Rice Forcefully Rebuts Clarke Testimony (Releases E-mail...)

CNN ^ | 3/25/04 | John King

[Coop]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that administration records -- including former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's own words and actions -- prove false his "scurrilous allegation that somehow the president of the United States was not attentive to the terrorist threat."

[Deo volente]

"After all the testimony last night, a number of people I know bought it hook, line and sinker"


I hear you! At a meeting with some co-workers yesterday, I was appalled as they went on and on about the need to "Get Bush out of there". They seemed to be almost desperate about it. I kept my mouth shut. They were agreeing that the need to get Bush out of the White House was the most important thing in the world.
Scary.

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone. This tissue of lies put forth by Mr. Clarke is so transparent, a child could see through it. I think the White House should come out with guns blazing to put down this lie once and for all.

[Dog]

I saw that...

[sheltonmac]

Gotta call for reinforcements, huh? Well, bring 'em on!

I was merely pinging a few friends who take an interest in these things.

I envisioned the scenario, so did the CIA and most other even remotely knowledgeable people I know. If a car/truck can be used as a bomb, a plane can't? So I don't know why she used that choice of words. I disagree with her.

You envisioned the scenario? Well, then you are already more qualified for the position than Dr. Rice.

But imagining a scenario and identifying that it's a real threat, it's in planning, and identifying when/where/how and a plan to counteract it. Didn't happen.

The article you posted states: "Rice called reporters to her West Wing office and said that on July 5, 2001 -- two months before the terrorist attacks -- she personally ordered Clarke to alert domestic agencies that they needed to be on alert for the possibility of a terror strike." If she thought there was a threat of a domestic strike, what exactly did she envision? What planning did she try to implement? Did she go to the FBI to see what they had? Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has discussed documents that talked of hijackers already in the country and plotting to use airplanes as missiles.

There is an obvious discrepancy here. Should we simply write off any investigation as partisan politics and not try to learn anything that may help prevent such attacks in the future?

Look, for you or anyone else to say - with a straight face - that an administration in place for 7.5 months (with abbreviated transition time thanks to Al Gore and the Congress delaying confirmation of deputies) should face the same level of blame as an administration in office for 8 years and attacked by Al Qaeda 5 or 6 times.

So there is no sharing of information among the elected elite? Each administration has to start from scratch when it comes to gathering intelligence? Do agencies like the CIA and FBI throw out their records each election cyle and start over?

Take your nonsense and your insults of Dr. Rice elsewhere.

Oh, I see. Critical remarks are considered "nonsense" and "insults." Forgive me if I don't share your stong faith in government.

[sheltonmac]

It's just foolish to lie about what Condi said in public. You can't distort what's in the public record.

Well, forgive me for not getting the quote exactly right, but nothing in your post detracts from mine. Airplanes as missiles would be a logical scenario, hijackers or not.

[Poincare]

"Bush should have "forcefully" fired clarke when he took office. And Tenet."

If Algore hadn't sued over the Fla vote count, Bush would have had time for getting his own team in place. Klinton's bureaucrats would not process background checks for people that Bush wanted. Etc.

[Enduring Freedom]

Go gorgeous, Go!

sHitllary can't be happy about this show of character and strength, but she can't be happy about losing 2008 to a black Republican woman either.

[Petronski]

Gotta call for reinforcements, huh? Well, bring 'em on!

Those guys are reinforcements???

[sheltonmac]

I have never blamed any particular administration for 9/11. I just think there are discrepancies on boths sides, and we should investigate if for no other reason than to prevent future attacks. It's obvious there was a breakdown in intelligence somewhere along the line. Throw in the fact that law-abiding citizens have no 2nd Amendment protections on commercial airliners and you have a dangerous combination.

I believe you and I are in agreement. However, there are some here who need to stop believing that everyone in the Bush administration is above reproach and everyone raising legitimate concerns are out to destroy the country.

[sheltonmac]

I'm not claiming there was any specific information, but an intelligence breakdown of this magnitude deserves to be investigated. How else can similar attacks be avoided in the future?

[sheltonmac]

You are sick.

Excuse me? Why?

[Desdemona]

They were agreeing that the need to get Bush out of the White House was the most important thing in the world.

Same where I was last night. It's like no one bothered to listen to Powell, Albright, Cohen, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Berger all of whom agreed on a number of points, specifically that the only way to find OBL was a sweep on the ground in Afghanistan and the American public was simply not going to accept that before 9/11. What does Clark expect culd have been done?

Plain and simply, the terrorists got organized in the 90's and we didn't see it right away.

[sheltonmac]

Do you seriously believe that Al-Qaeda started plans for the hijackings the DAY the Bush administration took office? Get real.

Did I say that? Um, no.

[sheltonmac]

It's unfortunate, but a country the size of the US...with the freedoms we demand, is never going to be safe from those who want to do us harm.

Hence the need for a well-armed citizenry.

[Piranha]

Then why do you call yourself "Sloth"?

[NormsRevenge]

[Piranha]

Not only that, but (as has been said by others) why is the administration being criticized for not launching a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan/al Qaeda before 9/11, while it is being criticized for launching a pre-emptive strike on Iraq?

[Sloth]

we should investigate if for no other reason than to prevent future attacks.

I don't think future attacks can be prevented by "investigation." They are prevented by identifying the people likely to undertake such attacks, and killing them.

Suppose it's July 2001, and you're the NSA. Suppose you get fairly reliable intelligence that someone IS going to hijack one or more planes and use them to destroy unspecified domestic targets, probably within 3 months or so. What are you going to do?

[Sloth]

It's a nickname I acquired years ago, from my supposed slowness on the volleyball court.

[sheltonmac]

Suppose it's July 2001, and you're the NSA. Suppose you get fairly reliable intelligence that someone IS going to hijack one or more planes and use them to destroy unspecified domestic targets, probably within 3 months or so. What are you going to do?

Suggest repealing the ban on firearms aboard commercial flights. At the very least I would notify the airlines of such a possibility and insist that they start arming their pilots. Unfortunately, federal regulations prohibited any effective actions along those lines.

[js1138]

Suppose it's July 2001, and you're the NSA. Suppose you get fairly reliable intelligence that someone IS going to hijack one or more planes and use them to destroy unspecified domestic targets, probably within 3 months or so. What are you going to do?

Maybe write a letter to senator Kerry, asking him to look into airport security in his home state?