White House Wavers On Condi

[Roon]

CBS/AP) Late Monday afternoon, White House officials were considering an about face on whether to bow to demands from the 9/11 commission to have National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath, reports Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

Roberts tells CBSNews.com the change in policy is being discussed at the highest levels in the White House. Rice reportedly believes that it might be positive for her to appear. But President Bush makes the final decision, and is thus far against it, says Roberts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/21/terror/main607659.shtml

[lancdem]

1. Of course Bush is against it

He believes he is accountable to no one, the ultimate imperial president.

[Blasphemer]

2. Interesting....

Chimp is so arrogant, he can't stand the idea of bowing to pubic pressure. Afterall, he is the pResident and doesn't have to answer to anyone. If she does testify, Karen Hughes is probably the reason. She is the only adviser who has half a clue about how the public responds to some of their crap (i.e. opposing the Mars nonsense in the SOTU).

[arcos]

12. I'm sure he constantly bows to pubic pressure...

or at least he used to when he was young.
:evilgrin:

[Blasphemer]

21. LOL!

Touche! I'll leave the typo there ;)

[saigon68]

90. Oh you mean Condom Rice?

I hear she was electronically tested

[salinen]

3. Oh she'll testify alright

but not before she's practiced with KKK on how to answer the questions.

[revcarol]

4. Today Ted Kennedy went on a tear that Condi should testify in public

under oath.

THEN,he said, President Bush would have several weeks to decide if HE wanted to testify publicly under oath. ROFLMAO!!

He was SOOOOOO funny, while totally crucifying the administration.

[Florida_Geek]

5. Poor bushie

if she FUCKS up he is dead.

[hang a left]

63. nope, nope, I have been thinking about this today.

She is gonna be placed on the alter for sacrifice. They will offer up Rice, she is expendable. Remember it is showtime.

[trapper914]

70. Good Point

She's leaving the admin in January anyway.

[Roon]

6. Check out Drudge

www.drudgereport.com

[Wickerman]

17. better yet, tell us what is there so we don't all add to his hit count

[Roon]

18. here

White House officials worked Monday to negotiate a compromise that would allow public release of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the independent commission looking into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the WASHINGTON POST and NY TIMES are planning to report in Tuesday editions

[Wickerman]

22. thanks - i hate to travel there - thanks for taking it for the crew!

[sixtoes1]

24. This is probably best....

A lot less "grandstanding" by either side, since they had no idea it would be released to the public this soon. Will probably be the closest to the truth we'll ever get. Her public testimony would be so partisan (both for and against) that is would impossible to watch.

[yardwork]

32. She wasn't under oath during her earlier "testimony,"

so it's meaningless.

Personally, I believe that she is perfectly willing to lie under oath, so forcing her to testify under oath in public probably won't bring us any close to the truth either.

[0007]

44. Let Richard Clarke grill Condi, I bet she'd be in tears in less

than 15 minutes.

I'd love to see a live debate between the two, 'eh?

[LiberalFighter]

46. I would too!!!

And then Richard Clarke walks over and hands her a tissue and says "there there... shall we bring in all the little babies and children that lost their parent(s)?"

[jeanmarc]

47. That's not exactly an unreal situation

If I were Ben-Veniste, I'd love to talk to a few people about what to ask.

[sixtoes1]

7. She's going to release previously sworn testimony (behind closed doors..

stuff).

[aquart]

14. She was talking under oath?

To whom?

[sixtoes1]

19. The commission. She's already testified in closed hearing.

I can understand her viewpoint, really. A sitting national security advisor being questioned by partisans (both sides, by the way) in front of the whole world (not just U.S.) Kind of demeans the position, no matter which party you're affiliated with.

[markses]

25. Absolute nonsense

First, her previous "testimony" to the commission was not under oath according to any information on it that I've seen.

Second, it does not "demean the position" (whatever the hell that means in this context) for a public servant to describe her paid service to her employers - the public. If the rest of the world sees it as well, that is a function of the dessemination process, and of little concern. These people are not high priests shrouded in holy mysticism, but mere functionaries accountable in the first and last instance to the people of the United States of America, and the supposed least of these is just as important as the limousine-riding and Secret-Service-protected crew that have arrogated to themselves so much status in the last 60 years.

The hell I say! Demeans her position? Too fucking bad, employee! When she doesn't testify, it demeans OUR POSITION, in the true sense of demeaning: We, the people of the United States of America are stripped of our control over our representatives and our functionaries, and put into the role of children, ceding our sovereignty to some secret cabal. And if the choice is between demeaning the supposedly sacred position of the National Security Advisor (who, let's just say it, is obviously a piss-poor advisor, given the massive failure to, uh, secure the nation in her tenure) and demeaning the truly sacred principle of governance by the people of these United States, I would side with the latter, though Dr. Rice or Mr. Berger or whoever else array themselves in clown outfits and dance jigs for whole the world to see. Bank that, boss.

[calimary]

28. She herself has demeaned the position

and done a gross disservice to ALL Americans, by her lying, sleeping at the switch, dropping the ball, and other assorted incompetence. We are ALL the poorer for her having served. Whatever she does or says now is just a mere punctuation mark at the end of a long, miserable, irresponsible, blunderful tour of "duty."

I'm sorry. It just makes me wonder like crazy what the F--- she's been doing all this time, in the public's employ. WHAT ON EARTH has she been doing with bush and the rest of 'em. WHAT ON EARTH could she possibly be advising them to do or to be on the lookout for. WHAT ON EARTH were her cautions and recommendations? Or was she just too busy all the time, doing PR for the White House on TV, radio, in guest op-ed pieces, and in speaking engagements? Was she doing ANY work to speak of? Any at ALL? I'm getting REALLY suspicious of this so-called "special relationship" she and bush supposedly share. And I wonder if Laura has her doubts... I mean, SHEESH, they spend a LOT of time together. Sometimes with very few if any other people around...

[sixtoes1]

54. Since when did someone's opinion become defined as a lie.

Repubs accuse Clarke of lying. He's only stating his opinions of bush demeanor and conduct. What's rice lying about. Tell me. I don't think Clarke is lying. There's nothing to show that he is. Likewise there's nothing showing rice lying either. What are you talking about? Tell me one lie she's said. Just one.

[wickerwoman]

56. "No one ever imagined planes hitting buildings."

Oh, I'm sorry, that was a "misstatement" not a lie even though Ashcroft stopped flying commercial planes in June and they had specific warnings about the possibility from basically every country in the world except Trinidad-Tobago and that was probably in the mail.

I can probably find more, but I doubt it's worth my time.

[sixtoes1]

57. Opinion. Do you have a window into anyone's mind

let alone rice's? Do you really believe she never imagined hijackings? I think she probably did as well as would any other person with a functioning brain. I don't think anyone imagined four planes being hijacked simultaneously and being flown into 3 (although 4 was intended) buildings killing 3,000 people. I was pretty damned shocked on 9-11. Weren't you? Like I said, it was here opinion only. To prove her lying would require technology we don't have. And it's obvious it's not worth your time, bezdomny. Put up or shut up, though. It's the same with Clarke, though. He's accused of lying. He's all opinions, though. Same thing. He's not lying. He's looking through a different lense. That's all.

[wickerwoman]

58. And at what point does a person in a position of responsibility

become responsible for their "opinions"?

Would I have been shocked on 9/11 if I had heard (as Rice must have):

"Evidence of summer 2001 warnings, of varying specificity as to mode and target, from...


Germany: Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out."

Egypt: threat to assassinate Bush and other Western leaders at July 2001 G-8 summit in Italy, with "an airplane stuffed with explosives"

C.I.A.: "Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests."

U.K.: al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West

Jordan: a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used

Russia: suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets

U.K.: warning of al-Qaeda attack using multiple airplane hijackings

C.I.A.: "There was something specific in early August that said to us that was determined in striking on US soil."

Egypt: bin Laden's network is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US."

Probably not. Look at the warning from Russia. What more did she need to get her imagination going? We knew those planes were hijacked 40 minutes before they hit anything. The Air National Guard is trained to scramble and intercept in 90 seconds. Where the hell were they? Why wasn't security at airports beefed up?

At the G-8 Summit in Italy Bush slept on an aircraft carrier because they had a specific warning that terrorists were going to crash planes to try to assassinate him.

How much more evidence do you need that this is a lie and a damned lie at that?

[sixtoes1]

61. Yeah...

And how many thousands of times had the CIA, FBI, et al heard that before? Okay, let me grant you that rice is a piece of crap. Are you insinuating that every person associated with the administration is a piece of crap. Okay, I'll grant you that, too, okay? Are you insinuating that the senate intelligence committee is full of pieces of crap? Where does it stop? There's no evidence that all this information was in one place for digestion by anyone in the administration or the senate intelligence committee or anywhere else. You're assuming that rice was briefed on every bit of this. That's an assumption on your part. This information has all come out since 9-11 and well after the fact, I might add. What person has said she knew all this? If she knew it, then so did the senate intelligence committee. Why aren't they saying anything?

[wickerwoman]

75. I believe the point is that all this information came out before 9/11.

"This information has all come out since 9-11 and well after the fact, I might add."It came out to the public in the months after September 11th but you still haven't accounted for the failure to intercept four known hijacked planes within anything resembling a reasonable response time. They had what, 2 hours, to get the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the WTC had already been hit. I'm not saying they could have stopped 9/11- but by all accounts they did absolutely nothing with all of this intelligence.

And the point is that Rice lied about the fact that the possibility of planes hitting buildings had been imagined. The fact is that at the G-8 Summit in Italy Bush slept on an aircraft carrier and not where he was originally scheduled because they heard that terrorists were planning to assassinate him by crashing a plane full of explosives into a building. This was July 2001. So did they imagine the scenario in July and then forget about it between then and September?

It's not about proving who is a piece of crap and who isn't. It's about the simple fact that the National Security Advisor told a transparent lie and is now refusing to testify in public or under oath. That doesn't raise the slightest suspicion on your part? Clarke told his story to the world in a way that makes him accountable for what he is saying. That gives him more credibility in my eyes than someone who has spent months weaseling out of having to testify under oath.

[sixtoes1]

84. I know the info came out before 9-11,

but it didn't fall into rice's lap before 9-11. That's the point I'm trying to make. We've had over 2 years to piece all this together AND an event to tie it to. There is nothing specific enough in the intelligence (pre 9-11) for anyone to have stopped the attacks. Plan had been in place for a long time. Look, I'm just as pissed about people trying to blame Clinton for it too. Al-Qaeda will continue to adapt to the controls in place and find a way to beat the system. They've got nothing to lose.

[wickerwoman]

89. You're not reading what I'm writing. Where did I say anything

about Clinton?

If you respond to this, address the issue of the G-8 Summit in Italy. Does that or does that not prove that the scenario of planes hitting buildings could be reasonably assumed to have played through the mind of the National Security Advisor at some point two months prior to September 11th? If so, it proves that Rice is a liar.

Also, address the fact that Clarke testified under oath and Rice refuses. You can keep deluding yourself into believing that they have an equal amount of credibility but, as I suspected in my first post, I have better things to do than track down links, sources and dates for people who are either willfully ignorant or too lazy to do their own homework. Your posts throughout this thread have smacked of both.

[hang a left]

64. Oh no you don't , answer the man.

You asked for one lie. He gave you one. Respond please.

[sixtoes1]

65. Did you happen to notice the first word of my response?

Nothing more than opinion. How do you know what she imagined? Did you imagine planes flying into buildings before 9-11? If you didn't then you must be lying.

[hang a left]

66. Sleazy has already admitted that she "misspoke"

to the 9/11 commission when she was asked about that exact statement she made in the press. She has already been busted in this lie, because it has been revealed that there were several intelligence reports respecting using airplanes as missiles.

Next.

[sixtoes1]

67. What target?

Western target. Pretty vague. Eiffel Tower? Leaning tower of Pisa? Buckhingham Palace? World Trade Center? How many planes? What day? What aiports would they come from? How long do we ground planes before it's deemed ridiculous? How many countries should ground planes? I can hear it now "Uh, Jaque. We're trying to protect potential targets here in the US. Could you not send any planes here for the next 3 weeks. Maybe more, maybe less. I'm sure."
You've never said less than what you meant to? You've never said "oops, that didn't come out quite right, did it?" I'm sure she meant she had no idea of the magnitude of the attacks based on the intelligence available.
Listen, I could make the same arguments to all those damn freepers out there accusing Clarke of lying. Would you like that better? Wouldn't be hard. But there are people who are damned convinced that Clarke is lying. He's not. Care to reverse the tables?

[sixtoes1]

69. It's late....

Gotta go to bed. I'll be back tomorrow....

[trapper914]

71. She said the post-9/11 encounter between Clarke and Bush never happened.

Turns out...it did. She also said last week that the drone testing with the Hellfire missiles went on through the first half of 2001. As reported by Newsweek, they were tested and ready to go in Feb. 2001.

[sixtoes1]

72. Okay, Mr. (or Miss) perfect memory, since you obviously have one

what month and year was the first space shuttle disaster? Pretty traumatic event. I remember where I was, but not even the year, off the top of my head. No referencing the net or anything else, on this one. If you get it wrong, it just proves you're a damn liar.

[sixtoes1]

73. and......

has she been placed at the scene of this encounter between Clarke and W? I don't know. And even if she was, can you imagine how many hastily prepared meetings and briefings she went to on 9-12? Probably didn't get any sleep for at least 72 hours. So she's guilty of not having a perfect memory, not lying. So is everyone else of every political stripe in the country.

[sixtoes1]

74. Sorry,

going to bed. See ya tomorrow. Enjoyed the discussion. And I'm not lying :-)

[susu369]

83. Excellent post

I agree with all you just posted.

[lancdem]

29. Sandy Berger did it in 1997

[gulfcoastliberal]

30. Like the Way they Degraded Clinton?

By forcing him to testify under oath about a blowjob? Is the question of what she did to prevent 3,000 deaths more demeaning than that? Just asking.

[thebigidea]

31. your argument demeans all of us

[sixtoes1]

52. See post #51

[nolabels]

35. The"demeans the position" was at the selection in 2000

They keep on saying 9/11 changed the world, my take is happened way before. We are just living what is left in the flotsam and jetsam

CIA Clandestine Service History, "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran,
November 1952-August 1953," March 1954, by Dr. Donald Wilber.


The CIA history of operation TPAJAX excerpted below was first disclosed by James Risen of The New York Times in its editions of April 16 and June 18, 2000, and posted in this form on its website at:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

This extremely important document is one of the last major pieces of the puzzle explaining American and British roles in the August 1953 coup against Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq. Written in March 1954 by Donald Wilber, one of the operation’s chief planners, the 200-page document is essentially an after-action report, apparently based in part on agency cable traffic and Wilber’s interviews with agents who had been on the ground in Iran as the operation lurched to its conclusion.

Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.

During the 1990s, three successive CIA heads pledged to review and release historically valuable materials on this and 10 other widely-known covert operations from the period of the Cold War, but in 1998, citing resource restrictions, current Director George Tenet reneged on these promises, a decision which prompted the National Security Archive to file a lawsuit in 1999 for this history of the 1953 operation and one other that is known to exist. So far, the CIA has effectively refused to declassify either document, releasing just one sentence out of 339 pages at issue. That sentence reads: “Headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair.” In a sworn statement by William McNair, the information review officer for the CIA’s directorate of operations, McNair claimed that release of any other part of this document other than the one line that had previously appeared in Wilber’s memoirs, would “reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security of the United States.” Clearly, the “former official” who gave this document to The New York Times disagreed with McNair, and we suspect you will too, once you read this for yourself. The case is currently pending before a federal judge. (See related item on this site: “Archive Wins Freedom of Information Ruling Versus CIA”)
(snip)

My guess this is probably just a taste what our shawdow government thinks of Democracy

[LiberalFighter]

48. Changed the world??

How many other events in history have changed the world?
How many other events in the future will change the world?

gw* does not have dominion on the changes that will make history!! What he leaves for the memories of those in the future are the failures in his name. The mention of his name would be appropriate label for other failures.

[nolabels]

53. The advent that gives many others including me and you the ability

The obvious thing, the PC and the internet. They can't close it down, because so many corporate interest are tied to it. They can't round us all up just because we disagree with them. Then also so many others can see what is going on without ever having to get close to it.

I see it as no coincidence that this insider Clark with all his ties, years in service, saw it so well. He doesn't seem to one engaged in partisan politics, he saw things with a clear picture,knew what he was looking at and backed out. He was saying he was trying to focus on the electronic security issues (WWW traffic).

There is no set of governments big enough to deal with it. If they hold things back, they run the risk of stunting growth in their economy and being overrun by other. The Chinese are having a big problem with this and are finding increasingly hard to control what comes in and goes out.


You can see plainly with the Elections in Spain. The government tried to change or suppress the truth and got the partisans to reject them quite handily. They were sick of being lied to.

[leesa]

41. What crap! We're talking definite negligence and probable treason

which resulted in 3000 deaths on 9-11. Partisanship, my ass! That's a term the GOP uses whevnever they can't spin it right.

[sixtoes1]

51. OK. I can see that even a slightly moderate viewpoint is not

welcome here. GEEEZ!! Treason? Negligence? Even Clarke himself admits no one could have stopped 9-11!!! Did you not hear that part?!!!!! Guess not. You hear only what sounds good to you and nothing else. Have you asked yourself what Kerry would do? No, because you don't give a rat's ass what he does. He could be 10 time worse. You have no clue. This is not a site for your average independent, I can see. My god. You know, it's total partisan crap like this that will probably ensure bush's win. It doesn't sit well with independents (LIKE ME!!!!!) You're not winning this independent over with this kind of BS. You guys are no different than the fucking freepers. Really, they're all a bunch of losers too. You think you're better, but you're NO DIFFERENT!!! = EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!! It's all TREASON!! LIES!! BS!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!! OH NO!! THE WORLD'S COMING TO AN END!! Help me here, leesa. Don't mean to single you out. I'm sure you and fifty other people here will help me with more inflammatory phrases in the next few posts. Good riddance.

[oasis]

55. Please don't go away mad.

[GalleryGod]

77. RoveBots are everywhere,Friends.

Ask yourself this:

A person with a paltry 25 posts comes "wandering" in to this thread Trashing Dick Clarke and defending Rice?

The Conclusion is so obvious.

"Good riddance!" He writes. I would ,too, if I was "busted"!

[sixtoes1]

82. Busted?

Exactly where did I trash Clarke, hmmmmmmmm? In fact, I've said nothing even close to that. I WILL say AGAIN, you hear and see only what you want to and ignore everything else. You've just made my point, Gallery. Actually you're even making up crap that I said.

[w4rma]

59. 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped, says ex-aide

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday March 23, 2004
The Guardian

If the Bush White House had heeded warnings in early 2001 about the threat from al-Qaida at least two of the September 11 hijackers would "probably have been caught" and "there was a chance" the attacks could have been prevented, the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser told the Guardian yesterday.

Richard Clarke, who served in the White House for 10 years under three presidents, also claimed that George Bush had come to office already convinced of the necessity to topple Saddam Hussein, and had remained focused on that goal until the invasion last March - when Mr Clarke resigned.

The former counter-terrorism "tsar" also argued that the White House's obsession with Iraq had undermined the military effort in Afghanistan, and helped Osama bin Laden escape.
…
Mr Clarke wrote that when he briefed Ms Rice on al-Qaida, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before".
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1175928,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=41388

Transcript of the Interview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1175929,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1175790,00.html

[sixtoes1]

62. Not what he said under oath. That's all important

in this forum right. Under oath. Not to the Guardian, a UK publication.

[GalleryGod]

76. You Are Right! Buh-Bye!

GFY

[robbedvoter]

80. Condi lie: "I want to testify but the Constitution precludes me"

geez, assuming the 9.11 commission was Congress (which is NOT) what part of "executive PRIVILEGE does she miss?
A privilege doesn't stop you from anything. A privilage is something you benefit from or wave

Unless her principles are:Lying is OK, as long as it's not under oath"

[TruthIsAll]

91. You have your facts wrong. Clarke said we will NEVER know if

9/11 could have been stopped. Because Bush failed to recognize the urgency and did nothing. Unlike Clinton, who had meetings every day. Bush had only 2 out of 100 meetings in which terrorism was discussed.

Of course, we know he LIHOPed.

[tedzbear]

60. Rice has never been under oath yet!

Those closed hearing were not under oath.

[leftchick]

78. she WAS NOT under oath

in her previous testimony.

[robbedvoter]

8. "Being POTUS means not having to explain things"

I am surprised this is reported....Strange twist.

[Leilani]

9. Actually, it's better for us

if she doesn't testify.

If she does, the Repubs on the committee will make her look good.

[sixtoes1]

11. Exactly what I was going to say!!

Remember this is a BI-PARTISAN commission. DEMS will ask questions that make * look bad, REPUGS will ask questions that make Clarke look bad. It'll be a wash. Or worse. She was Clarke's boss, right? Would hate to have a pissed off boss testify about me in public.

[rooboy]

16. Now that Clarke has challenged her to release all his emails...

she's screwed, and she knows it.

[yardwork]

34. The committee is headed by somebody with a huge conflict of interest.

It's not a fairly balanced bi-partisan committee. It's heavily weighted with Republicans and White House insiders.

[leesa]

42. Umm Do you care about treason at all? Or do you care about how you look?

This is about as shallow as I can bear!

[sixtoes1]

49. I will merely restate an age-old saying...

"Be careful what you wish for." There may be a gold mine waiting for us in her public testimony under oath. There may not be. Do you think she will say anything more than what she has already? Public hearing means no state secrets. Isn't that what we're really after? Simple response to any question she doesn't want to answer--"In the interest of national security, I can't answer that question"--or words to that effect. This will be much ado about nothing in the end--except for dragging it out, which may help us a little bit. Treason? Where is that coming from? Awfully juicy stuff. Don't get your hopes up. Remember O'Neill? Where's he at now? I remember the fever of excitement in this forum over him. Not a mention of him anymore. I'm only stating a gut feeling from what I've seen over the years of politics I've observed. There's no silver bullet in this one.

[leftchick]

79. you have not been paying attention at alll...

she will be in big trouble if she has to change her story. As a matter of fact she has already redacted her first statement about"plnaes as missles".... now go read...

[nolabels]

87. She does make a lousy liar, doesn't she?

Just like several of them other corporate lackeys who thought they could lie their way through them stealing billions in all these corporate scandals.

My guess would be that a couple of them big Oil Corps names would also be floating around in the mix if it were not for their Secret Dick operating the puppet strings on chimpy

[remfan]

10. The preznit's going to flip-flop

otherwise they wouldn't have floated this.

[Nlighten1]

15. Never!

This is a bold President. A president as bold as Dubya doesn't flip-flop.

[pinto]

13. Jeez, I vaguely remember the purpose of the commission..

was about 9/11. Seems it is now about Clarke v. Condi (actual "sig line" on Hardball)...and who gets slammed by whom. Well, one of 'em better expose a breast real soon, so we can get this national review of our security to the pertinent level. (sarcasm and mini rant off)

[joeunderdog]

39. My bet's on Clarke...

his tits are bigger than Condi's.

[nolabels]

45. Yea, but they are still waiting for Clark to have wardrobe malfunction

Double or nothing he has a Peek-a-boo on }(

[Junkdrawer]

20. staff members have notes that were described as being nearly verbatim....

You have got to be shitting me...

[qanda]

23. Flip meet Flop

eom

[AlinPA]

26. This is a game with them (Hughes in charge). Rice will testify

in public; media will go into a frenzy; the rehearsed statements will be played out making her a goddess; this is part of the campaign, folks.

[GaryL]

43. Never happen.

Too much corroborative evidence contrary to public statements she's made. I expect they'll string this one along as long as possible in the hope it disappears like everything before it has. In the meantime, expect snippets of Clarke's earlier congressional testimony, completely taken out of context, to be leaked over the next few months.

[WillyT]

27. Another In A Series Of Useful Condigraphs !!!

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

Which will change sooner or later. The picture that is.

:shrug:

[BadGimp]

33. the change in policy is being discussed at the highest levels in the White

"..the change in policy is being discussed at the highest levels in the White House."

I can almost hear the sound of the Chimp being reprimanded by his handler(s).

[Hand]

36. Wavering, hell...

It's called (all together now)...

FLIP FLOPPING!!!!!!!!!!!

:evilgrin:

ON EDIT: I see I wasn't the first to make this observation. Great minds thnk alike...

[MSgt213]

37. They are going over her lies.

[bobbyboucher]

38. Of course they are, they were going to the whole time,

just needed to have Coni rehearse her lies and Rove's minions to dig up some "paraphrase" jobbies to misquote and exploit.

[leesa]

40. I'll bet Bush is against it...probably the understatement of the decade

Spill the beans on this treasonous gang of thugs.

[oasis]

50. 1st question for Condi: What are the duties of the Homeland Security Sec.?

Answer: "The same ones I had before 9/11. I dropped the ball and now Tom Ridge is doing my old job with the new title".

[TrueStory]

68. Bush agrees, Bush doesn't agree, Unconstitutional, Separation of Powers

...and altering the balance.

quote from yesterdays article:

The White House has declined to let her appear at the commission's televised hearings, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers; the panel was created by Congress.

"Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters. "But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that."

http://sandiego.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/127/_pa.127/669?view=article&id=D81JMTTO0

I'm wondering why examination of Clinton's penis was constitutional and if Clinton's colossal dick couldn't tip over the balance why would do this Rice's tiny brain?

[Andrushka]

81. Beat me to it, TrueStory!

I had also noted that glaring inconsistency (among oh so many others this week).

The Chimp is against it..for it...against...foragainst...for...DOH!!

[dryan]

85. My two cents

I am currently re-reading Posner's book Why America Slept which is a heavily annotated book (like all of his) on many paralell events leading up to 9/11. Some of the more salient points are this:

1.) The FBI and CIA didn't (and probably still don't)share information about terrorism both domestic and internationally. There was a conference in Oklahoma City held by an anti-American Arab-American group that asked the local FBI agent to speak at a roundtable discussion. He was openly asked about exporting explosive material to foreign countries. He suggested the questioner contacting ATF. He later said he was often asked to speak before groups like "the Rotary" and that was part of his job! The CIA monitored funds funneled from members of the Saudi government and the Saudi Royal family and never disclosed it to the FBI -- much of these funds went to groups in to the United States.

2.) Many Clinton administration holdovers (including Richard Clarke) tried to show the incoming Bush Administration connections between al-Queda, Suadi anti-American groups, and domestic terrorists. They didn't seem to be interested. Senator Dianne Feinstein submitted a bill to form what is now called the Dept. of Homeland Security in early 2001 and the Vice-President's Chief of Staff said that there was no way it could get through Congress.

3.) The Bushites didn't want to hear any advice from Clinton holdovers because of politics pure and simple. Clarke was demoted by Condileeza Rice to head of a cybersecurity program. Even there he tried to get members of the Bush administration to look into money transfers and they weren't interested.

4.) FBI Director Freeh went behind Clinton's back and made overtures to former President Bush to contact the Sauid Royal family.

5.) Clinton was constantly criticized when he did try to fight al-Queda.

Read it - it is explosive.

Nothing would have stopped the 20 hijackers from flying into the World Trade Center but maybe we can prevent it from every happening again.

[nolabels]

88. I don't know about your last sentence, but the book sounds good

A little excerpt from the first chapter which is at this link, thanks for heads up on the book



http://www.msnbc.com/news/960400.asp?cp1=1
Why
America Slept’

Book exposes the frequent mistakes made by law enforcement and government agencies leading up to 9/11
(snip)
In the mid-1980s, the Alkifah Center was a neighborhood hub on Atlantic Avenue. It started out as a single desk in the al-Farooq mosque around 1986 and then moved into a grungy second-floor apartment in a building a few doors away at 566 Atlantic Avenue, above what is now a perfume factory. That tiny space had barely enough room for a desk, a few chairs, a phone, and a fax machine. Although many in the neighborhood recall that the Alkifah Center ran on a shoestring, documents submitted in U.S. court cases revealed that tens of thousands of dollars flowed through its bank accounts during its heyday of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The center’s director was Emir Mustafa Shalabi, a young Egyptian immigrant with a shock of red hair. Shalabi was infused with the same religious fervor for the Afghan cause that roused many young Muslims who regarded it as a holy war to liberate an Islamic country from communist domination. Neighbors began calling Alkifah the “jihad office.”* Shalabi invited Sergeant Ali Mohamed, a former Egyptian army officer and U.S. Army Green Beret, to the center’s basement offices under the al-Farooq mosque. Armed with official U.S. Army videotapes and military documents marked “Top Secret,” Mohamed conducted a series of weekend “training” classes and a two-week-long intensive seminar. Almost all the volunteers were Arab immigrants. They bought $600 one-way fares as a sign they were willing to give their lives for Islam.
At those training classes were such future terrorists as El-Sayyid A. Nosair, the Egyptian immigrant later charged with killing Rabbi Kahane; Mohammed Salameh and Clement Rodney Hampton-El, convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; and Mahmud Abouhalima, Sheikh Rahman’s part-time driver, found guilty of conspiracy in the 1998 East African embassy bombings that killed fifty-nine and wounded more than five thousand. Sergeant Mohamed himself would eventually plead guilty to conspiring to bomb the East African embassies.
Even when the Soviets humiliatingly withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the turmoil of the civil war to which Afghanistan fell victim echoed in Brooklyn, and Shalabi kept Alkifah open. The religious fury of many young Arab men who had fought the Soviets now turned against secular Arab governments and, ultimately, America, with its military presence in the Persian Gulf and its support for Israel. Also, the mujahedeen, or holy warriors, in Afghanistan were now fighting to create a strict Islamic state admired by many of the younger men in Brooklyn
(snip)

[The Stranger]

86. Smart girl if she wants to save herself.

Chimpy would just as soon have her take the fall.