9/11: For The Record

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, March 22, 2004 | By Condoleezza Rice

[Jewels1091]

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration

We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances. We increased American support for anti-terror activities in Uzbekistan.

[Jewels1091]

With all the crap coming out, those who DON'T want to believe won't

[Citizen Soldier]

Pretty good rapid response after the 60 Minutes show!

[texasflower]

She has certainly written a good article for those that care enough to read it and learn.

Just as you said, those who DON'T want to believe it, won't.

I'm bookmarking this one anyway. I have the feeling this may be useful. I have a couple of friends that need to hear this.

[jwalsh07]

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the president, like all Americans, wanted to know who was responsible. It would have been irresponsible not to ask a question about all possible links, including to Iraq -- a nation that had supported terrorism and had tried to kill a former president. Once advised that there was no evidence that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11, the president told his National Security Council on Sept. 17 that Iraq was not on the agenda and that the initial U.S. response to Sept. 11 would be to target al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And that is indeed what happened contrary to the lies put forth by one Mr Clarke and 60 Minutes.

[endthematrix]

I'd say Bush is unleashing the dogs, but Condie is NO dog! However, she just chomped down hard on those willy lovers!

[FRgal4u]

Yes - a strong detail response as well.

I really like the last paragraph in particular. If Bush is gun-ho on Iraq, then why did he choose to topple the taliban in Afghan first. if he wanna strike Iraq back in 2001, he could have done it with all the goodwill in the country and around the globe. But he didn't, so why? Maybe he knew something that the "trying to ave my own legacy and make a quick buck" Clarke not telling us.

[Starve The Beast]

I spent Saturday at the ANSWER rally in San Francisco, just to check out the loonies. This sign sums up the attitude of pretty much everyone there. Three thousand people dead, and the Left is gleeful.

Please feel free to use this pic (it's mine, no copyright).

[ladyinred]

Excellent . Didn't like having to register to read the entire thing, especially because they require too much information, but it was worth it so I could print it to give to my co worker. He is devoted to 60 minutes, believes anything that is on that leftist show so I want to be armed in the morning with a rebuttal or two.

[nutmeg]

find later bump

[fiftymegaton]

Condoleeza Rice shouldn't have to defend herself. Richard Clarke is an imbecile.

[MJY1288]

Bingo!

It's Richard Clarke and Rand Beers who should be defending themselves, after all, they wee the ones who did nothing about the attacks against us by Al-Qaeda, and by not responding, they only emboldened Al-Qaeda.

These two flak's for John Kerry will whither on the vine, once the light of day is shown upon their connections to the Kerry Campaign, and once again, they will be exposed for the frauds they are

[fiftymegaton]

I can't get over being disgusted because there are so many people in this country on a parallel with that scumbag holding the 'I love NY even more without the towers' sign that John Kerry will almost definitely have 35% of the electorate voting for him. Sickens me to no end. Although it is examples like that sign that might make some of those 35+% wake the hell up. I will circulate the picture as much as possible.

[elhombrelibre]

No, she's no dog. She's a typical Republican women, very attractive and smart.

[MEG33]

I am not thinking good thoughts about the sign carrier,not good at all.

[risk]

Glad she's on our side.

[risk]

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."

I have to chime in at this point and say that we should have been ready for this. If we aren't ready for such contingencies, then we're to blame. But I dont' blame Condi or GW for this personally. We all share the responsibility.

I heard that we still can't knock down a rogue plane over DC. That's just wrong. We need to iron out those problems and be better prepared.

We also need to talk about what we'll do when a nuke goes off in a large American urban center. It's not being discussed nearly enough yet. That's the same kind of thinking (ignoring the inevitability) that got us into 9/11.

[MEG33]

People hate the searches,the time in line,no curbside checkin and imagine how it would have been before we were hit.We pay a price for our open society...Some paid all.As to knocking out a plane over DC..The debris has to fall!Is that what you mean?

[Fledermaus]

I'm prepared for a nuke to go off in a major city knowing it will be a blue state urban center full of left wing haters of Bush and fighting terrorists.

Soak that in before my post gets pulled for that point of view. Basically, if it's San Fran or NY or Chicgao, why should I care? They don't care to stop the people that will kill them. So why should I worry about thier lives?

A lot of people here will complain about my thoughts and this will get pulled. But who are the people in our country and around the world that are whining the most about fighting terror? The ones that live in those huge cities that are the target of the terrorists. Sure, there are some conservatives there too.

I suggest they move. Especially if Kerry is elected.

[risk]

I think we should have had an opportunity to knock down the planes, and apparently we didn't. We couldn't even scramble our fighter coverage in time. The issues in DC are apparently continuing. And yes, we need to be prepared to scatter debris, at least to have the choice. If we don't, this will happen again. Our post Cold War decline in readiness really hurt on 9/11/2001. That can never happen again.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Send that picture to Rush or let someone on his staff there know about this picture, and where it was taken.