Is the Bush Administration never going to say that the Clinton Administration didn't do anything for 8 years and left them with a big mess? How come Rice was taken to task for not doing anything about USS Cole when it happened during Clinton Administration?! Someone tell me why Bush team isn't playing hardball.

Thomas,

I believe that we just have to be patient. Look what happened with the Clarke book; allegations, allegations, and more allegations; days of silence from the WH and then WHAM!!!, tonnes of information about Clarke, Clinton, etc comes out and bursts the Dims bubble.

Have faith, GW probably has something ready, just giving them some extra rope.

FWIW - I was unable to watch or hear any of the testimony. However, a local talk radio host mentioned a few minutes ago that he was watching "out the corner of his eye" and he thinks she did a masterful job. He's a conservative, and admirer of Rice - but we're also Canadian, without the personal partisan interests at stake.

I suspect those who are disappointed with missed opportunities in the questioning or the responses, will be those who aren't likely to be swayed in either direction.

Thomas...it's called Passive Aggressive, and Rice is PERFECT for the job.

If they (Bush camp) hit them over the head, they come off as the 'bad guys' since AFTER ALL...they are JUST trying to get the facts! (snicker!)

If Rice gets them to hit THEMSELVES over the head, they both LOOK stupid AND have a headache!

This whole thing has turned in partisan theater. There is no way these clowns produce a credible report in July.

Kerrey kept calling Condi Rice "Dr. Clarke." He should be extremely embarrased. But we know where his mind was, at least.

I thought Condi did very well, in spite of the 'witch hunt' feel some of the commissioners brought to the scene; steady and consistent, making consise points no matter what was thrown at her. I didn't have the time to watch the whole thing, but that's the impression I got.

I did hear her make some good points about the nature of intelligence gathering/analysis and how that can or can't figure into a plan of action. All public officials should be required to know about these issues so they don't end up making arses of themselves to the public.

One thing asked by one of the commissioners stumped me, though. He asked Condi if she was aware that FAA regulations state that airline security personnel may not have more than two Arabic men in custody for questioning at any given time or they will be charged with discrimination. Can that be right???

August 6, 2001: Bush receives a briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US."

August 7, 2001: Bush began a month long vacation at his hobby ranch in Crawford, TX.

That briefing would probably explain a lot. Why doesn't Bush release it in full? I mean, not now since Bush is on vacation again, but in general...

First of all Vince, the president was in Crawford when he was given the briefing so at least try to get the basic facts right. Further, if you listened to the hearing you know that that briefing did not in fact predict and impending attack but rather summaraized what was known about bin Laden's intentions based on past evidence.

Snarkiness and an extremely selective reading of the facts may make Bush opponents feel good about themselves but do nothing to shed light on either what happened or on how well a job has been done in fixing the problems that allowed it to happen.

Bush supporters on the other hand can feel some vindication for having predicted that these hearing would inevitably dissolve into partisan attacks on the president rather than an honest effort to understand the structural reasons that allowed 9/11 to occur.

thanks ben veniste and roemer for making this hearing a highly partisan affair.

Snarkiness aside, why is the briefing not released in full? Released in full, not summarized, not recounted through a third party, no interpreted by right or left pundits. The actual document.

It's not a lot to ask.

As per the vacation business, IIRC he left for Crawford 8/7/01. If I'm wrong, don't you think that being on vacation during such a time is inappropriate? Do you think him being on vacation now is inappropriate?

"Structural reasons" didn't cause 9/11 to occur. Some crazy bastards caused 9/11 to occur. "Structural reasons"? Is that the new "weapons of mass destruction related program activity such 'n such".

So who really believes the Pres. "goes on vacation?"

If he does what happens with the "nuclear football."
Is it lateraled to...

Come on why even place that in the debate?

I hate to bang my head against a wall, but here goes.

Vince, National Security Documents are not released in full to the general public.

If you have to ask why then you really have no idea what your talking about.

Oh and for the commission members to press for Rice to authorize the release of the document is a cheap shot, maybe the cheapest of the hearing.

Rice: "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.''

That's why the Bush admin opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, strangled it of funding, severely restricted access to PDBs and other documents from the Bush and Clinton admins, refused to allow Rice to testify until pressured to do so, tried to block a requested temporal extension of the investigation, refused to declassify a speech that was to be given publically by Rice on the very day 9/11 and have delayed and obstructed testimony by Bush until the extraordinary Pres/VP double testimony, in private, with no electronic note-taking or even a shorthand clerk.

The only way we can "learn all we can about that tragic day" is by conducting an investigation where there is no transcript. Is it a budget thing? If so, I'll FedEx my dictaphone to Zelikow, free of charge.

"National Security Documents are not released in full to the general public."

9/11 changed everything. And I believe there is process for declassifying these types of documents. There is so much BS swirling around this commission that many, many questions would be answered by simply releasing this document. Probably many questions. It's not a lot to ask, considering the circumstances.

I know I'm on a right wing site, but c'mon, I can't believe no one here wants to see the actual document, in full. No spin from either side.

I bet the document is released in about a week. I also bet that it will make the people attacking the administration look stupid, again. Just like they said that that Condi would never testify because they were hiding something and then she comes in and kicks them in the (proverbial) jewels.

Yeah, bananas, and this commission was going to be SOOO helpful in accomplishing that.

Rice's statement isn't contradictory, it's just that YOU are not WE she was talking about.

"So who really believes the Pres. “goes on vacation?”

If he does what happens with the “nuclear football.”
Is it lateraled to…

Come on why even place that in the debate?"

OK, lets call it 'working from home'. Tell your co-workers you will be 'working from home' when faced with an extremely heavy workload, and see their reactions.

Vince

"9/11 changed everything"

Uhh, yes it did, but making sensitive documents LESS secure isnt one of the changed things I think most people had in mind....

And yes, I'd like to see the document in full, hell there is lots of documents/files the government has that I'd love to see in full. The problem is who else could read them if they were public.

Vince,

From the testimony today, it seems Bush was in Crawford on the 6th, but I support it doesn't matter all that much to the point you were trying to make. You asked if I thought Bush "being on vacation during such a time is inappropriate?" But what type of time do you mean? I presume you are assuming the August 6 briefing contained some dire warning of impending attack and that the president should therefore have rushed back to DC. But the briefing of course did not say this and so he didn't. Similarly, why shouldn't he be in Texas now? What exactly do you think he should be doing that can't be done from Crawford?

The reason the PDB is not being released is that this document is never released to the public. The commission has access to it and if in fact it said bin Laden is about to attack the US using planes as weapons, I reasonably sure it would have leaked by now. Because it didn't, the harm caused by releasing it publically far outweighs any benefit. Though I suspect pressure from the left will compell the White House to do so anyway.

Lastly, I did not say structural reasons caused 9/11 to occur, I said they allowed the attacks to occur. Which is supposed to be the point of the hearings - what was wrong with the way the US approached terrorism that made the 9/11 attacks possible. If critics of this administration spent more energy on actually seeing what people are saying rather than immediately spinning it, we might actually get somewhere.

Well the president does live in the White House so technically he's always "working from home" isn't he?

Idiot -- I mean, Vince:

These days even a 9-to-5 cubicle geek can work from anywhere. You seem to think that POTUS is incommunicado when he's not sitting right at his desk in the Oval Office.

You know, when I addressed you in the first line of this comment, I was right the first time.

"Uhh, yes it did, but making sensitive documents LESS secure isnt one of the changed things I think most people had in mind…."

This 'sensitive document' is old news. The implications of not releasing it far outway any security concerns because Osama did what was likely in that briefing. It needs to be released NOW. This 'Bush is waiting to release it so he'll show everyone he's not a dope' nonsense is playing politics pure and simple.

"And yes, I’d like to see the document in full, hell there is lots of documents/files the government has that I’d love to see in full. The problem is who else could read them if they were public."

See above. Didn't a group of Repubs try to get Clarke's old testimony declassified? How is this any different.

So, Vince. We meet again.

Gave up starting fights on my site so easily? Or tired of losing them.

Wonderful to see you here. Really. Expect more of the same you got at ASV - having your points shot down one at a time.

Ya know, swatting flies.

Internet name calling! What a tough guy! You probably step out the shower to pee candy-ass Mcheeheehheaa.

Michele, you banned me. Besides I don't start fights; I finish them.

According to an August 5, 2001 story by John C. Henry in the Houston Chronicle archives, Buch flew to Waco on Saturday, August 4, 2001 to begin a "monthlong vacation."

According to an August 5, 2001 story by John C. Henry in the Houston Chronicle archives, Buch flew to Waco on Saturday, August 4, 2001 to begin a "monthlong vacation."

Vince, I swear I didn't ban you from ASV. I've only banned one person since that last outburst about comments and it wasn't you.

bananas,

I knew this would be a partisan hack job the moment that Rockefeller staffer's memo about the Iraq commission came to light. Who seriously believed the Democrats could resist the temptation to politicize this? The Bushies, I'm sure, sensed it too.

How completely September 10th of the Democrats.

I'm not suggesting anything close to treason, but this sniping at the President doubtless has the effect, whatever its intent, of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I'm sickened by it all. This is where we were they morning we were hit.

Only 1 person has answered my question: Don't you want to see this briefing?

It certainly would answer many questions.

"This ‘sensitive document’ is old news."

Wow, Vince, really? How cool! Are you, like invited to high-level security briefings? Privy to the findings and inner workings of our national defense, are you? What? No??

Well then how the hell do you know it's old?

At the risk of sounding overly elementary to your apparent inability to grasp why classified documents aren't pasted all over the public sphere:

That document is full of stuff we know and don't know about The Enemy. If they made that document public, then The Enemy would be able to read it, too. As it is (i.e., classified), it's upsetting to The Enemy's plans and methods if they don't know what we might already know. Keeps them guessing, see? So they're unbalanced and spending more energy on trying to figure out our next move (based on what we know about them of course) rather than, I dunno, planning on flying a jetliner or two into a building, just to use a random example. If we made it public then The Enemy would have a tactical and operational advantage over us.

Intel 101. Got that? I doubt it.

In answer to your question about would I like to see those documents: sure, I'm as curious as the next person.

But at the risk of what you would jeopardize (see my comment above) the notion of seeing those documents is foolish and insistence that you be included in the process is asinine.

I can't post in your comments. Just tried, getting "You are not allowed to post comments."

Anyways, did anyone catch the 9//11 widows on MSNBC? Gadzooka!

Vince The Boss won't letcha work from home? Poor guy.

BananaPooPoo Save your Pounds. Or are you using them to feed your Monkey?

While I CERTAINLY hate to get off topic...! 8-)

Cap'n,

in case you missed it in the 'fray'...

http://www.command-post.org/mt2/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=11449

Vince,

The issue with releasing the PDB is not all that new. At stake is not what the briefing says but rather how the briefing is organized since it reveals how our intelligence community at the highest level organizes and perceives the terrorist threat. By revealing our methods of analysis, publically releasing the PDB would give away how we view the problem, possibly allowing our enemies to restructure themselves to take advantage of this.

The administration has already given the commission unprecedented access to the document so that they can understand what it did or did not say. There is nothing, other than cheap partisan points, gained by releasing the PDB to the public and much to be lost. Which is why the commissioners publically calling on Rice to declassify it was both cheap and hollow and only designed to make the evening news.

I'd like to know more about the national security criterion that dictates a speech to be given in public on 9/11 suddenly threatens to undermine national security. If the NSA was scheduled to broadcast sensitive information to all and sundry, including our swarthier colleagues in this grand folly called humanity, then this is relevant to the commission's investigation. Or could the reason be that the speech doesn't contain information that cannot be disclosed for security reasons, like every other speech ever made by every NSA ever, but merely makes Rice and the admin appear to have, shall we say, a dereliction of focus.

Why is the 9/11 speech not declassified?

Vince,

I am on vacation and I am still connected enough to know what ios going on at work, home andrefute your lame points. Think Bush has more capability to connect then me?

AFA the classified documents, sure I would like to see them. I would also like to tear around in an OHIO Class for a while, but niether is a good idea.

Democrats all but destroyed the CIA during the 1980's.
Now 5 Democrats are hellbent on finising the job. They wish to declassify any and everthing.
You don't hand out documents that would empower your enemies all over the globe.

The Dems are attempting the biggest rewriting of history ever seen. They're whitewashing a President who did nothing about bin Laden for eight years and who appointed such anti-terror successes as Clarke, Freeh, and Tenet. And they're trying to blame the whole thing on Bush. The witch-hunt will continue. And the reason is the terror war is Bush's political strength.

Posted by jones at April 8, 2004 03:12 PM
I am on vacation and I am still connected enough to know what ios going on at work, home andrefute your lame points.

Posted by Vince at April 8, 2004 02:27 PM
Besides I don’t start fights; I finish them.

CAREFUL there Jones...Vince is a 'tough guy'! 8-O

ALMOST as scary as hunting wild boars huh...!?! ;-)

Vince, if you havent figured it out now this whole thing is a show. The commission already asked Rice these questions in closed doors, and read the whole report beforehand. The only reason Rice is there now is so the Dems can make their photo op in front of the public. We are just lucky that Kerry is the perfect intellectual foil for Rice and too stupid to realize it.

I will know in 8 days. I will think of warm breezes, you think of snow.

How 'bout we BOTH think of the warm breezes...AND the fresh tenderloins!

;-)

Bananas,

Again why can't Bush critics keep simple facts straight? Rice's speech scheduled for Sept. 11 is not classified, it never was classified. Like all draft documents, it is considered confidential - a major difference. What the White House has said is that an undelivered speech is not within the public domain.

Of course, the speech contents themselves will add nothing to the debate. Clinton's own final national security document placed missile defense ahead of terrorism and never mentions al Qaeda. We already now that both the Clinton and pre-9/11 Bush administrations did not view terrorism as a serious enough problem.

I can't blame Bush critics for wanting a soundbite to make the president look bad, but at least be honest about the motives.

I like pig, and it doesn't make a difference to me whether it's feral or domestic. Don't worry about Vince. His Boss has him locked down pretty tight.

Rice:

[The Aug 6 Memo 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside US' ] did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

.........



Kerrey:

In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking. That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th of August.

Rice:

And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to warn of hijackings.

Now, one of Rice's conflicting statements must be false. If it is the latter, why not release the memo? 'Historical information', 'no new reporting', 'no new threat information', 'did not...warn'. Let's have a look, then. The memo title seems a tad hyperbolic. Why is it secret?

Hacksaw: Criticism noted. Let's use the blanket term 'secret', and bear in mind the imperative "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." On that tragic day, a speech was to be delivered. Will we learn all we can about that?

BananaPooPoo WHAT IS IT about CLASSIFIED you do not understand? Oh, that's right. I forgot. You're just an Herb.

I think you'd be more interested in what Tony Blair 'sexed up' lately, than anything OUR National Security Advisor has to say. Why don't you go have some HastyPudding and a pint of Stout?

Bananas,

I would point out that there is a tremendous difference between warnings of hijackings and warnings of attacks on US soil. And again, since the commission has seen the memo, we know they have a full picture of what it says and can reach their conclusions based on that information without jeapordizing our national security by releasing it.

The importanceof the Rice speech scheduled for Sept. 11 is a canard and I am sure you know it. It is no secret that the Bush administration did not view al Qaeda as the number one problem in it's defense priorities. Of course neither did Clinton. Or Bush I. I suspect you, like other administration crtitics, only want another opportunity to poke the administration in the eye, unfair though that may be.

But let me ask you what you think might be gleaned from the Rice speech that we do not already know?

After Ms Rice is lynched, I wonder what the lynchers would recommend that we do to prevent the western world from being economically destroyed by a small group of religious and cultural fanatics.

9/11 Panel Seeks Declassification of Memo

Thomas Kean, the commission Republican chairman, said at hearing's end that he would ask the White House to declassify the document, reports the AP.

Ted: After Ms Rice is lynched

Interesting choice of words. Coincidence or was that by design?

... that we do to prevent the western world from being economically destroyed by a small group of religious and cultural fanatics.

1) Independent energy strategy.

Independent energy strategy. Good idea. I would like to see the Pres. give up on Anwar and forge an energy bill with Congress. And maybe we have to take another look at nuclear energy.

But that won't stop them from attacking our institutions and infrastructure. What do we do about that?

Anthony,

What do we do when Al Queda is hosted by Saddam Hussein in the period after sanctions are lifted.

Ted: But that won’t stop them from attacking our institutions and infrastructure.

In the short run no. But it will in time. It took us 2-1/2 years to develop a N bomb. And our involvement in the ME will diminish and with that their interest in attacking us will wane.

When and where was Al-Qaeda hosted by SH?

Read OBL fatwas.

In 2005 after sanctions were lifted by the UN Saddam hosted the coalition of willing Islamic terror groups seeking to destroy the infrastucture of the infidels.

In 2005?

Read OBL fatwas.

In 2005 after sanctions were lifted by the UN Saddam hosted the coalition of willing Islamic terror groups seeking to destroy the infrastucture of the infidels.

Their interest in attacking us and western civilization was on the increase. Why would it have waned? They are on a crusade.

Why would it have waned?

Their reason for attacking us is because of the ever-growing footprint in the ME. Not because of who-we-are. LOL

Anthony,

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, after he was injured in Afghanistan.

That's one al Qaeda hosted in Iraq, that we (and by 'we' I mean people able to read newspapers) know about.

Thanks DrSteve:

I was actually trying to get a response to the following: What do we do when Al Queda is hosted by Saddam Hussein in the period after sanctions are lifted.

I turn it over to you dr Steve. My head aches.

That’s one al Qaeda hosted in Iraq, that we (and by ‘we’ I mean people able to read newspapers) know about.

What is the point of this sentence?

In scolling through todays transcript, even Ben-Veniste (who has seen the 8/6 PDB) admitted that it was historical and speculative. In other words not actionable.
"BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may."
By the way he said this when he reallized Condi was rolling his balls in her hand like Bogart in Mutiny on the Bounty.
Now let it die...

Vince, I could explain to you how we know what we know about Al Qaeda, right now today, in about three paragraphs.

I could teach you to how to do it yourself on a smaller scale in less than ten paragraphs.

You are in possession right now of all the assets necessary to do the job.

If I told you, I'd also be telling the bad guys how we know, whether you are one of them or not.

De-classifying a Presidential Daily Brief would lengthen the time it took for the terrorists to figure out how we know what we know, but they would figure it out and it wouldn't take very long. They would know because they know how they communicate and when they saw what they said by way of a given channel published, they would not understand how we found out, they would know how to defeat our future efforts.

Maybe that's what you want.

Maybe you aren't aware of how our techniques work and hadn't realized what publishing the results would give to the enemy.

Either way, now you do know.

Rice's testimony today is a concrete admission that we use many of the same techniques now that we used before 9/11.

How you respond to what is now proven to reside in your awareness will be telling.

Condoleeza Rice is a truly amazing talent. Every time I see her I am reminded again that, with all of our faults, America keeps churning out these incredible people!

I watched the circus and chuckled as she cold-cocked Kerry with her velvet hammer...it was a thing of beauty to see her shut that gas-bag down. Her quite dignity was a sharp and telling contrast to the Senator's disrespectful, boorish conduct.

We can only hope that Ms. Rice won't be so disillusioned by this degrading beltway spectacle that she chooses to leave government service forever.

Damn she would make a fine Republican Presidential candidate in '08! Run Condi Run!

jeffers Nice GO!

Vince - Besides I don’t start fights; I finish them. Switch hands. The Left side of your face is lookin' a tad bruised.

I have to agree with Dabido. Just about anyone would be better than another Bush in '08.

Wake up guys: - Remember how long the Cold War lasted??? About 50 years wasn't it???? This War on Terrorism is going to be a long war too. It is going to take all Americans of both parties thru many administrations.

Bush is not the hero here and neither was Clinton and Richard Clarke.
Dr. Rice may be getting the blame for it. But it is all politics from both sides. - The left-wingnuts want real bad to blame someone in the White House and they know Bush is teflon. The right-wingnuts want to let a loyal Bush appointee take the fall who just happens to be black (hmmmmm I wonder why?).

We need to be smarter than these partisan scumbags.

You guys are still jabbering about this? Likely 1000's of hours of punditry have come and gone about Rice's testimony; I haven't exactly heard glowing reviews. So, the left "won" (as if it's game). Many righties know this, but refuse to admit it.

"You‘re f**king kidding me, right? Please say, please say, you’re f**king kidding me."

-- The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart, after Condi Rice revealed the title of the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Brief, “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States”

Ha ha ha!

Hopefully, it's matter of time before the memo gets leaked or declassified. I really want to see it, and you all should to.

"The commission found the former president forthcoming and responsive to its questions. We appreciate the excellent cooperation he and his associates have given to us," the commission said in a brief statement.

Commission chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and vice chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana described Clinton's responses during a four-hour meeting as "frank" and "constructive."


Ha ha ha!

Vince, perhaps if the title was "bin Laden determined to attack inside the US on September 11th" the memo would be a substantial piece of evidence that the Bush admin failed.

Vague chatter, non specific threats and general warnings don't make it an easy task to determine where and when a madman will strike.

Vince,

No need to learn the facts when a snide remark will do. Of course when the memo is (unfortunately) declassified it will be clear that no warnings of an actionable kind were in it. But it won't matter to you, you'll have moved on to the next inane bit of inuendo because in the end you don't really care about the truth, you just want to hate the president.

Too bad, you might actually have learned something.

Vince, you poor, poor delusional hack. This is probably all the attention you get, isn't it? You seemed to disappear as soon as Hacksaw and I posted seperately about why classified documents aren't made public only to show up today and issue some lame insult about the continued discussion.

So much for being an argument 'finisher'. You sad, sad man.

Were there any warnings of an actionable kind about the thwarted millenium terror acts?

"I have to agree with Dabido. Just about anyone would be better than another Bush in ‘08." Oh I don't think Jeb is running and George Prescott Bush is a little young yet, But I have the same hope for him that many dims did for JFK jr.

You people are so blind...you want to believe that ur President is doing a good job...OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES. The PDB says it all...they were warned of attacks, they didn't do anything about it

But go ahead you dumb asses...stick behind your president and his incompetent staff.

Bush is a jackass and so are all of you.

Lawrence Keep up. The Dems admit that there is nothing SPECIFIC in that PDB, so that makes you the dumb ass, don't it? :o)

hey asshole...ever heard of an intelligence agency??? They are suppossed to read between the lines. U think Bin Laden would actually tell them what day he was planning to attack. All you Americans are fucking retarded.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: