Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

condo-whosit rice
simonvii Posted: Mon Mar 29 23:01:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  man that condoleza rice pisses me off, since when does an representative of our government have the right not to answer the questions posed by the people she represents and works for? she should have to testify or get out of office


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Mar 30 00:37:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Since we have entered the age of Neo-McCarthyism, where the government does what it pleases and you're a traitor if you say "Hey! Isn't that unconstitutional and just plain wrong?"


 
webmaster Posted: Tue Mar 30 01:42:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not a Bush or Rice sympathiser, but I don't disagree with Rice not taking the stand. With any organisation - governments, commercial companies, and even our own families - the leaders do their jobs without having to report every single decision and move they make.

Kerry is running for election so, of course, he would make such a demand knowing that it will put the Bush administration in an awkward and difficult situation, with the whole world watching. I defnitely would if I were him. But if Kerry were in Rice's position right now, do you seriously think he will practice what he is preaching? Of course, the people have the right to want to know all that happened. However, they are missing the bigger picture.

Governments do make bad decisions but whatever they do, good or bad, there will be people who are waiting to spin and pounce. The point is that governments made their decisions for the good of the country as a whole, with whatever they knew, at that certain point of time. If they seriously thought that the Al Qaeda was a major threat, do you think that they would have sat aside and not do anything?

A transparent government is good, but the transparency must have its limits.

The issue, I feel, is not whether Rice has anything to hide, but that her taking the stand set a precedence - and a very dangerous one at that - for any future such cases. We are dealing with matters of diplomacy, state secrets, and national security, and these are some of the many issues which you simply do not, and can not, reveal and discuss publicly.

In doing so, there will be grave repercussions and they will open a Pandora's Box which will be impossible to close.


 
mat_j Posted: Tue Mar 30 06:12:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif fancies Condeonleeza, he changed the words to the song Angelina and sings it about her, i saw him!!! scandalous isn't it


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 30 06:54:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  She already testified before the9/11 commission.
In our country's history, there has never been a sitting national security secretary to testify under oath in public.


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 30 07:20:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  it pains me to say this but i have to agree with JQ on this. Kerry and the democrats are being hypocritical because i have serious doubts if they'd practice what they preach if the roles were reversed. Advice for Kerry: Why not try something new and totally refreshing for a change and be up front with the american public. What a novel idea! it might go something like this, "I do not believe Ms. Rice or the current administration has been candid and truthful regarding the events leading to 9/11. However, for purposes of national security I understand her decision not to testify under oath, and would most likely do the same myself". Would that be so hard, John?

But Ms. Rice please spare us the sanctimonious bullshit stuff like, "I really want to testify under oath. Nothing would please me more, but..."

It really makes me want to heave!!!!

Bush and Rice are very lucky they have this legal precident to fall back on, cuz the humoungis trunk of a '73 Cadillac pimp mobile couldn't hold all the lies and deceit this administration has got locked away.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Mar 30 07:38:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  They want her to take some measure of responsibility.
Going under oath means you have faith in your testimony and therefore the American people should as well. This is the worst intelligence failure in US history and to refuse to go under oath is on par with lying, as there is no reason to (a) believe that person and (b) tell the truth.
It would should the level of mistruths that the administration has been spewing since day 1.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 30 08:51:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Are you guys actually saying that you believe that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing ?


 
mat_j Posted: Tue Mar 30 08:57:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Are you guys actually saying that you believe that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing ?

To be fair Hif everybody had prior knowledge of the 11th of september, i wrote about it in my A-level politics exam in school years before it happened and the night before a friend and i were having a conversation about Ramzi Yousef's failed attempt to put bombs aboard jumbo jets, there was something seriously lacking in national security for it to happen.


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 30 10:26:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  HOT OFF THE TICKER....

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) will be allowed to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an administration official said Tuesday.



 
simonvii Posted: Tue Mar 30 15:28:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Are you guys actually saying that you believe that the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing ?

im not saying that, i just believe that if a government official, such as one in her position, with certain responsibilities to fulfill, shouldnt be so hesitant to testify about those responsibilities if they're doing what they are supposed to do...if they never had to explain themselves then they could do whatever they wanted, and like i said, if she has nothing to hide and she did what had to be done, she should have nothing to worry about


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 30 15:51:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>But Ms. Rice please spare us the sanctimonious bullshit stuff like, "I really want to testify under oath. Nothing would please me more, but..."
>
>It really makes me want to heave!!!!
>
>Bush and Rice are very lucky they have this legal precident to fall back on, cuz the humoungis trunk of a '73 Cadillac pimp mobile couldn't hold all the lies and deceit this administration has got locked away.

Methinks you're letting your personal animosity towards Bush, cloud your otherwise halfway decent judgement.


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 30 16:11:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Methinks you're letting your personal animosity towards Bush, cloud your otherwise halfway decent judgement.

Methinks you're wrong. My personal animosity was sufficiently spread on that post, both to the democratic candidate and to this administration.

Me also thinks if it weren't for all the political fallout coming their way they wouldn't be doing a sudden 180 turnaround and now agree to her testifying under oath (hmmmm...the "principle" must have changed suddenly). Yesterday even a partisan republican on the 9/11 committee publically came out and said it was foolish of Bush.

Troubles in Iraq

a stagnet economy

out of control national debt

latest polls showing a neck to neck race

Methinks it's called...
Damage control.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 30 16:17:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hahahah, I got twenty five dressed up chooks that say Bush will win and win big come voting day.
Mr. Kerry's record will come back to haunt him in a big big way.
Say what you want about Bush, Mr. kerry is even sleazier than Clinton ever thought about being.
Clinton was at least a likeable guy, he just had incredibly bad judgement.
Kerry is an opportunist that will tilt whichever way the wind is blowing.


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 30 16:30:37 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>hahahah, I got twenty five dressed up chooks that say Bush will win and win big come voting day.

Like I said before americans are a fickle bunch. who knows which way things will turn between now and November?
There are plenty of campaign republicans shaking in their boots right now though hif. A few months ago i remember hearing this wasn't even gonna be a contest. That tune has changed. And I've got 25 naked chooks (whatever those are) that say if the economy doesn't get better, and the price of gas get significantly cheaper here, Jesus himself wouldn't be re-elected. Americans vote on the fatness of their billfolds and purses. Everything else is second fiddle.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 30 16:42:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm not touting the gospel of Bush, I'm just saying that Kerry couldn't get elected if he were running against jabba the hut.
As for the economy, go back and read my thread titled "bush by the numbers".
I agree americans vote their wallets.
And I think Kerry's record will show a lot thinner wallets in our future if he is in the White House.
I still think the democrats would be better served by nominating that Edwards guy. At least he was worth listening to.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 31 09:10:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This is testimony on intelligence failure, meaning what did the National Security Advisor fail at doing, 'cause it's pretty apparent that someone failed.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 31 09:16:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>This is testimony on intelligence failure,

couldn't have put it better myself : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 31 16:29:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Condi’s Moment
Liberals prove to be short-term thinkers.

By Mark Goldblatt

The archetypal liberal is the guy who, every morning, drops a dollar in the lap of the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and who, every evening, blames conservatives for the fact that there's a homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building. In other words, liberals don't think things through; they opt for gestures, knee-jerk reactions that feel good, without the slightest consideration of long-term consequences.



Such was the case in their demand that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify, under oath and in public, before the 9/11 Commission. Now their demand has been met. Testify she will, even though there's no compelling reason for her to do so; indeed, she's already testified — albeit not under oath — for four hours in private session before the commission. There's not a shred of evidence she lied.

Even in the wake of former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's damaging charges that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel before September 11, 2001, the White House was reluctant to let Rice testify publicly under oath because of the dual principles of executive privilege and separation of powers; if Rice's testimony creates a precedent for presidential advisers being summoned to appear before legislative committees, then future advisers might become less likely to provide presidents with frank and forthright counsel.

The liberals insisting Rice testify thought nothing of such principles. They knew only that Bush was against it, so they were for it. Whatever it takes, as long as they were sticking it to the president.

Now the liberals will get their wish: Dr. Rice will tell her side of the story, under oath, in public. And with the suspense that's already gathering around her appearance, it will be a hit. The rest of the nation will soon discover what careful observers of the Bush's inner circle already know: Rice is the most poised, articulate, and convincing speaker in the entire administration. She will mop up the floor with Clarke.

Want a "for example"? In his tell-all book, Clarke asserts that the first time he mentioned al Qaeda to Rice, in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." Except in October 2000, Rice gave a radio interview in which she discussed al Qaeda. So much for facial expressions.

Not only will Rice make short work of Clarke, she will emerge from the hearing with conservatives flinging themselves at her feet, begging her to run for president in 2008. (There's already a website devoted to her potential candidacy even though she's said, on multiple occasions, she has no interest in the office.) And it would serve liberals right if she did decide to run, for Rice would be their worst nightmare. She would win the women's vote outright, peel away half the black vote, and set back the Democratic party for a generation.

But that's not the kind of thing liberals concern themselves with. Right now, they got her to testify. They stuck it to Bush.

It sure must feel good.




 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 31 17:39:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The archetypal conservative is the guy who, every morning, scowls at the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and then mumbles "Get a job, you worthless piece of shit!" under his breath, and who, every evening, says a prayer to his white WASP god to help all the homeless men everywhere camped out in front of America's apartment buildings.

This guys agruments are so full of holes and transparant that it's not even worth wasting the time to respond in depth. At least post a conservative who is articulate and expresses some valid points. This guy sounds like a hi school freshman trying to make the debate team.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 31 18:41:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>The archetypal conservative is the guy who ... scowls ... mumbles "Get a job, you worthless piece of shit!" ... says a prayer to his white WASP god.
(fun with editing)

>This guy sounds like a high school freshman trying to make the debate team.

Amen.

Dr. Rice is the head of Intelligence and has the title National Security Advisor. She fucked up big time. I go to university in DC and am from NY, and yeah, me knows me eyes saw the big fuck up first hand. A massive 'whoopsie' that someone should be held blame for. Director Tenet is getting most of the slack, but that's not good enough. Director Tenet is rightly getting the blame for putting too much faith in satelites and other people's intel and not putting enough spies in the field. Rice's agents and orders failed just as much, and as it goes it seems to be a failure from the top.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 31 20:59:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>addison said:
>>The archetypal conservative is the guy who ... scowls ... mumbles "Get a job, you worthless piece of shit!" ... says a prayer to his white WASP god.
>(fun with editing)
>
>>This guy sounds like a high school freshman trying to make the debate team.
>
>Amen.
>
>Dr. Rice is the head of Intelligence and has the title National Security Advisor. She fucked up big time. I go to university in DC and am from NY, and yeah, me knows me eyes saw the big fuck up first hand. A massive 'whoopsie' that someone should be held blame for. Director Tenet is getting most of the slack, but that's not good enough. Director Tenet is rightly getting the blame for putting too much faith in satelites and other people's intel and not putting enough spies in the field. Rice's agents and orders failed just as much, and as it goes it seems to be a failure from the top.

Ahem, now tell me, which administration crippled our intelligence agencies by making it impossible for our field agents to deal with "unsavory" type people ?
How the hell else can you get this type of intel ?
It took congressional approval to get this law changed.
This is what Dubya inherited, not to mention the fact that the 9/11 act was already in motion when he took office and all the pieces were already in country and ready to go.
This may have been an intelligence failure, but it happened on Clinton's watch.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 31 21:04:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>The archetypal conservative is the guy who, every morning, scowls at the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and then mumbles "Get a job, you worthless piece of shit!" under his breath, and who, every evening, says a prayer to his white WASP god to help all the homeless men everywhere camped out in front of America's apartment buildings.
>
I agree that this is an oversimplification, but it is not without merit. Most conservatives would not their head in agreement to this statement.

>This guys agruments are so full of holes and transparant that it's not even worth wasting the time to respond in depth. At least post a conservative who is articulate and expresses some valid points.

I fear that no matter what conservative I would post here, you would be in rabid disagreement with he/she, as you have with ever single one I've posted so far.
Name some conservative pundits that you respect and shock me. LOL
I'm afraid that we will never find any common ground in the world of politics, but I respect your intelligence and opinions and we will just have to find our common ground elsewhere as we already have.

Go Georgia Tech !


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 31 22:40:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I'm afraid that we will never find any common ground in the world of politics, but I respect your intelligence and opinions and we will just have to find our common ground elsewhere as we already have.

Now you sound like me. I guess we have that in common, hif.

>Go Georgia Tech !

*ahem..clears throat. I'm first and foremost a Big 12 guy and will be rooting for Oklahoma State, he said quietly.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 31 22:56:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>
>*ahem..clears throat. I'm first and foremost a Big 12 guy and will be rooting for Oklahoma State, he said quietly.

Yeah, I've been an Eddie Sutton fan ever since he left Kentucky and been kicking as ever since.
I am first and foremost a Louisville fan, but this wasn't their year.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Apr 17 12:57:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Condoleezza Rice and the Smoking PDB

By Thomas Patrick Carroll
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 16, 2004

Well that was a blow-out, wasn’t it?

After much media speculation, the famous article from the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) of 6 August 2001 was declassified this past Saturday. Many feared (and some hoped) it would show the President had received ‘actionable intelligence’ about the 9/11 attacks more than a month before they occurred.



But just read the PDB. You don’t have to be James Bond to see there is no actionable intelligence there at all. Not a shred.



This needless declassification of a Top Secret document was the result of a stunt by Richard Ben-Veniste, a member — as unbelievable as it sounds — of the 9/11 Commission.



When it was his turn to query Condoleezza Rice during Thursday’s public hearings, Ben-Veniste brought-up the PDB. He said, “Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB.”



Rice replied, “I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”



Immediately after she finished her sentence, Ben-Veniste tried to cut her off. Clearly, his intent was not to ask a question, but simply to force Rice into publicly speaking the words of the title, thereby inflicting political damage on a war-time President.



Rice would have none of it. She verbally pushed Ben-Veniste aside, explaining the PDB piece was synthesized from historical intelligence and written in response to questions the President had asked. The article was not a threat report, said Rice.



However, it was to no avail. Ben-Veniste’s words had done their work.



The next day’s press was filled with reports on the ‘secret warning.’ The Los Angeles Times, for example, carried a front page story about “disclosures from the commission that President Bush was warned in a highly classified intelligence briefing five weeks before the attacks...”



What Ben-Veniste did was contemptible. But there is even more to the story than this.



Not only was this particular PDB article not used to alert the President of an impending terrorist attack, no PDB is ever used that way. Never, ever. Not only was Ben-Veniste wrong, he could not possibly have been right.



Once you know the difference between the PDB and a threat report — and if Ben-Veniste doesn’t know the difference, he has even less business being on the Commission than is already obvious — you know his insinuations simply had to be bogus.



The President’s Daily Brief



The PDB is the President’s morning intelligence newspaper, designed to update him on the most important intelligence developments over the past 24 hours. Its overall classification is Top Secret, but individual paragraphs may carry a lower classification.



The PDB is produced by the Intelligence Community, with the CIA taking the lead. It is delivered to the President and a few other top national policy makers, like the Vice President, National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State. When these officials travel outside the Washington area, the PDB is transmitted through secure CIA channels and hand-delivered to them, usually by an Agency officer.



Articles in the PDB are ‘finished intelligence.’ This means they draw from many sources, both open and covert. It also means the articles themselves have been thought about and worked on by many people, all experts in whatever subject the article is discussing.



Finally, the content of the PDB is often shaped in response to the questions and interests of the President himself. (This is especially true of Presidents with keen interest in the intelligence product, like President Bush. It was less true with Clinton, who did not show much concern with national intelligence, especially in his first term.) According to both Rice and the CIA, the 6 August PDB article was put together in response to questions from the President.



Now, contrast the PDB with a genuine threat report.



Threat reports are raw intelligence, loaded with all the details available, verifiable or not — time is of the essence. A sanitized, unclassified ‘tear line’ version is typically included, so recipients can quickly pass the information to people without security clearances, like foreign governments, or airlines, or police officers.



When a threat report is sent to out to intelligence consumers, it goes at the highest precedence and to the widest possible list of recipients, including the White House Situation Room and, often, the President himself.



This is how the Intelligence Community handles a threat report. Dissemination is quick and wide, with hardly any attention paid to substantive evaluation. As you can see, it is in many respects the exact opposite of how an article for the PDB is put together and distributed.



The point is straightforward. The PDB is not used to disseminate actionable threat intelligence, whether to the President or anyone else.



Politically-motivated games are probably inevitable in forums like the 9/11 commission, at least to some extent. But it is beyond excuse to make a charge simultaneously as grave and as baseless as the one Ben-Veniste hurled.



Mr. Carroll is a former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA, currently on the editorial board of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]