BS: Condi Rice on National Security?

Subject: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 08:39 PM

So Dr. Condolesa Rice doesn't want to testify publicly at the 9/11 Comission? Given her title, national security advisor, and given the scope of the 9/11 comission I'm having a hard time beleiving that she is insistant that she not testify *under oath*. Lie what gives? She was on 4, count 'um, talk shows last Sunday. Whats wrong with going under oath?

(Ahhhh, Bobert, remember what happened to Bill Clinton?)

Nevermind....

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Deckman
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:17 PM

I'm SOOOOOO tired of the white house games! It's obvious that they have something to hide. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:22 PM

They were talking about this on Diane Rehm this morning. Someone remarked on her unwillingness to testify, yet noted that she was "promiscuous" about her approach to the news talk shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:58 PM

Shrub only allows liars into the inner circle. At least CondoSleeza Rice is smart enough to not lie under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:04 AM

Is she not going to testify because she doesn't want to, or is she not going to testify because the Bush administration doesn't want her to? Or does anyone even know for sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alaska Mike
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 12:29 AM

She has met three times with the committee and testified each time. But she refuses to testify under oath and won't testify in public. She yaks it up with all the talk show hosts, but doesn't say anything under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:44 AM

Executive Privilege ~~~ remember Nixon? Watergate?

Love, Johnny

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:15 AM

The Bush administration has been fighting tooth & nail to say as far away from any 9/11 investagations or commissions, why? There's still so much that they won't turn over to the commission or make public without the threat of a court order that it's become a serious problem in it's self. It shows contempt for the victims & their disrespect for the American public, it's this same disrespect shown to us that they've given to the rest of the world. It also brings their honesty (as if it could be any lower than it already is) into question, here & abroad. Dr Rice needs to be dragged into the fray as well as Bush & the VP, the Wolf, asshole Powell, Rums'field & a few others who have all the info the commission would need. A movement to impeach would be perfect timing for Bush's election campain. If he takes any more rope to hang himself he'd have to hang himself from the space shuttle. Never before has there been a more closed mouthed 'Shadow Government' where questioning the powers that be brands one a terrorist, where the freedoms of the press & speech, where our human & civil rights have been trampled upon. These are the same freedoms & rights that Bush wants to infect the rest of the world with? Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:43 AM

Bang on, Barry.

The trends being set now will not be reversed in generations. In London, they're building a 15-foot concrete wall right round the houses of parliament. That should stop Greenpeace putting any more banners on Big Ben. It won't be great for tourism though, but who cares? "Tourists" equals "terrorists" these days.

All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:38 AM

Tourist = terrorist
protestor = terrorist
teacher union = terrorist
1st grader who says bang = terrorist
baby with colic = holy terror.

Dick, Rice and Rum... = recipe for our current debacle.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:58 AM

See also "Democracy's Revenge".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:36 AM

Meanwhile back at the ranch, the White House is bringing out all the big guns to discredit Richard Clark... Good, I hope they really piss him off. He seems like the kinda guy who I'd rather not get to fired up.

Plus, they are going back to their old tried-and-true tactics of blaming their failures on Bill Clinton. Hmmmmm? Wouldn't mind him gettin' into the fray himself. Inspite of his problems with the Monika Lewinski deal, he still has more credibility (lies better) than anyone in the current administration. Yeah, I'd love to see him get all riled up and he could really help Kerry by taking Bush on on differences between just how serious a threat Al Queida was perceived to be by the two administrations....

Bush iks very vulnerable here and the Dems. should take advantage of it. Like right yhere and right now, while Bush is on the ropes...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:18 AM

I'd love to see Bill Clinton debate George Bush on this issue. He'd bury Dubya's sorry ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:22 AM

Second that, Maggie. He was more credible when lying through his teeth than W is when sayiong "Good morning". If he does, which I can't vouch for.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 11:58 AM

So Barry's bang-on is he Peter?

Poor soul, I really feel for him, with his human & civil rights all trampled upon, neither freedom of press or speech to comfort him, and him, tapping away at his computer, writing anything he wants to, or cares to invent, about his government, their lies, their corruption and every other action where he can demonstrate their ineptitude, incompetence, etc. In short questioning the powers that be ad nauseum.

What's happened to him? Has he been branded a terrorist? Has he been whisked off to some dark secret location? The answers of course are respectively - Nothing; No & No.

So, "There's still so much that they won't turn over to the commission or make public" Not surprising, there's a war on (not Iraq) - hadn't you noticed? If you hadn't then high bloody time you did.

"contempt for the victims", "disrespect for the American public", what complete and utter rubbish.

By the way Barry and Peter, the Wolf, asshole Powell, Rums'field, as "Bang-on" Barry refers to them, all testified last Tuesday - Do try and keep up will you.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM

Breaking News: just announced on NPR, that the republican party is attempting to have Richard Clarke's previous testimony under oath to the 9-11 commision "declassified" so they can compare his remarks to look to see if he "lied under oath" during those previous hearings.

Anyone else smell a desperate Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rice witch hunt? Meanwhile, Rice wants another private hearing with the commission. They should put her under oath and then see what she has to say, but they won't. They'll let her do her mischief without facing any consequences.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

I'm not sure, but I believe Condi Rice is giving "sworn statements" in private, which means she is under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

I doubt it PDC. I think the administration, concerned about the separation of powers, will continue to resist the NSA to testify before the committee under oath. This is not a new thing. Executive priviledge has been claimed in similar curcimstances during previous administrations.

She has requested and additional appearance, in private, before the committee to refute some of the inconsistantcies in Richard Clark's testimony, however.

It's really not necessary for the White House to spend much time refuting Clarke's charges. It has already been shown that he is not to be believed due to the sudden emergence of a background briefing he conducted for members of the Press in, I believe, 2002, when he claimed that the Bush administration was conducting a vigorous campaign against Al Quida. I'm sure it's available somewhere on the Internet if any of you are interested.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:11 PM

Rice and the rest of the administration refuse to take an oath because they know they are lying through their teeth. Clarke has in no way been discredited, contrary to what DougR would have you believe. It will get nastier and nastier in weeks to come as they dig out whatever possible or invented dirt they can find on the guy. Maybe he filched some pennies from his mother's pocketbook when he was 6. Crucify him! Kerry's comments on the Republicans were too kind. Not only the worst bunch of liars, but shameless, hypocritical, gutless, arrogant, and crass.

The victims of our aggression in Iraq and the hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded American soldiers are not just so much political capital to be spent by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rice and Bush et. al. for whatever ideological corner they have painted themselves into and believe in so desperately. And DOugR don't bother to trot out your "what about what Saddam Hussein did to his own people' arguments, that does not justify our doing more of the same. Never will. 'two wrongs' and all that, do the math.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

Bill,

Tell them how you really feel, why doncha? I applaud from the corner!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:44 PM

let me say further, then, that I am so sick of this lying bunch of liars that I propose we change the longstanding and perfectly descriptive term for BS, (not Breeze Shooting, the other one) with an even more apt and descriptive term for the act of saying things with absolutely no regard, respect, or even the slightest understanding of the truth, to wit,

Bush Shit

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM

and of course we can all now use the more genteel and acceptable form of the expression, with the complete and utter disbelief and disgust it usually calls for. so intstead of saying 'bull' from now on I will be saying 'Bush'

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:00 PM

did anyone see the footage of BUsh making jokes about not finding those wmds (are they under the table?) at a party the other night, wonder what the families of the 600 dead soldiers, 3500 wounded ones not to mention 10,000 plus dead Iraqis (and counting) would say about that.

hey Teribus, if the Bush Admin. is so concerned about wmds? and terrorists getting hold of them, how come there wasnt even a PEEP from the white house when AQ KHan the Pakistani father of the bomb
openly admitted to trading nuclear secrets with Libya, North Korea etc. and the whole nuclear black market that came to light.
Musharraf immediately pardoned him, (meaning there can be no investigation)
(going after Iraq is laughable compared to this).

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 04:43 PM

Bushwah has been an established slang term for decades. Deriving from "bourgeois", it means the kind of two faced double talk associated with burreaucrats.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:35 PM

"hey Teribus, if the Bush Admin. is so concerned about wmds? and terrorists getting hold of them, how come there wasnt even a PEEP from the white house when AQ KHan the Pakistani father of the bomb openly admitted to trading nuclear secrets with Libya, North Korea etc. and the whole nuclear black market that
came to light."

yes, Teribus, i'd be interested in seeing one of your briefs on that one.

also, Clarke replied to the accusations about the background info statements at the hearing. clearly he was acting in his position as a member of the administration to take the facts and put them in the best light to credit the president. as he said, it happens every day in washington. it's called spin. and if this is the best they can come up with to divert attention from his charges i'd say they better look out. more officials have come out today to give witness to the meeting right after 9/11 where bush fixated on iraq. i'm guessing that a public servant with as long a record of good standing with repubs and dems as Clarke seems to have will have enough defenders to wipe the bushslime off.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:42 PM

oh, one other thing. why would anyone take the word of a person who will go on TV with talking heads to refute staements and charges while refusing to testify under oath (which means she's subject to criminal charges if found to be lying) over a person who makes his statements under oath, to a bipartisan commision that is sure to have hostile questioners, and in public while fully aware of these same risks? seems to me you've got to be pretty ideologically petrified to buy that bill of goods.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 08:08 PM

*Partisan petrified* is more like it, NW. If Bush were to declare that apple pie was being replaced with dog-doo pie as a new symbol for what's American, T would ask for seconds...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 09:14 PM

"Rice and the rest of the administration refuse to take an oath because they know they are lying through their teeth. Clarke has in no way been discredited, contrary to what DougR would have you believe."

Rice is the only member of the Administration asked to testify by the commission who did not testify under oath.

I admit the difference between Clarke's testimony and his book are not enough to support any charge he's not telling the same story. I don't know about the comparison with his 2002 testimony.

On the other hand, whatever Clarke's perception of the focus on terrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, neither accepted his most aggressive proposals for dealing with terrorism. More to the point, as I understand it, when senior officials of both administrations were asked whether Clarke's proposals have prevented 9/11, both responded that they believed they would not.

If that's the case, why am I supposed to get excited about Clarke's testimony? Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, but accepted that we had to concentrate on Afghanistan first after the attack?

That's kinda the point made in the Seatle Times yesterday:

"The Sept. 11 commission hearings are being broadcast in political stereo.

"Those listening on the political right hear half the argument — that former President Clinton is to blame for not stopping the terrorist attacks of 2001. Those listening on the left hear the other half — that President Bush is to blame.

The result so far is that neither side accepts a view blaming or excusing both presidents. 'Each side is listening to the side it wants to hear,' said John Zogby, an independent pollster based in New York. 'I don't see it changing minds or swaying people one way or the other.'

But it sure keeps us talking, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:16 PM

"Rice is the only member of the Administration asked to testify by the commission who did not testify under oath."

but she's the person with the answers. she's the one who said noone could have predicted anyone using airplanes as missiles. as long as she refuses to testify under oath, she's the one with the credibility problem. and i don't buy the separation of powers thing. if 9/11 "changed everything" as the fearmongers remind us daily, then finding out what really happened should supercede any prior convention. the release of the clarke background briefing, approved by the whitehouse to fox news, is unprecedented. never done. but not only did fox news release it, they cut away from the live testimony of clarke to run it immediately when the question came up. now if that doesn't confirm fox as the videoPravda- propaganda arm of the repubs, i don't know what does. i wonder how soon the whitehouse will release r. novak to reveal his sources in the plame case.

by the way, i think there is enough blame to go around for clinton and bush but the event happened on bush's watch and he should have made an apologetic statement to the families (as clarke did) a long time ago. oh, and has one single gov't official lost his job or resigned over the 9/11 failure? hint-the answer is no.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:10 AM

'If that's the case, why am I supposed to get excited about Clarke's testimony? Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, but accepted that we had to concentrate on Afghanistan first after the attack?'

Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, who had no connection with 911 because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys

And because he did attack Iraq on fraudulent grounds before he got through "hunting Osama out of his hole, dead or alive.' because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys.

Bush's mad obsession with Iraq shows more clearly all the time, and Clarke is bringing more evidence of it.

Arguing whether 911 could have been prevented, by either Clinton of Bush, is futile, so far at least. But whether Bush used 911 as a pretext to attack Iraq seems clearer all the time.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:37 AM

"Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, who had no connection with 911 because of some personal agenda of his & of his boys"

But, Clint, you already knew that. What did Clarke tell you that was new?

" but she's the person with the answers"

GUEST,guest from NW, according to Bob Kerry, Rice was very forthright and answered their questions in ways that would do the Administration proud. So far as I or anyone else can tell, there are no answers. No one comes out looking good in this one, not even Clarke whose plans come off as too weak, too strong or too random to do much good.

"I'd love to see Bill Clinton debate George Bush on this issue. He'd bury Dubya's sorry ass."

After Kerry followed Clinton's speech last night, I understand a lot of people realized how much they miss Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 03:49 AM

"But, Clint, you already knew that. What did Clarke tell you that was new?"

the idea that bush was fixated on iraq and mislead america to pull it off IS news to aproximately half of the american people amazingly enough. i knew it, clint knew it, you probably knew it, but the masses of america won't know it and believe it til someone with clarkes reputation and standing comes out with it AND manages to survive the inevitable bushslime. let's hope he does. and let's hope the country does.

"... according to Bob Kerry, Rice was very forthright and answered their questions in ways that would do the Administration proud."

i'll bet she gave great answers. that's her job. but were they the truth? until she's willing to testify under oath and risk criminal charges if found to be lying, as clarke did, i don't believe she's doing anything but putting the best spin she can on what's come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:46 AM

NW, you're not suggesting that Bob Kerry was being duplicitious when he made that statement on Hardball the other night? He seemed perfectly satisified with Rice's answers to the commission, just upset with the conditions put on her appearance before them.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:41 PM

"NW, you're not suggesting that Bob Kerry was being duplicitious when he made that statement on Hardball the
other night? He seemed perfectly satisified with Rice's answers to the commission, just upset with the conditions put on her appearance before them."

i didn't say or suggest anything about bob kerrey, only included his name in your quote i cited. i didn't see the show you reference, but you say he was satisfied but upset with the restrictions put on her appearence. my statement is also about those restrictions, namely that she not testify UNDER OATH or in public. if she won't speak under oath then as far as i'm concerned her credibility does not reach the level of clarke's. so it seems to me that kerrey and i may be in agreement rather than me suggesting anything about his duplicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 12:42 PM

that last post was me, guest from NW.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:02 PM

One question: if Rice testified, under oath, to the 9/11 Commission, and her testimony challenged Clarke's account, would you believe her or Clarke?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for. Kind of makes it harder for the Bushes to call him partisan, but they will continue their attack on him in any way they can. Don't people remember Dubya's famous "he tried to kill my Daddy" quote regarding his obsession with Saddam? I think what Clarke had to say about the way the Bush administration came in to office acting like it was still the 1980's is very imporatant.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

Er, uh, I'm still waiting for replies to my question. Anyone?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

"I'm still waiting for replies to my question..."

I'd be inclined to believe Clarke; he's been a staunch Republican, he's been good enough for three presidents, two R's & 1 D, and, oddly enough, because he looks like he wouldn't be much fun at a party. I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, but I don't think he's fudging the facts. And I've heard similar stories from other sources of Bush's tendency to demand that facts support his stand - political or scientific -instead of basing his stand on the facts.

But that's a judgement. It's time to find some of those independent witness to the conversations. Or similar ones.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:06 PM

happy to reply to your question. if rice testified under oath and gave starkly different accounts of events that occurred (not just different opinions about things that might have happened) then i would start looking for other witnesses to corroberate the testimony. then i would weigh the testimony, the other witnesses, their past records of service and truthfulness and make an assessment about who was more believable.
i can't say i'd believe one or the other because i don't make my judgements on a partisan basis. i try to listen to both accounts (and other accounts by witnesses because i know that contrary to those who see everything in black-white, good-evil, with us -against us terms there are usually more than two sides to every story. in fact, most stories are round.) and make a judgement based on facts.

by the way, dougR, still waiting for a reply to my question about specific bush lies over on the "popular views of the bush admin." thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:19 PM

Please forgive a bit of thread creep, but I came across this item this morning and it just blew me away with its honesty, especially given what is - and has been - going on with the Bush administration, lies, coverups, evasions, killings. The following piece comes from a grassroots organization made up of American veterans from various wars, people who have actually been there and have first-hand experience rather than concepts or political rhetoric.

It is one of the best-written arguments against American-style war that I've seen. I would appreciate comments. Here are the first two paragraphs:

"We are veterans of the United States armed forces. We stand with the majority of humanity, including millions in our own country, in opposition to the United States' all out war on Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political views and we all agree that this war is wrong. Many of us believed serving in the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught. Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing."

"In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra -- the Highway of Death -- where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is disabled."


Veterans Against War

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:34 PM

While avoiding testifying under oath, Condi Rice still manages to hit every talk show and TV channel she can, with the possible exception of Animal Planet and the Weather Channel, and does all she can to character-assassinate Richard Clarke. Instead of presenting any kind of evidence or reasonable argument, she angrily scolds anyone who tries to raise questions. I've heard a few commentators, including a couple of conservative ones, say that unleasing Rice as an attack dog was not a good move on the part of the Bush administration. She makes herself very easy to dislike.

These folks have been trying for some time to get answers and, until now, have got nowhere. It took someone like Clarke to knock a few gaps in the Bush administration's stonewall.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,27 March 4:27 PM
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM

If she testified under oath, and Clarke did as well, and the two versions differed...., well then somebody's telling lies, Doug R.

Would you have any objection to an investigation which determined the truth....?
And would you accept that, no matter what?

Isn't that what this is all about in the first place Doug?
Getting to the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 05:08 PM

"But Doug can't handle the truth!!!"    --(paraphasing a line in a movie delivered by Jack Nicholson)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 05:49 PM

"Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for."

Oh, but if you're going to talk about Clarke's personnal issues to find insight into his credibility, you have to wonder if Clarke resented having to report to a lower level White House official, an effective demotion for a Washington, and to being passed over for promotion prior to resigning. I'm sure he harbors no resentment and has no interest in selling his book.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

No, I don't have to wonder... and frankly, I don't think he's trying to sell his book... Clarke's credibility is excellent! If you compare him with the 'in the loop' administration officials, he easily out shines them.

Is Humpty loosing his balance? ...and why have all the kings men stopped what they're doing, as they gaze t'wards 'His Majesty'?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM

"Interesting that Clarke is a registered Republican and listed in his testimony the Republican presidents he voted for."

"Oh, but if you're going to talk about Clarke's personnal issues to find insight into his credibility, you have to
wonder if Clarke resented having to report to a lower level White House official, an effective demotion for a
Washington, and to being passed over for promotion prior to resigning. I'm sure he harbors no resentment and
has no interest in selling his book."

the difference between these two statements is that in statement number one we hear facts testified to UNDER OATH at a public hearing and in statement number two we hear sarcastic character assassinting speculation from strick as to clarke's motives. perfect illustration of the difference between clarke's claims and the bush admin. response. and the reason why at this moment clarke's credibility is higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 08:23 PM

Yo Dougie: Condi Rice has proven to be untrustworthy so I'd have to trust Clark's words over hers... Remember the "mushroom cloud" lie? That was Condi Rice...

Now, seein' as GUEST from NW is doing a fine job of representin' the way I see things, I'll just go play my geetar and let NW fight wid the knotheads......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 09:37 PM

Until someone pins her down by making her take an oath, Rice can make prejudicial statements and cast as much doubt as she can muster on Clarke. Once she's under oath, then she has to substantiate her claims, and she can't. The entire Bush administration can see that she can do damage as long as the media is willing to let her go on the air and condense her statements into little poison sound bites against Clarke.

Do you remember the James Stewart line in the movie Anatomy of a Murder that he delivered right after the prosecutor protested his line of questioning and the judge said he had to stop? His client at the table asked something along the lines of "how can the jury 'forget' that you just asked that?" to which Stewart replied "they can't" and grinned--he knew once he said it the idea was going to stick, even if the judge said to ignore it. That's where Rice is--as long as she's not under oath she's throwing out those ideas that no one can make her correct or take back. And people won't forget that she said them, even if she was lying about it. The Bush administration is BANKING on this.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

"the difference between these two statements is that in statement number one we hear facts testified to UNDER OATH at a public hearing and in statement number two we hear sarcastic character assassinting speculation from strick as to clarke's motives."

The fact that Clarke read into the record that he voted for Republicans impresses you?

Here's some additional testimony from under oath that wasn't disputed:

"Rice and Hadley decided that Clarke's CSG should report to the deputies committee chaired by Hadley, rather than bringing its issues directly to principals. Clarke would still attend principals committee meetings on terrorism but without the central role that he had played in the Clinton-era small group...

He (Clarke) told us that he considered this move a demotion to being a staffer rather than being a de facto principal on terrorism."

Tenet rather than Clarke was briefing Bush directly. This is the primariy basis for arguing that the Bush administration too terrorism less seriously than Clintons? That the President got his briefings from the head of the CIA instead of a staffer? You don't think that's a potential motivating factor for a man of Clarke's obvious pride?

I'll grant you that the "information" that Clarke was passed over for promotion came from the White House. This information, that Clarke felt he had been demoted, is in the record and never disputed.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 27 Mar 04 - 10:55 PM

Results of the latest Newsweek poll released earlier today (3/27) for people who've been following the 9/11 Commission hearings:

Although exactly half of the American public has paid at least some attention to Clarke's allegations, only a quarter of those who have been following the story say they see Clarke as a selfless public servant. Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda, while another 25 percent don't know what to make of his accusations. By a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers are the reverse for Bush's predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat.

I thought this was interesting because of what it says about Nader's candidacy:

Bush's overall approval rating remain statistically unchanged at 49 percent and in a three-way hypothetical election between Bush, Kerry and independent candidate Ralph Nader, the results were the same as in last week's NEWSWEEK poll: 45 percent for Bush, 43 percent for Kerry and 5 percent for Nader. If Nader is removed from the picture, the race remains a statistical tie, with 48 percent for Kerry, 47 percent for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:11 AM

It's established that Clarke felt he was demoted.

It's not established that he's making up lies to get even.

I got effectively demoted once myself, when my unit was eliminated by the university I worked for, but I didn't find it necessary to invent stories to discredit the administration. I thought the facts were good enough.

(Wrong again, of course.)

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:12 AM

"The fact that Clarke read into the record that he voted for Republicans impresses you?"

no it doesn't impress me at all. i was merely pointing out the difference between a fact (something he stated while UNDER OATH meaning it must be true otherwise he is criminally liable) and character assassination (statements of conjecture on his motives with no basis in fact).

"Tenet rather than Clarke was briefing Bush directly. This is the primariy basis for arguing that the Bush
administration too terrorism less seriously than Clintons? That the President got his briefings from the head of the CIA instead of a staffer? You don't think that's a potential motivating factor for a man of Clarke's obvious pride?"

i don't believe any statement from clarke says that his "demotion" is the basis for his statement that the bush admin. felt the terror threat to be less urgent. this seems to be a conclusion that you have reached and are now stating as if it were a fact. do you have any quotes to this effect from clarke's testimony? the fact that he considered his position to have changed doesn't justify your conclusion. nor does your personal judgement on his pridefulness.

"I'll grant you that the "information" that Clarke was passed over for promotion came from the White House."

exactly. so how much is that "information", as you term it, worth as far as factual information that is offered under risk of perjury?

concerning your poll information, i'd be curious how the questions were phrased and i don't think the true effect of this testimony has sunk in yet. i don't think it will be as easy to flush this down the memory hole as some of the other bushslime.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:57 AM

i tried to make a link here to a time magazine article with many facts pertinent to our discussion of dr. rice.
href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.htm">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Strick
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 08:01 AM

"do you have any quotes to this effect from clarke's testimony? the fact that he considered his position to have changed doesn't justify your conclusion. nor does your personal judgement on his pridefulness."

Conclusion? I'm just examining the man's potential motives. Money and the knowledge that hell hath no fury like a bureacrat deprived of the symbol of his status are powerful considerations. The comment on his pride comes from people, many who support him, who've worked with him over the years. Not under oath, of course, but something to consider none the less.

In truth, in my company, in most of business, no one is ever demoted. If an issue is serious enough to warrant a demotion, they're fired instead. Demotion stirs too much resentment and rarely turns out well.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:07 PM

"Conclusion? I'm just examining the man's potential motives..."

i'll throw this into the examination of potential motives. perhaps he is a person who has served his country and 3 presidential administrations and thru that period followed the whole development of al-quada terrorism as closely or more closely than anyone in the business. he may have a real sense of the true danger we face and has seen our defense bungled by a bunch of ideologically impaired cold war hacks. disaster happens on their watch (9/11) and he feels that this group failed to do everything they could have to protect this country and also started a war that has no meaning in terms of stopping the terrorist threat that he has worked against for so long. then he leaves the administration after doing what he could on the inside to address the threat and then feels a duty to tell the american people just what kind of trouble they're really in. in other words, a truly patriotic act.

or maybe he's just a washed-up beaurocrat pissed about his demotion who wants to sell a few books. jeez, it seems like a guy like that might not want to risk it all and testify for 15 hours in closed session, 6 hours of congressional hearings, publicly UNDER OATH which makes him liable for perjury charges if the bush admin can prove anything he said was untrue, but then again i guess he could be so petty and prideful that he'd go for that. i don't know him personally so anything i say about his motives is speculation.

"In truth, in my company, in most of business, no one is ever demoted. If an issue is serious enough to warrant a demotion, they're fired instead. Demotion stirs too much resentment and rarely turns out well."

if this is true i guess it shows that the bush admin is not only venal and slimy but stupid and incompetant as well. i don't believe they fired clarke.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM

ooops iforgot to put my moniker on the last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 02:09 PM

"Let's declassify all of it," Clarke said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

latest statement from the "disgruntled beaurocrat". he's suggesting declassifying not only his testimony at the congressional hearings but all the testimony from there and the 9/11 hearings. does this sound like a guy afraid of the truth? do you think he's "grandstanding" knowing the bush admin will never do that?
personally, i think he knows he told the truth as he saw it. and his accusers are throwing everything at the wall and praying for something to stick. but as long as they won't testfy UNDER OATH under penalty of criminal liability, i don't see any reason to accept their word over his no matter what his imagined "motives".

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 03:26 PM

So, back to the music:

Condoleeza, Condoleeza, men have framed you! (Mona Lisa)


Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Johnny in OKC
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 09:41 PM

Tonight on 60 Minutes, Rice:

"There's NOTHING that I would like MORE than to
testify before the Senate ..."   

(Yeah, right)

"... but it's a matter of PRICIPLE! No SITTING
National Security Advisor has ever done so."

(That's a precedent, not a principle.)

Love, JOHNNY in OKC

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 10:25 PM

just saw dr. rice on 60 minutes. i can see why she doesn't want to testify. she didn't issue one straight answer in the entire interview. her question dodging on the issue of clarke's apology was especially egregious. how do these people sleep?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:51 AM

a quote from clarke's appearece today on meet the press about declassifying all of his testimony and the memos that he sent dr. rice...

"Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material.  Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't.  And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they're basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action."

no wonder the woman doesn't want to face a lawyer like ben-veniste UNDER OATH. the full transcript of clarke's interview is at MSNBC. if you can read that and still say that he's not telling the truth then you'll have to back it up with more than character assassination about his possible "motives".

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:15 AM

From what has been said here re: Clarke, I take it that everybody would have been happy had the US started bombing Afghanistan in February 2001, even happier if they had started three months before that - that is what Clarke proposed they do.

Clarke stated that in HIS OPINION, the Clinton administration regarded the international terrorist threat, as posed by Al-Qaeda, as "urgent", while the new administration of George W. Bush regarded it as "important". Can anybody see any reason for that view being taken? After all, the people who were looking after this in detail all remained in place, business proceeded as before - could it possibly be that those senior members of the Bush administration were satisfied that those people continued to have a handle on the problem and were quite satisfied with their efforts.

Clarke proposed the bombing of Afghanistan, providing armed support of the Northern Alliance and putting US Special Forces into Afghanistan ("boots on the ground"). Berger, Clarke's superior in the Clinton administration, clearly stated that none of those were possible, for reasons that are blatantly obvious (at least they are to me). Change of administration, so Clarke once again tries to introduce his proposals, which are turned down for exactly the same reasons as before - Sorry Richard, this just simply cannot be done.

As both Berger and Tenet said during their testimony, 9/11 made it possible to implement Clarke's proposals. What Clarke has said regarding the present administration's attitude to the terrorist threat during the period January 2001 to 11th September 2001, does not amount to statements being made here that the Bush administration put it on the "back burner", at least that is not my reading of the difference between "urgent" and "important". That distinction made by Clarke does ONLY represent his OPINION, it does not constitute fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 05:29 AM

"From what has been said here re: Clarke, I take it that everybody would have been happy had the US started bombing Afghanistan in February 2001, even happier if they had started three months before that - that is what Clarke proposed they do."

What I wrote on the 27th at 1:52 was "I don't necessarily agree with his opinions, but I don't think he's fudging the facts. And I've heard similar stories from other sources of Bush's tendency to demand that facts support his stand - political or scientific -instead of basing his stand on the facts."

That probably should have said "facts that support his stand" but I think you can get my meaning

And please read my earlier post on the 27th at 12:10 AM. And please don't put words in my mouth.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM

Teribus, I see you conveniently ignored my question on AQ KHan,
and why there wasnt a peep from the BUsh administration on the nuclear black market.

as far as Im concerned the wake up call should have been the 93 bombing of the World Trade Centre. At the time experts said that if the van had been in another location it could have brought down the tower and you would have had a lot more than 6 dead.
(when the mastermind - Ramzi Yousef was caught, it came to light that he had planned to blow up at least a dozen airliners over the pacific)
Imagine how many people would want to fly the next day.

and of course other wake up calls would have been the East African embassy bombings, bombing of the Khobar towers in Saudi, the USS Cole,
the attempted millennium bombing. the columnist Judith Miller wrote that top people in the CIA and Pentagon couldnt sleep that summer as they were expecting another attack especially around 4th July 2001.

and Condoleeza's comment that no once could have predicted using airliners as missiles - is incorrect anyway, a terrorism expert from Vancouver wrote an article months before about such a possibility
(the CIA even investigated him after 911)
and a similar incident had happened before when an Algerian airliner was hijacked and the hijackers threatened to crash it into the Eiffel tower (in 95), in the end the plane was stormed on the tarmac by French special forces.

an ominous sign of things to come is reports of ships being hijacked in the south pacific - whereby the hijackers quickly leave, making it look like a practice run. (I remember reading about a pentagon terrorism think tank in the late 70s that comes up with scenarios and simulates what might happen - one of their simulations was a hijacked oil tanker in New York harbour - with 3/4 of the oil dumped thereby turning it into a huge bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

It seems to be as I supposed it would be. Were Condleeza Rice to testify under oath before the committee, the majority of you folks wouldn't believe her if she refuted Richard Clarke's testimony.

So why testify?

I have heard on numerous TV talk shows (including even CNN) that any member of the Administration that presents testimony before a Congressional committee MUST tell the truth whether or not they are under oath. That does not seem to faze any of the naysayers in this community however.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:48 PM

well, dougie, what seems to be the problem here with oaths...

if the gal is telling the truth then fine. heck, she don't mind running her mouth on every damged tv show she can get on...

and as fir precidence consider this. 9/11. no precidence there to speak of either.

she has not only a resposibility but a duty to testify under oath to the commission...

bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

If she "must" tell the truth, then what difference is telling it under oath going to make? The only difference I know of is that if she is found to be speaking falsely she is subject tocharges of perjury only if under oath. So I don't know where the "must" comes from or what it really means. Doug?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 02:10 PM

Amos: I heard former White House Counsel, Lanny Davis, (Clinton administration)and the former Deputy Attorney General in the first Bush administration being questioned by Wolf Blitzer on CNN this morning. It was the former Deputy Attorney General who made the statement that any member of the administration presenting testimony MUST tell the truth. Both Lanny Davis and former Deputy Attorney General agreed that the separation of powers is an important issue. Davis thought the question was too important to today's events to allow that principle to get in the way of Condi Rice testifying. The DAG did not agree with Lanny.

So what I wrote was not something that I "thought up," I was merely reporting what those who are much more knowledgable than I said.

AS to the difference between testifying under oath or simply testifying, I would assume you are right. But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied, not under oath, they could still be prosecuted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM

She claims no sitting national security adviser has had to testify before CONGRESS--the 9/11 Comittee is NOT Congress! W

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:43 PM

When she raises her right hand & is asked "Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God". She's taken an oath & can be charged with the crime of perjury if she's found to be lying. If not under oath she legally is not bound by law to tell the truth. Though it would cause a big scandle. To my way of thinking it's no different than standing in front of your board members, the stock holders & the employees to report on the issues at hand & telling them all to bugger off, that I don't have to tell anyone here anything & if I do it won't be under oath & there's nothing you can do about. Well, the same stock holders, board members & the employees would fire her sorry ass in a New York second. If she was following instructions from her CEO, fire them both. If they're found to be involved in illegal activities haul them off to court where they'd have to take an oath under the threat of perjury.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:53 PM

"That distinction made by Clarke does ONLY represent his OPINION, it does not constitute fact."

true. it is his stated opinion and since he headed the counterterrorism policy for the duration of al-quada's development it should get some weight. but it doesn't mean he's incontravertably correct. we need to hear the conflicting opinions testified to UNDER OATH placing the opinion-holder under penalty of law if he/she is lying or manipulating facts for political gain. but if the documents that he presented to rice in january are indeed the same as the national security directive rice signed in september as the bush plan to counter terrorism, would you agree with clarke that that would prove that even tho the bush admin. was offered the same plan in january nothing was done for 8 months? of course, we can't know these facts for sure unless the materials are declassified and dr. rice agrees to testify UNDER OATH to her part in this scenario.

"...at least that is not my reading of the difference between "urgent" and "important."

bush's own words in the book "bush at war" are that he felt no "sense of urgency" about pursuing bin laden. i'd say the differences between urgent (we've got to get on this RIGHT NOW) and important (we're concerned about this and we'll get to it as soon as we can) are easy to see.

"So why testify?"

because the american people and the families of 9/11 victims have a right to know the truth about how their elected officials handled what GWB calls their "most important duty", protecting american citizens. there are conflicts in this testimony that she may be able to resolve. to not do so is unpatriotic, cowardly, and disingenuous. the separation of powers ploy is a legalistic charade to avoid her responsibilities as a part of the government agencies that handled this duty. and for GWB to refuse to allow her testimony just reinforces the perception to those americans that are not "true believers" that he's got something to hide. if there is nothing, we need to know it. if there is something to hide we've got to know what that is.

"I have heard on numerous TV talk shows (including even CNN) that any member of the Administration that
presents testimony before a Congressional committee MUST tell the truth whether or not they are under oath.
That does not seem to faze any of the naysayers in this community however."

let's exercise a tiny bit of critical thinking here, even if it hurts our little brains. 1.) things you hear on TV talk shows are not necessarily true. they are not obligated by any authority to provide truth and may even be infected by "liberal bias" or be part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". 2.) if one does not testify UNDER OATH one cannot be prosecuted for perjury. the charge of perjury means "lying while under oath". a president or senior offical might fire a staffer who he thinks lied while not under oath but cannot prosecute him/her under the law. that's a big difference when you're trying to get the truth out. 3.) why does this not faze "naysayers"? because it's such an obvious load of horsepucky to anyone who knows or cares anything about the law, beaurocratic procedure or the need to be sure about what really happened on a day that "changed everything".

"So what I wrote was not something that I "thought up," I was merely reporting what those who are much more knowledgable than I said. AS to the difference between testifying under oath or simply testifying, I would assume you are right. But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied, not under oath, they could still be prosecuted."

while i'm sure there are people much more knowledgeble about things than you, dougR, and myself, we are still responsible as americans to do some critical thinking and research and educate ourselves as well as we can to make informed decisions to preserve and strengthen our democracy or someday we will surely lose it. how can a person be found to have lied about testimony and be prosecuted if they have not sworn to tell the truth? tho you say you can concieve of this, do you have any evidence of this happening, any knowledge of law or systems that could bring such a charge in absence of sworn testimony, or any basis for this idea besides you thinking "well, surely this could happen"?

by the way, dougR, still waiting for a reply to my question about specific bush lies over on the "popular views of
the bush admin." thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:28 PM

"Why should she testify under oath? You wouldn't believe her anyway" sounded familiar to me, then I realized that just the other day, my six year old said "why should I tell you, you won't believe me anyway."

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 05:00 PM

its also not illegal to knowingly lie.

(in the film "the corporation" two reporters who had been ordered to revise a damaging story on monsanto (mainly because Monsanto had part ownership in the media) - and refused to do it, were even offered
bribes (in writing) to kill the story, were eventually fired. Won their case, and lost it on appeal - since the really didnt have whistlerblower status. The reason: its not illegal to knowingly write a false story in the US. (unless you are under oath).

the dumbest thing they did was attack Clarkes credibility.
Who has the real credibility problem Clarke or the Bush Administration?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:35 AM

Sorry petr,

Re: Dr. A. Q. Khan, I would tend to bet that there was a damn sight more than a peep came out of the Bush administration, and out of the IAEA (whose responsibility this really is) - the world at large would not hear about it, such is diplomacy. But one thing resulting from that particular incident is that the IAEA, now knows a great deal more about the "black-market" in this sort of technology. Undoubtedly there was a deal done, one can only imagine that those who interviewed Dr. Khan considered that the information he supplied them with was significant enough to allow him to make his confession and depart the scene. In allowing him to do so, they got information, an essential ally was spared a great deal of embarrassment, which allows the international effort against nuclear proliferation, and against Al-Qaeda, to proceed unhindered.

"as far as Im concerned the wake up call should have been the 93 bombing of the World Trade Centre." Clarke covered this point quite well when he appeared in front of the 9/11 committee - At the time there was nothing to suggest this attack had anything to do with Al-Qaeda, IN HIS OPINION. With 20 x 20 hindsight you can make the statement "as far as I'm concerned..." - Did you think it was Al-Qaeda at the time (1993)?

The incidents relating to the East African embassy bombings, claimed by Al-Qaeda, resulted in the Clinton administration lobbing cruise missiles, rather ineffectively, at targets in the Sudan and in Afghanistan. This only suceeded in making the US look weak and ineffectual and increased the standing of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, according to the considered opinion of both Berger and Tenet.

The USS Cole incident was covered extensively, before the 9/11 committee by Samuel Berger. Both he and George Tenet, explained that shortly after that attack a preliminary judgement that Al-Qaeda was responsible had been made. Richard Clarke's calls for immediate bombing of Afghanistan were rejected on the grounds of unfeasibility and ineffectiveness.

The intelligence relating to an expected Al-Qaeda attack was evaluated by the intelligence agencies of the US. The bulk of evidence indicated that this strike would fall outside the USA. Only Richard Clarke was of the opinion that the attack would come in the US.

No-one did predict that Al-Qaeda would use aircraft as weapons, Clarke, Tenet, Berger or Rice. Your reference to prior articles written by terrorism experts, would only come into play, if those articles had been studied/evaluated, and, if any credence had been put in them.

On the shipping thing, this problem is currently being addressed in new IMO ISPS codes that come into effect on the 1st July this year. This code covers security of ports and all vessels over 500 dwt engaged in international trade.

Ships do get hijacked in the Far East, mainly it is piracy. I do not know about the Pentagon think tank, but I do remember very early in the 70's, the Royal Navy were tasked with looking at this problem. The scenario you described (oil tanker 3/4 empty) is by no means the worst, believe me. The Royal Navy did at least three trials, that I am aware of, which simulated an attack launched from a hijacked merchant vessel. Of the three trials, the best the "terrorist controlled" ship managed to do was to get 12 miles off track - that was in the English Channel - busiest sea-way in the world.

Shortly after 9/11, around the time of operations starting in Afghanistan, UK Catters might remember a cargo ship being boarded and searched in the English Channel - We are awake to this form of attack. Incidently, Spain's major contribution to the war on terror to date has been naval patrols in the western Mediterranean.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:48 AM

"But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied...", one must have first gone through the process of being questioned on the matter, based on the same criteria whereby everyone else was questioned. Otherwise you just leave yourself wide open to criticism.

If you can impeach a President over the definition of 'sexual relations', one should (theoretically) be able to create a precedent where the National Security Advisor would get her sweet little ass dragged up to account for itself.
Considering that the precedent which created this present precedent, was none other than 9/11 itself.

Let's have enough of 20/20 hindsight, already. What's wrong with a bit of good old plain ordinary 20/20?

Were Al Gore in the White House now, and all this mess was around his ears, you would be the loudest voice shouting into it, DougR.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:30 AM

Well, she's now allowed to testify....

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

Well, Guest, you got your wish. She will now present testimony before the commission. How much you want to bet that after she does, you will not see messages posted here that she has not testified truthfully?

As to your request that I reply to some questions posed on another thread, I will take a look at that thread, and when you have signed on with a real name, I'll take a stab a it. Deal?

TIA: sounds a bit like you have a communication problem with your child. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

None whatsoever - she is of course a perfectly well adjusted genius (oxymoron?).

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:52 PM

Teribus re:Re: Dr. A. Q. Khan, I would tend to bet that there was a damn sight more than a peep came out of the Bush administration, and out of the IAEA (whose responsibility this really is) - the world at large would not hear about it, such is diplomacy. But one thing resulting from that particular incident is that the IAEA, now knows a great deal more about the "black-market" in this sort of technology. Undoubtedly there was a deal done, one can only imagine that those who interviewed Dr. Khan considered that the information he supplied them with was significant enough to allow him to make his confession and depart the scene. In allowing him to do so, they got information, an essential ally was spared a great deal of embarrassment, which allows the international effort against nuclear proliferation, and against Al-Qaeda, to proceed unhindered.

teribus, everything you say above are assumptions without the facts;
"tend to bet there was more than a peep"? I dont recall any whitehouse spokesman saying anything - and in BUshs own words they regard the "nuclear proliferation along with the axis of evil (nkorea, iran.. )as the greatest threat to civilization." and our key ally has a renegade scientist who happily shares nuclear secrets with the enemy. Musharraf immediately pardoned him so there can be no investigation.

"undoubtedly there was a deal done" really?
I hope so, maybe it was just a little added pressure on the lawless tribal areas - keep the white house happy.

dont forget AQ KHan also spent a lot of time in Afghanistan, although he claimed it was for setting up hospitals etc.

and Musharrafs hanging by a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:08 AM

petr,

Absolutely granted, what I have said regarding Dr. Khan is only assumption on my part, I think that was clear in my original post on the subject.

I believe having read somewhere that it was documentation received from the Libyan disarmament programme that "blew the whistle" on the unoficial activities of A. Q. Khan.

Let me ask you, do you believe that the US and IAEA, said and did nothing regarding those activities. You seem to be all too well prepared to believe that the current US administration "does deals" and engages in under-cover operations, whenever such activities can be construed in a negative light - but not when they may be for the good.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:18 PM

teribus.
now youre making assumptions again, how do you know what Im prepared
to believe?
I supported the U.S. action in Iraq, mainly for humanitarian reasons,
although I thought threat of wmds was a possibility (given Saddams historical desire to get weapons)

WMDS and the imminent threat to the west were the main public reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Probably the real reasons for going in (that Ive found most plausible) is to attempt to setup a democracy as an example for other middle east countries - an admirable and gutsy move, but probably wildly optimistic if not an infantile fantasy, given the history of the region and the fact that democracy in the US probably took about 80 years to fully develop.)
(BUt thats just my assumption)

the real facts are that Bush talked about the AXIS OF EVIL
and the WMD THREAT to the west, and yet heres AQ KHan the Nuclear Johnny Appleseed happily giving nuclear weapons technology to those very same countries (NKorea, Iran ) hes also known to have repeatedly visited Afghanistan and was friendly with the Taliban (originally setup by the Pakistani Secret Service) - he claimed that he was just setting up hospitals - how nice.

Musharraf immediately pardoned him, 'to the chagrin of the CIA and western intelligence agencies' (Time Magazine)
Given BUshs remark that youre either with us or against us,
seems to me that Pakistan is BOTH.

this story came to light in the past 2 months, and yet it came and went in the media (I dont recall any comment at all from the white house, Condi Rice, RUmsfeld etc. Do you?)
HOW seriously are they taking this issue? after all its about WMDS
did they not go to war over it in Iraq, even though it turns out they didnt exist. (and David Kay and his team have given up looking)

the latest round with Richard Clarke is whether they took the ALqaeda threat seriously - and yet I havent heard anything on the nuclear black market - how seriously are they taking this? (we do know that OSama approached some Russians for Nukes - in the end they just ripped him off.)

as far as Libya is concerned, looks like they had no intention of using the technology they got from Khan but rather handed it over to the West to get brownie points and improved relations - because it means a lot of trade money - of course its probably a coincidence that Libya has huge oil reserves and Royal Dutch shell immediately signed a big natural gas deal. (but thats just my opinion)

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:48 AM

Interesting article for you petr:

http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper916.html

Deals with Dr. A. Q. Khan's activities

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 01:05 PM

thanks Teribus, interesting indeed.
in answer to your earlier question, whether I believe the US or IAEA did or said anything regarding AQ KHANs activities. (Well I would certainly hope that the US did do something - although I wouldnt know since I dont recall any whitehouse statements at all) or for that matter I dont see much of this discussed in US media.

BUt I think its a pretty serious issue, more than Alqaeda and I dont hear any thing about it on CNN.

Backroom deals and clandestine activities often dont come out for years (if ever) I only base my judgement on past history.

so for example the history of US dealings with Saddam in the past says a lot (they eagerly supplied him with arms and had no problems with him using chemical weapons as long as it was on Iranian troops,
cause in those days he was 'our son of a bitch'.
James Baker made it abundantly clear in 1990 that the US didnt care about Iraqs border dispute with Kuwait. The Kurds & Shia were used as a political football, encouraged to rise up against Saddam and abandoned. George Sr. let the US generals hammer out the deals with the Iraqis and by letting the fly armed helicopters allowed Saddam to stay in power.

sure we know he had bio-weapons, because he GOT them from the US.
(anthrax and other toxins were openly purchased from the US).

and in the end Margaret Thatcher said, BUsh and Major are gone, but Saddam is still around, I wonder who really won.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 02:24 PM

Having managed to "collar" Dr. Khan, I would imagine he was fully interrogated with regard to his activities. As those activities were associated with a black-market in nuclear technology and materials required for uranium enrichment, etc. The last thing you would want to do is blast it all over the world's press, until you had tied up as many of the leads as possible.

As for your examples from history, they appear to be more fiction than fact.

1. US dealings with Saddam:
- The US supplied Saddam with very little in way of arms. Saddam's forces could not have used them, practically all of Iraq's military hardware was Russian/Warsaw Pact equipment, what wasn't was French.

Interestingly enough, and odd though it may seem, the US did supply Iran with military hardware, no problem with compatibility there, most of the stuff Iran had at the time was left over from the days of the Shah, i.e. American.

- Saddam was not what could be considered as being "in anyone's pocket". The main aim at the time was two-fold, a) to ensure that the outcome of the Iran/Iraq war was a stalemate, and b) to ensure that Iraq did not fragment as a result of cessation of hostilities.

2. If James Baker did make it abundantly clear in 1990 that the US didnt care about Iraqs border dispute with Kuwait. He must have back-tracked on that in rapid order.

3. After the signing of the ceasefire agreements at Safwan, the Kurds could be protected as US and UK contingents could use Turkey as a base. The Shia, as you say, were encouraged to rise up against Saddam and were shamefully left out to dry. Norman Schwarzkopf admitted that allowing the Iraqi's to fly helicopters inside the southern "no-fly" zone was his gravest error at Safwan. At the time the Iraqi's stated that such flights would be humanitarian aid as roads and bridges had been knocked out. The other mistake that Stormin' Norman owned up to was not insisting that Saddam himself come to Safwan and sign the ceasefire agreement.

4. Saddam Hussein got no bio-weapons from the US, what the Iraqi's asked for and what they got was sample cultures to improve their chemical/biological defence capability. Of course how they used them is a completely different story, but they did not get weapons or weaponised C/B agents from the US.

5. Margaret Thatcher said, Bush and Major are gone, but Saddam is still around, I wonder who really won. Saddam always portrayed it to the Arab world that he had won using exactly that reasoning. I mentioned that once before in this forum and got rubbished for making that claim. Saddam's behaviour post-Desert Storm to March 2003, was a protracted game of deception and concealment played with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC and driving holes through the sanctions and the embargoes put in place by the UN. Throughout this the United Nations did what it does best - nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 01:11 PM

teribus I would 'imagine' that Khan was fully interrogated as well
but thats only an assumption - but it is a fact that he was immediately pardoned - and his confession which was taped and played
on pakistani tv implied that he didnt do this on his own - I find it hard to believe that he wouldnt - after all the Pakistani secret service the ISI set up the Taliban (and were friendly with Mohammed ATTA)

as for your point on my historical references being more fiction,
the only points you really dispute are US arms to Iraq (we can really quibble over that - they certainly provided satellite intelligence, computer databases to keep track of opponents, and according to a former Reagan adviser Teicher (who swore in an affidavit that the CIA supplied Saddam with non-us weapons)

whether he was in their 'pocket' is quibbling as well, because the cia helped Saddam out a number of times in the 60s and whether or not they really controlled him is beside the point, he was on their side
and they used him. (which after all wasnt an uncommon thing with US policy - Shah of iran, Pinochet, Noriega or is that fiction too?)

and whether or not they supplied him with weaponized anthrax and other bio-agents or samples for 'defense' is quibling too. (only takes a few unemployed ex-soviet bio-weapon experts to help out)
This was at a time when they knew he was a bastard and Lack of Iraqi Freedom Didnt seem to bother Rumsfeld one bit.

and your point about the US supplying arms to Iran? sure we all know about the IRan Contra deal. SOmething Reagan couldnt REMEMBER, and even if he did, George BUsh I immediately pardoned him.
(a lot more serious in my opinion than getting a blowjob by an intern)

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:55 AM

when Sen.B. Kerry asked his questions what was he reffering to when he talked about the "M" word ???????

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 10:59 AM

Bob Kerrey.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 01:20 PM

"Moron?"

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:08 PM

well, that was pretty much a waste of time. dr.rice can certainly fill up the time with hot air and has never heard a question that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" apparently. she doggedly offered her spin on the situation, did not significantly refute or criticize anything clarke had said earlier, and dodged every hard question, of which there were few.

by the ,dougR, i've answered your every question and your request for my name but you have yet to comment on the bushlie i pointed out to you on mar 22. i won't bring it up again as apparently you realize that there is no way to assert that it is not a baldfaced lie other than making the "it's a mistake cuz of bad intelligence" excuse that we're now getting for everything related to the iraq war build-up. i will accept your lack of comment as verifying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 02:43 PM

"it's a mistake cuz of bad intelligence"

In other words: ignorant, stupid, dumb ...

Isn't it interesting that the current administration thinks that this is an excuse?

Who's minding the store?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 03:30 PM

Frankly, I wonder if any blame should be put on Rice at all.

IMO, the entire administration is run by Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, and while Bush is the titular head of the administration, I don't think he is the actual power. (Consider the number of vacations he takes.)

Couldn't it be that Rice was/is in the same position -- the token black woman in a high position -- while all the actual decisions etc. were/are made by the cabal? There is a lot of evidence, much of it critical, that Rumsfeld insisted on making any decisions to do with military and security issues, ignoring intelligence reports whenever he chose, or interpreting them to fit his preconceived ideas.

Opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 04 - 08:00 PM

Well danged, pdc, shes a lot easier on the eyes than the other porch negro, Colin....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Condi Rice on National Security?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 10 Apr 04 - 03:23 PM

Not funny, Bobert.