I hope she is. The thing that one of the 9/11 widows mentioned on MSNBC was that Rice kept saying that there were no specifics in the warnings and they couldn't do anything about it. Well if the average joe got a memo saying on sept. 11th planes would be hi-jacked and crashed into the pentagon and the WTC then anybody would take steps to stop it. But it's got to be somebody's job from this administration or intel to take the vague threats and flush them out into something more actionable. If they just sit around and hope that the FBI is handling it, then they aren't doing their job.
Well, you remember Condi Rice's assertion that the memo was "historical" in nature and did not specify as to imminent attacks. I'll rank that one up there with "compassionate conservatism," the Trojan Horse they used to sneak a radical agenda into the White House. Condi, I admire you. Very smart. You speak 3 foreign languages. Now we diverge. Because if you're so smart, tell me what this spells: p-e-r-j-u-r-y. Or did she leave herself some wiggle room like Clinton did? "Well, it wasn't sex, it was a b.j. Oh, that's sex, too? Well, hell, boys." And in this case, "OK, I misinterpreted the memo."
Did you get the memo? yeah i did, sorry, i just forgot yeeaaahhh..............Well, no problem, people make mistakes, don't worry about it. Forgetting is a totally justifiable excuse.
In Rice's testimony and in the past several weeks Rice and other administration officials kept saying something along the lines of: We had no idea/warning that terrorists were going to fly planes into buildings/attack in New York and Washington . If we had we would have moved heaven and earth to prevent them, etc. Not that they had no warning that terrorists would attack the US, but always, at least to my ear, with the specificity of the actual cities hit. I think this is the sexual relations, this is the wiggle room.
typically, sam, you omitted the money shot. but why be accurate when you can be sensationalist? "Sources aware of the PDB say much of the intelligence is uncorroborated, and none of it is related to the eventual September 11 terrorist plot." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html
I doubt the memo is that specific. Sure, if you knew the date and place, you could maybe stop it. If all you know if that Al Qaeda is planning an attack in the U.S., it becomes more difficult to stop, even if you know they want to use hijacked airplanes (or even more vague "explosives", which were actually not used). That's not to say that it's not possible they could've done more, but there is a big difference between a memo that says there's a threat and a memo that's very specific in that threat (with whens, wheres, etc). The thing is, though, that I personally don't believe that even if the President himself came on television on August 7th and said that al Qaeda was planning an attack on U.S. soil, including potentially hijacking airliners, I don't think we'd have believed it or really lived our lives any differently. And that goes the same for the government, to a degree. The way the FBI, CIA, and even the FAA were operating was not conducive to catching these folks prior to the attack. If the administration had put more effort into it, could the attack have been prevented? I'm sure it's possible, but I don't think it ever becomes 100%, or even 50%, really. But, to get closer to the original point, I don't think it helps anything to lie or cover-up, though I understand the desire to do so, especially when everything is so political in nature (from both sides of the aisle). It's still wrong, though, both morally, and usually from a public relations stand-point, as well. And, if it turns out she lied under oath, she should pay the consequences. Because it's wrong to lie under oath, right?
How did I omit that? it's from a different story. Anyway, that's beside the point. Who gives a sh-t if it is uncorroborated -- the bottom line is that she was not truthful about its contents. But we already knew that, she said it didn't warn about attacks in the US --WHEN THAT WAS THE FREAKING TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT. I just don't understand why she feels the need to lie. A mea culpa, or at least a simple acknowledgement like Clarke's ( something along the lines of "our government failed to protect its citizens tahat day" would go a long way and make most of her lies unneccessary. But I guess Rove or Cheney or whoever is pulling the strings won't let her.
As I read elsewhere, the timeline goes like this: August 6 memo - warns of impending Al Qaeda attack, August 7 - Bush goes on extended vacation at his Crawford ranch. I think that pretty much summarizes his entire presidency.
I wish they'd just declassify the memos so we can actually see what's being said. I don't see how we can just claim that Rice commited perjury on the stands based on this article. The information is too vague. And, as someone has said, had Bush came out and spoke publically about it, a lot of people would likely be pissed at him for being overly cautious. The truth is, no one thought a 9/11 scaled attack before 9/11/01 was possible. I'm sure the white house didn't place much of a priority on it, nor did the public. And unless someone had detailed, reliable information on the attack before it happened, and it was ignored, I wouldn't put too much blame on Bush. Now, the crap that Bush did AFTER 9/11, is a something totally different...
None of the memos quoted above cite an "impending" attack, do they? This is all just so very general and you are all trying to conform it into evidence. Pure politicking. Vomit.
The entire PDB http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf Can we at least dispense with the BS that they hadn't been told about an attack?
It's a very vague wanring about an attack and the memo not only has several things incorrect in retrospect (hijackings to obtain the release of a prisoner rather than as a suicide attack and potential attacks with explosives against Federal buildings in NYC. None of which has happened to date), and it notes that the FBI and CIA have numerous investigations underway. Not to mention, it's impossible to know how many memos very similar to this one the President has seen that have turned out to be incorrect (like this one was mostly incorrect). I'm not sure how the President, if this was the information he had to go on, would choose to do anything differently or could've done anything differently that would've prevented the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing in that memo that says to me that they knew an attack was imminent. It just says that such a thing was apparently a goal of the organization and that there could be some ways these attacks could be carried out, all of which were incorrect (it wasn't US citizens who mounted the 9/11 attacks. They weren't against Federal buildings in NYC. They didn't hijack planes to secure the release of the blind cleric and there were no attacks with explosives). And the rest is historical in nature.
once again, from the CNN story about the release of the memo, the money shot: "Much of the intelligence was uncorroborated, and nothing in the memo points directly to the September 11 attacks"
Post 1993 WTC basement bombings, I heard talking heads on cable news prognosticating that it wouldn't be too long before these terrorists would be flying planes into buildings. So what? It's mere conjecture as was the content of the PDB... in fact, Bush is depicted there as actually asking to follow up on it in detail. Doesn't that exonerate him from the he did nothing charges? There does seem to be some "confusion"-- George W. Bush was <b>not</b> the President of the United States when Saddam was propped up by the US Government... nor was he the President when Muslim rebels were left out to hang by the US.
Mr. Paige I agree that the unspecific intel might not have uncovered the 9/11 plot. What I object to is not doing ANYTHING, and believing that because it's not very specific then it's ok to not really start searching around as fast and in depth as possible, and just let whoever is handling it now continue to do so. Whether or not the attack could have been prevented is unknowable. But not doing anything because it didn't spell out what was to come in 20 point bold faced letters is something that should be criticized.
