Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
Center for American Progress

Posted on 04/09/2004 6:50:25 AM PDT by core9595

Planes as Weapons

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

US National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice listens to a question during testimony before the 9/11 commission in the Hart Senate office building in Washington April 8, 2004. REUTERS/Larry Downing

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]

IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911commission; condoleezzarice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2004 6:50:25 AM PDT by core9595
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: core9595

2 posted on 04/09/2004 6:52:52 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Hey! Welcome to the forum. Say, while you're at it, could you dig up the intel reports on airliners being used as weapons during the mid 90s. You know, sometime in between the USS Cole and first World Trade Center attacks - somewhere around the Khobar Towers or African embassy terrorist attacks? Thanks much
3 posted on 04/09/2004 6:53:31 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Link Please
4 posted on 04/09/2004 6:53:32 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Somehow, I think you have purposely "left" some key facts!
5 posted on 04/09/2004 6:53:45 AM PDT by cheme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Who in the world is the "Center for American Progress"
6 posted on 04/09/2004 6:55:05 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
OH, THIS IS WHO THEY ARE!!!



The Center for American Progress is a new Washington, DC-based liberal think tank created and led by John D. Podesta.

The Center publishes a daily Progress Report, said by the National Review to be "The most aggressive, most energetic opposition research in politics."

According to an article by Matt Bai in the New York Times Podesta's "goal is to build an organization to rethink the very idea of liberalism, a reproduction in mirror image of the conservative think tanks that have dominated the country's political dialogue for a generation.

"Many such left-leaning ventures have been tried over the years and have failed to wield much influence, but Podesta's effort seems different, not only because of his considerable personal stature within the party but also because rage at the Bush administration has galvanized Democrats.

"'The rise of the machinery of ideas on the right has been impressive,' Podesta told the gathering [of Democrats], to nods of assent. 'People have noticed it, and we have talked about it. But we haven't really found the vehicles to compete with what's coming at us.'

"Going back to Barry Goldwater, Podesta said, conservatives 'built up institutions with a lot of influence, a lot of ideas. And they generated a lot of money to get out those ideas. It didn't happen by accident. And I think it's had a substantial effect on why we have a conservative party that controls the White House and the Congress and is making substantial efforts to control the judiciary.'

"Podesta laid out his plan for what he likes to call a think tank on steroids. Emulating those conservative institutions, he said, a message-oriented war room will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right. An aggressive media department will book liberal thinkers on cable TV. There will be an edgy Web site and a policy shop to formulate strong positions on foreign and domestic issues. In addition, Podesta explained how he would recruit hundreds of fellows and scholars -- some in residence and others spread around the country -- to research and promote new progressive policy ideas. American Progress is slated to operate with a $10 million budget next year, raised from big donors like the financier George Soros.

"'The question I'm asked most often is, When are we getting our eight words?' Podesta said. Conservatives, he went on, 'have their eight words in a bumper sticker: Less government. Lower taxes. Less welfare. And so on. Where's our eight-word bumper sticker? Well, it's harder for us, because we believe in a lot more things.' The Center for American Progress, Podesta said, was concerned with articulating these principles carefully, over time, rather than rushing out an agenda to help win an election in 2004. 'We're trying to build an idea base for the longer term,' he said, to bring about 'an enduring progressive majority.'"


Personnel
Morton H. Halperin, senior vice president of the Center for American Progress. Halperin is also Director Open Society Institute and Open Society Policy Center [1]

Contact
Center for American Progress
805 15th St. NW
Suite 400
Washington DC 20005
202-682-1611
email:progress@amprog.org
Web: http://www.centerforamericanprogress.org



External Links
Matt Bai, Notion Building, New York Times, October 12, 2003.
Jeanne M. Lambrew, Becky Briesacher, and Peter Lamy, Medicare Prescription Drug Legislation: What It Means for Rural Beneficiaries, Center for American Progress, September 2, 2003.
Center for American Progress, "Intimigate" Scandal at the White House one-page press release, September 30, 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2623-2003Oct22.html
7 posted on 04/09/2004 6:56:31 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Back to DU for you, jagdork.
8 posted on 04/09/2004 6:56:59 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Who in the world is the "Center for American Progress"

It's a "non-partisan" think tank ... headed by John Podesta. To any sane person, John Podesta's involvement would automatically exclude any consideration that the group was non-partisan.

9 posted on 04/09/2004 6:57:41 AM PDT by dirtboy (John Kerry - Hillary without the fat ankles and the FBI files...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: core9595
Please pass on to Mr. Podesta for me that I'm very glad integrity among Presidential Administrations has once again become an important issue - after a very long, eight-year drought.
11 posted on 04/09/2004 6:58:28 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Laney
Can someone refute these please?

You've been here a whole two weeks. Certainly you've learned how to use the search engine. Have at it.

12 posted on 04/09/2004 6:59:12 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Wow, you can get their 'talking points' here.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=3456
13 posted on 04/09/2004 6:59:36 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Laney
Okay, here, I'll start.

Fact: Genoa is not in the U.S.

That concludes our geography lesson.

14 posted on 04/09/2004 7:00:29 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Via Instapundit.com, Stuart Buck points out one big deception in it:

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_stuartbuck_archive.html#108147222983263186

15 posted on 04/09/2004 7:01:59 AM PDT by reasonseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: core9595
If people ever need to be taught what the word specious means, just point them to this.
16 posted on 04/09/2004 7:02:10 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
"Hey! Welcome to the forum. Say, while you're at it, could you dig up the intel reports on airliners being used as weapons during the mid 90s. You know, sometime in between the USS Cole and first World Trade Center attacks - somewhere around the Khobar Towers or African embassy terrorist attacks? Thanks much"

LMAO...

17 posted on 04/09/2004 7:02:53 AM PDT by wingster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: core9595
The people that concoct this nonsense have more time on their hands than brains. The majority of the American people are smart enough to see through this charade. Playing politics with national security IMO while we are at war is not only ethically wrong, I believe it to be treasonous. The author of this garbage, Ben-Veniste, Gorelick and others are traitors to the U.S.
18 posted on 04/09/2004 7:03:15 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
They are one of those "Progressive" (and probably a 527) groups that knows better than we do of what America should be like. The fact that John Podesta has reviewed Condi's testimony on their web site should not be viewed as an endorsement of any candidate but, rather, a dose of medicine that is good for us. </sarcasm>
19 posted on 04/09/2004 7:04:08 AM PDT by capydick ("Think what your actions say to your soldiers.".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: core9595
Center for American Progress, eh? John Podesta's little D.C. stink tank? Not exactly an unbiased or truthful source, Mobyite.
20 posted on 04/09/2004 7:04:20 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson