Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

debunking Condi's 60 minute interview.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:11 AM
Original message
debunking Condi's 60 minute interview.
An email I received from a friend this morning

*********************************************************************
FACT CHECK: Condi Rice's 60 Minutes Interview, 3/28/04

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an effort to quell growing questions surrounding the Administration's inconsistent claims about its pre-9/11 actions. Not only did Rice refuse to take Richard Clarke's lead and admit responsibility for her role in the worst national security failure in American history, but she continued to make unsubstantiated and contradictory assertions:



RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.



FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.

Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward

Source: Newsweek & vetoed request - http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/whatwentwrong.html

Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer

Source: Only two meetings out of 100 - http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0207/01/politics-526326.htm



RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"



FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."

Source: Slash counterterrorism funding - http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/111044.shtml



RICE CLAIM:"Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress."



FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress...There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions...There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this." 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying "Our commission is sui generis...the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress." Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.

Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm



RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.



FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."

Source: September 17th directive - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer

Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Source: Shifting special forces - http://www.iht.com/articles/106783.html

Send feed back to: pr@americanprogress.org * Get daily email delivery of the Progress Report

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Condi Rice is doing the Kerry campaign
more good than a million dollars in contributions. Her refusal to testify under oath while showing up on every talk show is a huge political blunder. Even if she were to testify at this point, serious harm has been done to the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. How about handing the Taliban (bin laden) $43 million in May, 2001?
i distinctly remember Colin Powell on CNN making the announcement. i was stunned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. They gave the Taliban $43 million ?????????????
Who did this? Why? and Why haven't I heard about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. It's documented here.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=976762

Did you also know that it was decided in July 2001 that the bombing of Afghanistan would start no later than mid-October and that the events of 911 were a pretext for that to occur? (Documentation also included in link above.)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Iraq put aside
Even if it were true, it reveals that Iraq was their focus.

How can you put it aside if it isn't in your focus?

The more convoluted explanations they offer, the deeper their hole gets. This happens a lot when you lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. And if they had "put it aside"...
...then what the hell are our troops doing bogged down over there at this very minute?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Right
And why was Dick Cheney sending Joseph Wilson in to investigate their reconstituted nuclear program if Iraq wasn't the focus?

Why was Dick going around telling people an al Qaeda member had met an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic when the guy was already in Florida if Iraq wasn't the focus?

Oh, that's right! I forgot!

Iraq was the sideshow, the distraction! "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC