independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Are you guys watching or listening to Rice?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 04/08/04 8:12am

TheOrgerFormer
lyKnownAs

Are you guys watching or listening to Rice?

She is making me so sick right now.


Condoleezza Rice testimony
National Security Advisor's statement, as prepared, for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Updated: 10:49 a.m. ET April 08, 2004

Below are the prepared remarks of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., on April 8, 2004.

advertisement

I thank the Commission for arranging this special session. Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to learn all we can about the September 11th attacks, while preserving important Constitutional principles.

This Commission, and those who appear before it, have a vital charge. We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic day, and the events that led to it. Many families of the victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.

The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.

The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing.

Since then, America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe the actions this Administration was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th, 2001.

After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and al-Qaida. This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and the Balkans.

Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of al-Qaida over the years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaida. On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff. I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.

At the beginning of the Administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office - - meetings which I attended, along with the Vice President and the Chief of Staff. At these meetings, the President received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. From January 20 through September 10, the President received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaida, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al-Qaida and terrorism.

Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration - - not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power - - intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military - - to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:

• It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.

• It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.

• It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

• It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.

• And it directed the Secretary of Defense to - - and I quote - - "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 - - which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.

More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.

Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al-Qaida was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided al-Qaida with a powerful umbrella of protection, and we had to sever them. This was not easy.

Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office, President Bush sent a strong, private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al-Qaida training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis, including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban. I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a rote, expressionless response.

America's al-Qaida policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.

To address these problems, I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the Secretary of State and his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance, we emphasized the importance of the south - - the social and political heartland of the country. Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability on the subcontinent.

While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last Administration, and some had been on the table since 1998. We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida.

When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both simultaneously.

For the essential crisis management task, we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs), the State Department, and the Secret Service. The CSG had met regularly for many years, and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes daily, to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.

The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer:

• "Unbelievable news in coming weeks"
• "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar"
• "There will be attacks in the near future"

Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.

In this context, I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized. On August 6, 2001, the President's intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had earlier raised about any al-Qaida intentions to strike our homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible al-Qaida plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was also concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland. Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.

Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance:

• The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

• The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.

• The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

• The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.

• The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.

• During this period, the Vice President, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.

Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the President that day.

Now, we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events - - events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. Just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and to the creation of the National Security Council, so has September 11th made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland.

President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and analyze terrorist threat information, directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence agencies, and, working with the Congress, given officials new tools, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, to find and stop terrorists. And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.

But the President also recognizes that our work is far from complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically in the last two years, but they must be stronger still. The President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas and fresh thinking. We are eager to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this Commission.

We are at war and our security as a nation depends on winning that war. We must and we will do everything we can to harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk their lives every day to make us all safer, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And, let's remember, those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day.

That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on offense, to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live, hide, and plot around the world. If we learned anything on September 11th, 2001, it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.

After the September 11th attacks, our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al-Qaida and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.

He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under his leadership, the United States and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations, cutting off their funding, and hunting down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.

We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of terrorists, seizing dangerous materials in transit, where necessary. Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMD-related programs and materials.

And as we attack the threat at its sources, we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform, we removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes -- sources of violence, and fear, and instability in the region. Today, along with many allies, we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the alternatives to instability, hatred, and terror. This work is hard and dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and our sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.

In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right choices for America to make -- the only choices that can ensure the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.

Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 04/08/04 8:57am

POOK

avatar


WELL AT LEAST SHE SMILE AGAIN

IT IN USA TODAY!

P o o |/,
P o o |\
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 04/08/04 9:20am

sosgemini

avatar

very interesting interview.....My first thoughts:

Rice did a very good job of making Richard Clark look credible eek S

Her whole "it was not a warning" memo was worse then Clinton's "depends on the meaning of sex" explenation.....If you recieve a report that says "bin laden wants to attack in the USA" wake up, smell the coffee, and react.....

Its so appearant from her explenation of what occured that Bush could not comprehend any of what was going on.....It was soo pained when she read the excerpt from Bob Woodwards book and spoke Bush's simple speak...Boy, the man couldnt connect Dom Deluise size dots.....
Space for sale...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 04/08/04 9:32am

TheOrgerFormer
lyKnownAs

sosgemini said:

very interesting interview.....My first thoughts:

Rice did a very good job of making Richard Clark look credible eek S

Her whole "it was not a warning" memo was worse then Clinton's "depends on the meaning of sex" explenation.....If you recieve a report that says "bin laden wants to attack in the USA" wake up, smell the coffee, and react.....

Its so appearant from her explenation of what occured that Bush could not comprehend any of what was going on.....It was soo pained when she read the excerpt from Bob Woodwards book and spoke Bush's simple speak...Boy, the man couldnt connect Dom Deluise size dots.....
She is killing with with this "I don't remember' crap. How convenient.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 04/08/04 11:44am

Greg55403

avatar

To make a good bowl of Rice, you HAVE to watch and listen to it...smells can be deceiving.

Happy cooking, and God bless, my friends.

Love,

Greg
"All Hail King Bart!"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 04/08/04 2:13pm

Abrazo

I have seen her entire testimony and have to say that I was most of all sickened by her overall attitude. While answering questions and discussing serious issues regarding 9/11 she smiled and grinned so many times that I started to seriously wonder whether she really cared at all about the tragedy that destroyed so many lives. Some may say that's her style and character, but I don't buy that. It sickens me when the people who are in charge and bare the responsibility to protect their people basically deny with a smile on their face that they could have done more to prevent disaster from happening.

Regarding the content of her testimony I was baffled the most by her assertion that the august 6 memo didn't contain any specific message or evidence that a big threat from Al Qaeda was coming to the US homeland. Besides plenty of other evidence clearly pointing to that direction the memo was entiled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US". I mean, how much clearer can it get? But she just kept on repeating that the memo only contained answers to questions asked by Bush himself and kept on saying that the avaliable intelligence indicated that "something big" was going to happen "overseas". Yet the White House refuses the public to see the agust 6 memo...

There were many other points that are still disputed and Iraq was discussed to little to my taste. She also frequently dodged difficult questions by running into meaningless monologues, frustrating the little time the commisioners had to question her and indicating - to me - that she did not come to tell the truth. What she did accomplish however was to defend her "boss" and "friend" George W Bush. I'm afraid that he is more or less safe now from any harsh criticism.

I support the commision's firm request however to declassify to the public the august 6 memo and I am glad to see they are taking their job so seriously (except some of the Republican members). Nevertheless I'm afraid that if any material will be declassified it will be too little and too vague to persuade popular opinion in the US that this administration has failed miserably in protecting them.


--
[This message was edited Thu Apr 8 14:26:11 2004 by Abrazo]
You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 04/08/04 4:14pm

sosgemini

avatar

Abrazo said:

I have seen her entire testimony and have to say that I was most of all sickened by her overall attitude. While answering questions and discussing serious issues regarding 9/11 she smiled and grinned so many times that I started to seriously wonder whether she really cared at all about the tragedy that destroyed so many lives. Some may say that's her style and character, but I don't buy that. It sickens me when the people who are in charge and bare the responsibility to protect their people basically deny with a smile on their face that they could have done more to prevent disaster from happening.




clapping

i know the exact moment your talking about..when the republican member kept asking her if she was aware of specific facts and she kept responded, "no i didnt".....it was like she felt this was her moment to vendicate herself...yet all it did was point to the weakness in the system....something she shouldnt be proud of...
Space for sale...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 04/08/04 4:46pm

hilton02895

avatar

I watched her public appearance and thought it was quite odd that she was zealously professionbal. She was insensative, stubbern , and ound quite a few of her answers leaving me asking "what the hell did she just say?"

I'm looking for the transcript now and will give a dollar after I read it.
_________________________________________
You'll find the back of my hand displeasing. (Shake)
The bun is in your mind. (Meatwad)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 04/09/04 8:01am

Abrazo

sosgemini said:

Abrazo said:

I have seen her entire testimony and have to say that I was most of all sickened by her overall attitude. While answering questions and discussing serious issues regarding 9/11 she smiled and grinned so many times that I started to seriously wonder whether she really cared at all about the tragedy that destroyed so many lives. Some may say that's her style and character, but I don't buy that. It sickens me when the people who are in charge and bare the responsibility to protect their people basically deny with a smile on their face that they could have done more to prevent disaster from happening.




clapping

i know the exact moment your talking about..when the republican member kept asking her if she was aware of specific facts and she kept responded, "no i didnt".....it was like she felt this was her moment to vendicate herself...yet all it did was point to the weakness in the system....something she shouldnt be proud of...

You know why it's a cop-out for a national security advisor to blame the lack of communication between the CIA and FBI? First because, like commisioner Kerrey said; everybody in the national security community knows the CIA and FBI don't talk, and second becuase she - as national security advisor - and her team do talk to both agencies and have the responsibility to "connect the dots". They failed to connect the dots.

Those dots were there and were pretty clear, with the august 6 memo as some of the clearest. When Rice then keeps on saying that the "chatter" from the summer of 2001 was "frustratingly vague" and that it din't tell her "when, who, what, how and where" she is one: contradicting avalaible evidence and two: unfairly putting all the blame squarly on the intelligence agencies. Because there was information avalaible about "who": possible "Al Qaeda terrorist" , "what": plotting to conduct a "BIG attack", "where": "INSIDE the US", AND "how" : possibly by "hijacking commercial airplanes". She as NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR and her staff bare the end responsibility to connect those dots and order the agencies to put all the information together and act upon it.

All that information was avalaible and Dick Clarke plus common sense would have told Rice - if she even asked- that "a big attack" would probably mean that it would take place by anything "big" in the "big" cities, like New York and Washington . Considering they knew they were dealing with the madmen of Al Qaeda, who already bombed the WTC in 1993, the avalaible evidence seems frustratingly CLEAR to me!

No, don't nobody come with that hindsight this and that. She is the national security advisor whose department has the responsibility and the means to connect those dots, foresee those plans and thwart them. They didn't connect the dots and they didn't order to collect all information pointing to Al Qaeda striking BIG INSIDE the US with commercial airplanes. Instead they were busy having ridiculously long holidays and writing speeches on missile defense. They utterly and squarly failed. Scandalous, but I bet the mainstream American media won't portray it like this.


--
[This message was edited Fri Apr 9 8:05:21 2004 by Abrazo]
You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 04/09/04 11:47pm

SensualMelody

I watched her as long as I could... hmmm all of about 10 seconds, I think.
So...how's everybody doing? smile
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 04/14/04 9:35am

Abrazo

RICE'S LIES

from www.bushwatch.com

Rice's Lie #1 (transcript)

DICK CLARKE (video):
I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer....

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I - I have never seen the president say an - anything to an - people in an intimidating way, to try to get a particular answer out of them. I know this president very well. And the president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to ask them to produce information - that is false.

OUR RESPONSE:
Clarke and two others were in the room with Bush. The others have gone on record as agreeing with Clarke's description of the meeting. Condi was not present.

Rice's Lie #2 (transcript)

VOICE OVER:
All week long, the White House said it had no recollection that the September 12 meeting ever took place, and that it had no record that President Bush was even in the situation room that day. But two days ago, they changed their story, saying the meeting did happen.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
"None of us recall the specific - conversation....

OUR RESPONSE:
Actually, two lies here. First, the White House said the meeting didn't happen, then they changed their story. Second, Condi misleads Bradley by saying "us" did not recall the specific conversation. Of course "us" didn't since it has already been established that "us" was not in the room at the time of the conversation.

Rice's Lie #3 (transcript)

ED BRADLEY:
Clarke has alleged that the Bush administration underestimated the threat from - from al Qaeda, didn't act as if terrorism was an imminent and urgent problem. Was it?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Of course it was an urgent - problem....

ED BRADLEY: :
But even the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism, and I'm quoting here, farther to the back burner.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I just don't agree....

ED BRADLEY:
After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book in which he had incredible access and interviewed the president of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that bin Laden was not the president's focus or that of his nationally security team. You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat - let's talk about what we did....

ED BRADLEY: :
You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency - any greater than the one that we had, would have caused us to do differently.

OUR RESPONSE:
It's clear that Bradley wants to discuss the Clarke charge that the Bush administration changed terrorism from the top priority to one of secondary concern, and Rice attepts to twist the question of giving terrorism "top priority" to taking terrorism "seriously," which are two different things. Then Bush is quoted as saying terrorism was not "urgent." Rice ignores this documented quote and goes on to disagree with Bush. As such, she is attempting to mislead by changing the terms from "top priority" to "seriously," and to simply ignore the evidence presented that Bush disagrees with her. As such, she is on auto-pilot as she lies, spinning the implicit scenario she wants Bradley to accept.

Finally, Bradley repeatedly gave Rice the program's forum to apologize for 9/11 to the millions of viewers watching the show, like Clarke did on the show last week and previously to that under oath in front of the 9/11 Panel, but she refused each time. (transcript)

--Jerry Politex, 03.29.04
You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 04/19/04 8:06pm

Paradisekiss03

avatar

hilton02895 said:[quote]I watched her public appearance and thought it was quite odd that she was zealously professionbal. She was insensative, stubbern , and ound quite a few of her answers leaving me asking "what the hell did she just say?"

quote]


hey! i felt the same way too. I think she was straight up lying but i felt like she was nervous.
I really like spicy food. I mostly put Jalapenos on a lot of my food.

"There are three types of women for a man. The woman he wants to marry, the woman he should marry, and the woman he ends up marrying".
-Pedro Infante-


Una Vez Y Otra Mas!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Are you guys watching or listening to Rice?