would have re-thought censoring Harry Samit’s formal attempt to warn the FAA about his (and other agents) suspicions? And if they didn’t – isn’t there a chance that the FAA contact he spoke to informally would have made different decisions after hearing about Samit’s observations, knowing that the White House had the airports on maximum security due to terrorism concerns?
Prior to 9/11 – Newsweek did a piece called “The First 100 days” – in other words a review of the first 100 days of the Bush presidency. It was interesting reading about Senior Republican Pete Domenici complaining about being ignored and Senior Republican John McCain complaining about being ignored. In a meeting about the proposed tax cuts – Domenici had to blurt out “does anyone care what I think? I’m only The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee …” ( He was, in fact, chairman for over 10 years. )
The tendency to ignore valuable info and advice – even from members of their own party - was set before these people even showed up in 2000.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pmCorrection on 116; I’m disappointed that CLINTON led people to believe that Richard Clark was demoted before 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#120 – Timmy he was demoted before 9-11. the position of counter terrorism used to be a cabinet level position – reporting directly to the heads of department, NSA, Defense etc. After Bush Admin came in, Clarke was moved down a rung to the department seconds and had no direct access to the President, as he had had before in the Clinton Admin. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm
September 26th, 2006 at 6:42 pm#60 and your two others. Dude, you are on the wrong blog. You need to go over to one of the Reich-wing sites where other wing-nuts spew. You put out trash and then cry when people brutally call you on it. I do agree with you on one term though, a putz ain’t much good for f*cking and I’d be upset if someone called me that.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pmCorrection on 116; I’m disappointed that CLINTON led people to believe
The team who convicted Ramzi Yousef told the press in 1997 that they
knew about the plot to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon.
When I realized that meant the very counter-terrorist law enforcement
and intelligence agencies who who needed to know already
knew, and that thousands of people read the list of targets in
1998, I realized the plotters were counting on inside help.
Pre-announcing a sneak attack makes it something else. By evaluating
who stood to gain and who would be in a position to create the
necessary conditions, I was able in July 1999 to guess the date and
time of the attack. I told everyone who would listen, but I really
thought more people would remember the news items from the Yousef
trial. Instead, years later, every damn thing I read about 9/11
misrepresents it as a complete surprise to the people who needed to
know.
Remember that the week before the August 6 PDB, in Genoa, Shrub’n’
Condi slept on an aircraft carrier in case the planes-into-buildings
attack took place there, despite the air patrols and surface-to-air
batteries that the Italian authorities put in place on Pentagon
advice. After no attempt was made in Genoa, they crowed about how
the publicity around their air defense precautions let attackers
know it wasn’t worth trying.
That’s how you protect a target when you don’t know who the attackers
are to be, that is, when your Pentagon intelligence guys are not
already buying photos of the suspects and pasting Post-Its over them.
AnyCondi.mp3
September 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pmAnyCondiCould.mp3
[...] Link [...]
September 26th, 2006 at 9:42 pm#2 Jay Cline:
998 – “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacksâ€
Actionable. Specific.
2001 – “Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S.â€
uh, we’ve Generally known that since at least 1993.
Ummm, so you take them together, and whaddaya got? Dubya get info that not only are there threats against airplanes and buildings, but that they’re determined to attack. Not to mention he has the prior info too…. IOW, he had what Clinton had and more. The alarm bells were ringing all summer. Say, has anyone explained why Ashcrift stopped flying commercial that summer?
And what did Clinton and Dubya do?
Clinton: Up airport security, tell the FAA, etc.
Dubya: “Watch this swing….”
Cheers,
September 26th, 2006 at 10:59 pmIf certainties such as the war in Iraq and the axis of evil are based on a religious belief that God is on our side – versus we should be on God’s side as Lincoln said – then certitude creates foreign policy problems,” Ms Albright said.
amenn
September 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pmCondi is a bucked-tooth moron
September 26th, 2006 at 11:10 pmThe only action I remember the Bush administration taking against terrorism before 9/11 was in May of 2001 when Colin Powell was sent to Afganistan to give the Taliban $43,000,000. I do not know what Bush got for that money – I know we Americans got nothing.
Four months after the magnanimous gift to the Taliban, we got 9/11.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:15 pmWhy do people keep saying Bushie had 8 months to act?
You keep forgetting his one month vacation. The poor thing only had 7 months in which to act!
And then, like the girlieman he is, he immediately got back to his busy schedule of squatting on minature chairs in elementary schools, doing the very very important work of a first rate First Lady, promoting reading to little kids!
I’m sure David and Douglas agree that there was NOTHING more important he needed to do after his one month vacation, because those daily briefings were so vague!
Right, boys? You proud of your girlieman?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:34 pmC’mon, David and Douglas, let’s hear you defend your First Lady GW’s reading program as a priority, particularly after the month-long vacation halfway into his first year in office.
But we see how well you avoid the posts about snopes.com and the second page of the memo, etc. Not part of your marching orders, hm?
But surely you can warmly defend First Lady Georgie’s efforts to help kids learn to “read good.” (One of his own oh-so-literate phrases.) That’s why you voted for him, no? To fall off bikes on his month-long vacations and to teach kids to “read good?”
September 26th, 2006 at 11:47 pmCondi’s got lies written all over her face, her voice always faltering, betraying her. The lies have made her ugly and pathetic. A real tragedy because she is so talented. The shared sell-out to the dark side must be what Condi and Peter MacKay what attract them to eachother.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:31 amThe facts were that Bush was on vacation 50% of the time. Fact that he was appointed by the Supreme Court has made him the dictator for the whole world. Fact – he lied and rushed to have the Bush Iraq War.
Fact – more Americans have died in the US from terrorists attacks since Bush has been in charge (911 and Anthrax attacks) than the previous 60 years combined.
Fact – those responsible are still free.
Fact – why is BinLadenbengood toBush still out there.
Fact – look at the lack of leadership demonstrated by FEMA and Bush when Katrina hit (he stayed on vacaction for another 5 days).
Fact – the deficit has doubled in his short 5 years.
Fact – gas prices have more than doubled and the oil companines are the only ones happy about that.
Fact – Bush plan off stay the course – means what – stay with the fraud, waste, loss of lives until he is out of office so that someone else can clean up the mess he created.
Fact – the top 1% have benefited from the Bush tax cut for the rich, cut domestic spending and raise prices for everyone else.
Fact – Bush has grown the government more than any previous admin.
Fact – those that lie, spin and waste our future are the only ones rewarded in the Bush admin (your doing a good job Brownie).
Fact – let’s face it the facts are not printed in the US press that are controlled by the Repubs.
Just the facts.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:39 amOkay, by the numbers.
Kindalezzie Rice claims that Bush was as aggressive as Clinton in addressing the al Qaeda terrorist threat.
So, let’s take the last eight months (32 weeks) of the Cllinton administration and compare this with the first eight months (32 weeks) of the Bush administration, culminating in the 9/11 attacks.
One important difference exists that proves Kindalezzie Rice is a liar.
Clinton’s administration held top-level, cabinet-level counter-terrorism meetings three times a week, as reported, adding up to approximately 100 of these meetings in his last eight months in office. At these meetings, top U.S. intelligence agency officials met and shared intelligence information in person.
Bush’s administration, during his first eight months, held only one cabinet-level counter-terrorism meeting, on 9/4/2001, one week before 3,000 U.S. citizens were killed on 9/11.
So, Bush was just as aggressive as Clinton in trying to prevent U.S. citizens from dying in a terrorist attack, huh? The trolls (and Kindalezzie Rice) should go peddle their snake oil someplace else.
Clinton anti-terrorism meetings (100).
Bush anti-terrorism meetings (1).
Well, my math isn’t too good, but I’d have to guess that President Bill Clinton was 100 TIMES more aggressive in addressing the al Qaeda terrorist threat during his last months in office, compared to the almost total inattention and inaction displayed by the Bush administration, and Kindalezzie Rice, prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Therefore, a reasonable person cannot help but draw the conclusion that if Kindalezzie Rice and other top Bush officials had held as many cabinet-level counter-terrorism meetings as Clinton had in a similar 32 week span, then the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t have happened because the hijackers would have been exposed and picked up beforehand, thus saving the lives of 3,000 U.S. citizens.
So, why did Kindalezzie Rice and the Bush administration blow off doing anything about the al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as the outgoing Clinton administration strenuously recommended?
Simple. Afghanistan was not Iraq, and the Bush administration in early 2001, under Donald Rumsfeld, was already gearing up the U.S. military for war in Iraq…not Afghanistan. In other words, they certainly didn’t want to bog down U.S. troops in Afghanistan, even before the 9/11 attacks, because they had their sights set on Iraq.
And if you think about it, this is why Donald Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, committed so few troops to going after the al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. The fewer troops bogged down in Afghanistan meant more troops, and military resources, would be ready to go invade Iraq.
And this focus on Iraq, that started immediately upon Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice entering the White House, also explains why the Bush administration only held ONE cabinet-level counter-terrorism meeting in it’s first eight months, compared to the 100 meetings Clinton’s administration held in his last eight months. The Bush administration immediately began shifting our intelligence agencies away from the al Qaeda terrorist threat toward gathering intelligence about their planned pet war project…Iraq.
Bill Clinton’s meetings (100).
Bush’s meetings (1).
That’s the pre-9/11 box score.
And because of the Bush administration scoring so low, the 9/11 attacks were successful and 3,000 U.S. citizens died.
Definitely “an inconvenient truth” for the Bush administration, but still the TRUTH ! ! !
September 27th, 2006 at 1:14 amPoor Jay and Douglas, it’s not your fault that facts and history have a liberal bias to them…
September 27th, 2006 at 2:07 amWell, Rice can spin and lie but one thing is true, she ignored the august 6 memo and 9/11 happened under the Bush watch.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:27 am#105 I know one person I can trust is My Senator Russ Feingold from my pride state of Wisconsin. I hope he will run for President. He is for the American people not like the idiot House of Representative James Sensenbrenner. He is arrogant rude person. I wish the people in WI would vote him out.
September 27th, 2006 at 9:11 ami wish you folks would wake up and realize bush and his merry band of criminals did nothing to stop 9/11 because they wanted it to happen.the facts are there.look at all the benefits they have reaped because americans are terrified of a handful of extremists.well it was just a handful until monkeyman came on board and stirred up the hornets nest that is iraq.to say that we are pathetic as a nation is an understatement.i say storm the WH,pull the bastards out of there and string em up.enough is enough.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:22 amTerrytheTurtle,
Try again. You are being disingenuous with the truth. The PDB titles I quoted were direct cut and pastes from this article. But you still haven’t made a point, Attacking the US, or Attacking within the US is still vague and nonspecific.
And, as I pointed out, generally known since Clinton took office.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:29 amPhoenix Woman,
C’mon. Do a little research. It took me 30 seconds on Google to find this:
(from a BBC report in 2003)
Lessons of first WTC bombing
Ten years ago, a bomb exploded in the car park of the World Trade Center building in New York, killing six and injuring over 1,000.
Six men are serving life imprisonment as a result.
But in light of the events of 11 September, a number of analysts are now questioning whether the attack was a warning that was never heeded.
“In many ways it was the opening salvo of al-Qaeda’s campaign against the West,” terrorism writer Simon Reeve told the BBC World Service’s Analysis programme.
Many of the individuals involved in the 1993 WTC bombing were connected in some way to Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
“This was their first attack.”
Ok, you’re right. bin Laden didn’t park the van in 1993. But then, neither did he fly any of the planes in 2001, so I guess he wasn’t involved in either attack.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:40 amPhoenix Woman,
When Clinton (finally) got muscular with terrorists, most of the Republican leaders of the time (including Gingrich and Hatch) said, we support the President’s actions. The only negative comments they had was, too little, too late.
September 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am[...] In ya face #1 In ya face #2 [...]
September 27th, 2006 at 11:51 amOh, I see! David and Douglas had to drop their nyms and become Jay+Cline because they couldn’t defend their little cheerleader.
Same question to “Jay” in that case. Leave Phoenix Woman and Clinton alone and let’s hear you brag how taking a month-long vacation after half a year in office, then sitting his perty little First Lady butt down on elementary school chairs to promote “Reeding iz Good” was exactly what you wanted Bushie to be doing as “Commander in Chief.”
It’s all well and fine to be doing your job lying that the thugs’ “only negative comments” at the time was saying “too little, too late” (remember “wag the dog?”) — but leave off the red herrings and distraction tools long enough to BE A GIRLIEMAN and ASSERT that you are PROUD that Bushie schlumped around the ranch for a month then squatted in a circle of schoolchildren. He was a FINE First Lady while it lasted, wasn’t he? That’s what you voted for him to do, right? Squat in front of schoolkids fresh off a one-month vacation?
You woudn’t call that “too little, too late,” would you?
What was it for Katrina? ANOTHER Ranch vacation followed by some faux guitar-strumming, wasn’t it, while New Orleans drowned?
Well, obviously, Miss George Bush knows this is the “job” his followers want him to do, right?
Speak up, Jay+Cline. Another nym won’t get you out of this. We want to hear you PRAISE your little lady George’s priorities….how they were everything s/he could’ve POSSIBLY done.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pmWasn’t it Hitler who said, “If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will start to beleive it”?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pm“Pay no attention to that lying, step-n-fetchit negress house slave!”…
-Condi Rice-
…in the “Wizard’s A Fraud”…
September 27th, 2006 at 2:57 pmzee, do your homework. I am not David or Douglas and have been posting in other places for two years, with my own name.
(so, what does zee stand for?)
September 27th, 2006 at 3:35 pmNote that Clinton talked about what he did do, while Condi just says that what they did in the 8 months before 9/11 “. . .was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,â€
Had I been an unbiased reporter for the Post (if that’s possible), I would have challenged Secretary Rice to tick off their efforts, point by point.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pmF*** George W. Bush…
Then try him for high crimes against humanity!!
Like anti-George music? Check it out.
http://www.silverlinedesign.com/f-bush.html
Be Peaceful.
September 27th, 2006 at 10:30 pmLet’s see. Condi Rice says “we did as much as Bill Clinton to contain Bin Laden” Condi Rice also said “No one could have predicted that the terrorist would use airplanes as missles.” Condi Rice also said “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” and in a druken state Condi Rice also said “My husband I mean boss…” She is a lying loser who is also acting as an enabler for the little butt nugget that she wishes she cold be married to. It kind of reminds me of the main stream media’s unnatural perverse love affair with this dirt bag called Bush.
September 28th, 2006 at 7:22 amCUT and RUN ON FREEDOM: GOP’S NEW PLAN
I was upset, fearful and angry reading the recent National Intelligence Estimate about increasing terrorism and the sad state of our international relations when I burst out laughing.
Jumping to mind was the neocon’s perverted sales’ pitch: “The terrorists hate us because they hate freedom.”
What if that was true?
Being fearful, the GOP now advocates legislating the end of our enduring freedoms to meet the terrorists demands.
Game, set match, no more freedom, nothing to hate, terrorism vanquished.
The GOP leadership we presently enjoy promotes secrecy, dishonesty, suspension of habeas corpus and other fundamental juridical rights; they promote wholesale wiretapping without warrants and suspending historical “Rules of War” agreements so that America can, on its whim, perform inhumane and degrading acts of torture on whomsoever we may choose to incarcerate.
One or two more stolen elections plus a new gaggle of lies from Dick, Condi et al and poof, our freedoms will be gone and the terrorists, seeing that their main reason to hate us has vanished, well. They’ll just go back to berating womenfolk for racy clothing.
It’s a plan, you’all. It’s a plan.
(( I hope the angry resentful retired Generals and their brothers in arms have our back in these troubling days.))
September 28th, 2006 at 9:12 amThis entire website smells like a Michael Moore blog, and it is pathetic. I came on here, because I couldn’t believe that the liberal view was this distorted…I was fed up with the conservative distortion, and after reading this website’s bullshit, I feel confident that independent is the way to go. What a crock. Congratulations, for even if you are right, the facts are so skewed and distorted that you are losing all of the independent or centrist (me) voters….keep up the impressive work.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pmGrant Tate #151
If you can’t see which side of the political spectrum you should be on by now…
…stay the hell away from the polls on election day…
…that is IF you’re even of voting age…
September 28th, 2006 at 2:03 pmhey mr grant tate,
those are troll talking points…not independent….troll…not centrist….troll.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pmIf you want to see an OUTSTANDING mainstream media explanation of the failures of the Bush administration pre-9/11 then watch this clip from Keith Olberman’s show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg
Every blind, non-thinking, Bush voting American should be forced to watch this over and over.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:27 pmMZ, only because that is how one brainwashes people, by repeating lies over and over and over again….
September 28th, 2006 at 2:43 pmLike I always challenge people with-
Find Me One Single Reference to Al Qaeda from the Bush Team from the day of the inauguration until September 10th, 2001.
That’s how serious they were about terrorism.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pmScrew this shit — wake me up when Washington DC is in flames.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#156 – excerpts from Bush’s first “State of the Union Speech” Feb 27, 2001
That was easy.
September 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pmand, then, before in December of 2000, at the press conference announcing Powell as the incoming Secretary of State, Powell said this,
We will stand strong with our friends and allies against those nations that pursue weapons of mass destruction, that practice terrorism. We will not be afraid of them. We will not be frightened by them. We will meet them. We will match them. We will contend with them. We will defend our interests from a position of strength.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmAnd, later, at the announcement of Rumsfled as Secretary of Defense,
September 28th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
No one who has read Richard Clarke’s book – or hell, the transcript of his Sixty Minutes episode – doubts for one second that the Bushies utterly blew it on Al Qaeda. As they have with everything else they have done.
Clarke was very clear on the matter: their priorities were based on a Cold War mentality and an obsession with Iraq.
He was demoted and his pleas for a meeting on Al Qaeda were ignored.
They can try to rewrite history all they want, but in the end the facts screw them. Again.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pmBasically, Stefan notwithstanding, the point of Bush’s focus on terrorism as an issue was that Clinton had been doing it all wrong and we needed to change it.
bin Laden’s 9/11 plan was already in the works, before Bush became President. The time to stop it was during Clinton’s watch.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmbtw, references to “terrorism” are not references to Al Qaeda, which was the challenge put forth by Stefan
To the Bushies, Terrorism is anything you want it to be.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pmmartin’s assertion that the Bush Administration was fixated on a Cold War mentality is directly refuted by the excerpts I have just provided.
Pity he didn’t have a chance to read it.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:33 pmof course. bin Laden wasn’t a terrorist then. Oh wait. Yes he was. The objection is simply silly. Stefan was challenging “how serious they were about terrorism.“
September 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmok, one for the record books, do I hear a call for a second one?
C’mon. Do your own homework before issuing stupid, meaningless challenges.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pmAnd for the record, searching for al-qaida at the Public Records at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ during Clinton’s entire 8 years, we find only the above mentioned Executive Order, and its annual continuances, and one other, the year before, which apparently was superseded by this one.
bin Laden declares open season on all Americans, declaring war on the US, and Clinton wags his finger with ineffective sanctions and shoots a couple loads at Afghanistan and Sudan.
Within hours of Bush’s moment, he is returning the favor hours after the attacks, declaring war and 3 months later is kicking Taliban and al-Qaida butt in Afghanistan.
Yeah. Clinton was much more aggressive. Right.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pmTo close the book on this stupidity from Stefan and Martin, a review of Bush’s weekly radio addresses following 9/11 did not mention Afghanistan or the Taliban by name until the third week, and al-Qaida on Nov 7, even though each and every weekly radio message from 9/11 to 11/7 was all about the terrorist attacks and our response.
To assert, as both Stefan and Martin are want to do, that Bush&Co wasn’t serious about terrorism because they didn’t meet Stefan’s silly linguistic quirk is, well, just silly.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pmthe latest statistics shows bush has spent over 100 million for running air force one, mainly for personal reasons including his drunk and slutty daughters
January 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm