This for example:
This indicated some sort of revelation and that something had been concealed? She had briefed this to the committee in her previous 4-hour testimony. She had provided the PDB to the panel, and she had discussed it earlier today when questioned by previous panel member. Transcript of earlier testimony follows:
The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al-Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.
This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do _ speculative, much of it _ in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.
RICE: It had a number of discussions of _ it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States _ Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.
And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.
Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing ...
RICE: Now, we had already taken ...
BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.
Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.
There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?
RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.
But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.
BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.
RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity.
The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

I watched the entire questioning, and if anything, they continued to interrupt Rice and did their best to keep her from answering. She chopped them to pieces. I even went back to the transcript to make sure I did not watch the wrong briefing. The transcript fails to show a "lot of I don't recalls".

Well, clinton lying about a blow job did not result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

I think bush's impeachment hearing would be more likely to result in him being removed from office. Then again with cheyney in the #2 position it wouldn't be much of an improvement.

Perhaps we should try bush and cheyney together in some two for one deal.

Since someone here is actually buying the BS that a fresh document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." that discusses osamas desire to hijack planes is a 'historical document' I guess PT Barnum was right.

Yup Clinton lied about a blow job and Bush about WMD's. Hmm, which lie carried more weight, I would say the one that lead us to a war.
C Rice didn't cut them to pieces, she rarely answered the questions straight.
Condi answer the question! over and over
Watched it on TV this morning and then listened to it again on NPR later on.
I do agree that there were "structual problems" between the White House, CIA and FBI. Why?, Ollie North and Regan did a good job so Congress set up new rules to stop that kind of BS and it came back to haunt the GOP.
Geoff

Fair enough. After all, they refuse to appear again before the commission unless they can appear together. In other words, the President of the United States won't testify alone. It's both a joke and a disgrace. If the media were really liberal, they 'd be raking Bush over the coals for this and justifiably so.

If it was discussing three years earlier...I would call it that.

Once again, that is incorrect. The Democratic operative
would ask a two part question (first part making a false assertion) and try to make her only answer the second part...cutting her off in mid sentence. Note the following example where he did so and then actually lied about what he had asked when she called him on it (the transcript does not lie)!

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It 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.

It was a current analysis of the threat posed by al-qaeda to the US. If rice is going to call it a 'historical document' try to deflect the criticism that they knew what al-qaeda was up to it only reveals that their deception machine is up against the wall on the subject of what did they know and when did they know it.

Why am I even wasting my time repeating what is already a million places all over the internet. You would argue that the sky is green if the bush administration said it was the case to somehow cover their asses.

That is not what testimony today said. I don't care if what you are repeating is all over the internet.. so are Nigerian "get rich quick" scams. Unless you have a copy of this document, you are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor. The transcript indicates as I have stated and the actual document is being declassified so we can all see it soon.

No *****. So much for the "liberal media". :rolleyes:

They don't even have to get their stories straight before they show up there. What a friggin' joke. I'm telling you, my conservative brothers, you guys are just blinded by partisanship. These two are the spawn of Satan, absolute pond scum. If a democrat acted like this you would lynch his ass. They make Clinton look like the Dali Lama. :(

The media certainly would be raking them over the coals if they had any grounds to do so. It is unprecedented that a sitting president would testify at all. If I were in their position, I certainly would not after seeing how rudely they treated Dr. Rice. If the democratic committee members were ireally nterested in getting to the truth; they would have let her answer their questions instead of cutting her off and taking up much of the allotted time making anti-war statements.

No, actually Rice wouldn't answer their questions straight on like someone does when they are cooperating. She would talk about what she wanted to talk about, but wouldn't answer certain questions straight on. Under those circumstances, the person asking the questions has the right to interrupt and try to get the question answered, even if doing so is "rude."

It was not only rude but somewhat dishonest. She could not answer their questions "yes or no" as they wanted because they always added an incorrect premise to the question or put two dissimilar questions together...if she answered one correctly, it made the answer of the other incorrect. It was no accident as she had already answered the same questions for them in closed session.

Why do you suppose that Clinton would not testify in public or under oath?

just for the record fred. u.s. army 12/19/71 to 12/19/74 and i enlisted. anymore silly questions?

kevin

OH WAIT!!!!!

Now I know why all this bull keeps appearing that supports 350HP930's wild ass theorys of 'lies, bull, and spin'.


If it's on the Internet (invented by Al Gore), IT"S TRUE!


Now the liberal insanity makes sense.

Say it enuf, and all the non Mensa's will start believeing it.

Transcripts will never sway the fertile mind.

You guys sound like the 9/11 committee itself which showed itself with Rice as being purely partisan. Any of that stuff about it being non-partisan was strictly polyanna garbage coming from the happy-faced media.

6 of one half-dozen of the other that she was interrupted or not answering the questions presented to her. If I were she, I would've been ballsy and raised my voice higher than Kerrey's, who I incidentally think was being a real prick to Rice.

Her problem was she froze and did not take a stand. Indicative of an administration that had no plan for its actions or lack thereof.

It was Clinton's testimony under oath, (in a deposition), that got him impeached. Did that slip past you?

There is no need to defend Clinton's sex life and lying about it in order for Bush to be guilty of some far more serious stuff. The American public deserves truthful answers to some big questions right now. If you don't think so, you are in the way. Move over. :mad:

Condoleeza Rice was treated "rudely"?? :confused:

They treated her w/ kid gloves and allowed her to make Bush re-election speeches crafted by Karl Rove. I guess it just depends on your POV, and what you consider important. We are talking about life and death on a massive scale and hundreds of billions of (now devalued) U.S. dollars here, you think that Rice should have been treated to a tea party? She is the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, for chrisakes, if she can't handle more heat than that, get her far away from the "nuke-ular" button.

What did they know and when did they know it?

Oh wait, you don't want to know this? And don't bring Al Gore or Monica Lewinski's dentist into it, we're talking about the current President of the U.S. and his closest advisors. :cool:

Denis: I agree with everything you're saying, but I do believe Rice was treated with a rather nasty edge. The only time I've seen questioning like that was when watching footage of the Red Scare hearings of the '50s.

This, of course, does not admonish her. I truly think she fumbled because she didn't confirm what everyone already knows - this country was and remains ill-prepared to this day for another attack.

I think the lamest wordage coming from her was the "silver bullet" reference to Bin Laden. Excuses, excuses. :rolleyes: Which, now that I think of it, was probably why she was treated so poorly. Hmmm....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fintstone
Why do you suppose that Clinton would not testify in public or under oath?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No Denis, we are discussing Clinton not testifying under oath or in public to the 911 commission.

Clinton is testifing in private due to the "Classifed" nature of the info they want to ask questions about.
I don't think the treated Rice badly, she didn't answer the questions. She just said her Karl Rove prepared statements.

Geoff

Yeah right. A past, out of the loop, President would be testifying about classified..while the current CIA and FBI Directors, the current national Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, etc would not? If you only knew how silly you sound.

I think he's testifying in private because he did have some influence in the war on terror/Iraq/al Queda, as did Bush, which is the theme of the questions most probably.

I heard Clinton interviewed on NPR radio and he explained "why". I think you sound pretty silly with your ignorant replies....


Geoff

Come on Bleyseng, you know these guys don't want to hear any information from an ex-president who can actually articulate his thoughts.

You know it is not true, so why did you post it? Idoubt he said that, butif so, he is lying. We already know that he has admitted to lying under oath when the truth would make him look bad. That is why he was impeached.....remember?
Clinton's information was no more classified than anyone else who testified. They took Dr. Rice's testimony in private and then made her testify to exactly the same thing on national TV just to attempt to make political hay. They gave Clinton a pass. It certainly had nothing to do with classification...it was presidential privilege just the same as with Gore and previously with Rice. Using your previous reasoning (or lack thereof) regarding administration witnesses; if he had nothing to hide, he would insist on public testimony.

On the contrary...lets get him on national TV under oath...I would love to hear his excuses. Especially regarding his failure to accept Bin laden from Sudan when offered.

If anything, the commission has really only found two significant new "smoking guns." The first is when Janet Reno admitted that she never once mentioned Al-qaida or Bin laden to the incoming Attorney General and the second was when it was revealed that the main reason the CIA, FBI, etc did not share info was due to the policy put in place by one of the 911 commission members that actually worked for Reno. Seems she should have stepped down from the commission and testified, but of course, failed to reveal her policy letter until she was exposed.

LOL Good one!

[feign] I'm appalled! Clinton won't testify under oath in public. [/feign]
(this does somehow seem familar. . .cough-conda-liza-cough)

This 9/11 commision is a complete JOKE. Clearly it has lost its focus of finding facts, and has turned into nothing more than a political Witch-hunt.

Hmm, you guys are so quick to forget that the taliban also made a similar offer to turn over osama to the bush administration that they also rejected.

Sure there were lots of strings attached to each offer and each one was in response to both overt and covert threats that the US was making to those countries at the time the offer was made.

If we are going to criticise the clinton administration for rejecting the offer as a strategic move and not genuine then it looks like bush's administration suffers from exactly the same failure. Then again by the time the bush administration was made the offer to turn over osama it was after 9/11 so its easy to argue that their rejection of the offer was an even greater failure than clintons.

"the taliban also made a similar offer to turn over osama to the bush administration"

What's this?

I seem to remember the leader of the Taliban refusing to even consider turning over his "son in law." Please enlighten us.

You guys don't keep up with the news much, do ya.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/01/ret.us.taliban/index.html

Well, at least its yet another example that bush's steadfast approach of war over diplomacy and negotiation is consistantly bad at generating its intended results.

If you look at the details of the sudanese offer it was very similar. The clinton administration was not going to turn over intelligence and negotiate with sudan either.

Well if you continued to keep up with the news... you would have discovered that after initially resisting providing evidence, we later did and they did not turn over Bin Laden. It was only asked for as a stalling technique.

We also know that the Clinton administration reported that they had previously provided proof to the Taliban leadership of Bin Laden's involvement in two earlier bombings.

Yeah, uhmmm, HP . . .those are not similar offers.

One was a bit(understatement) more legit than the plea of "oh, hey wait. . .don't kick our talibanian-asses out a here yet . ..uhmm . . ah. . we can get you binladen. . .yeah, that's it. . . you wait right here . .. we'll be right back . .promise"

I guess the biggest difference is that clinton did'nt kill tens of thousands of people to end up empty handed. The end results look pretty similar to me though.

I guess you all can keep pointing at clinton if it makes you feel better about bush's dismal performance though.

Concidering that clinton is just a private citizen now and bush is not yet I think its more important to be concerned about how the guy that is currently running the show is performing than presidents of the past.

If you want to keep looking backwards it be a bit more pertinant to look back at the republicans that had the bright idea of giving islamic extremists billions of dollars and arms to fight the commies and other infidels with.

If those people had the wisdom to let the russians go bankrupt on their own the world would be a lot more peaceful place nowadays.

Looks like it worked well. Better fighting terrorists with sticks and conventional weapons than the Soviets with nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately a whole series of Democratic presidents tried that without success. Repeating a failure over and over expecting different results is usually defined as insanity....or liberalism.

I finished reading Clarke`s book, and I am convinced more than ever that the invasion of Iraq was totally counterproductive in the war on terror. In a nutshell, some of the points he makes are the folowing:

#1- Attacking the terrorsists in their home does not prevent them from attacking us in our homeland.

#2- Not enough ressources were dedicated to Afghanistan, the Taliban and Bin Laden are still running, and the country`s instability will foster more terrorism.

#3- Pakistan poses a far greater problem than Iraq, because they have nukes and this is where Al Quaeda is hiding.

#4- The war on terror will never be efficient if it does not include a war on ideology, and replacing the madrassas by a more tolerant school system. If this is not done, new generations of terrorists will be prepared constantly.

I assume all the posters on this thread have read the book. Right ? How would it be possible to have an opinion on someone without reading what he has to say ? Well, at the exception of Sean Hannity, of course. I do not need to read his book to have an opinion on him...hearing his delirium on the radio every day is well enough. ;)

Aurel

1. Since the hearings have already proven that he colors the truth so much through either ignorance or malice, why would we spend a penny on his book?
2. And since his ideas presented to four different administrations over a 10 year period didn't do squat to stop terrorism...why would we consider his opinion of any value?
3. Item #4...Are you advocating we attack, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, France, and Lebanon to force them to institute our school system?

Fint, I think you need to use the following image for your avitar.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

So, Fint, you are voicing an educated opinion after reading the book, of course...

Aurel