According to a story in the Washington Post today Kindasleezy Rice was going to give a speech on the day of 9/11, and in it was no mention at all of al-queda, which seems to contradict what she has been saying so far. Hmmmm...somebody is telling less than the truth here.
[ April 01, 2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]
Full Version: Washington Post Story
That's a particularly contextless post. Is there a link to the article? What was the speech about? Who was it to? The National Security Advisor does have other foci than Islamist terrorism. Here's the article in question.
The article is, in fact, more damning that you indicate. Not only was this a major speech on the nature of the threats to the United Sates "today and the day after, not the world of yesterday," but it's main focus was missle defense, dismissing traditional terroristic threats with the comment, "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway, [But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?" In this speech, we see that the Bush administrations focus on Iraq entirely predated 9/11 and was then, as at the beginning of the second gulf war, focused on the wrong thing, weapons of mass destruction launched from "rogue" nations.
[ April 01, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: jqueer ]
The article is, in fact, more damning that you indicate. Not only was this a major speech on the nature of the threats to the United Sates "today and the day after, not the world of yesterday," but it's main focus was missle defense, dismissing traditional terroristic threats with the comment, "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway, [But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?" In this speech, we see that the Bush administrations focus on Iraq entirely predated 9/11 and was then, as at the beginning of the second gulf war, focused on the wrong thing, weapons of mass destruction launched from "rogue" nations.
[ April 01, 2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: jqueer ]
Jqueer, sorry I didn't have anything further. I got this news from ABC WorldNews this morning.
Wow, Kindasleezy looks worse and worse every day...even without an unflattering photo on cnn.com. 
From the article:
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text [...]
The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.
[ April 01, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text [...]
The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.
[ April 01, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
You know...
HAHAHAHA... You guys are kidding right?
Have you guys really come to this... they gave a speech but didnt mention al queda?
Can we just think about this for a second... Do you want them to stand up and give their plans for fighting Al Queda? That would be pretty smart... Oh W was readiing to kids and didnt mention al queda.. must not have been thinking about it.
Rice gave a speech, probably pushing for Missle Defense... prob not thinking about it...
GET A GRIP. Just because someone doesnt mention something in public, doesnt mean it's on the radar.
If they are working to put a bullet in on of these towel heads, i dont want to hear about it, just do it.
If i look up grasping for straws in the dictionary, they would reference most of your threads.
HAHAHAHA... You guys are kidding right?
Have you guys really come to this... they gave a speech but didnt mention al queda?
Can we just think about this for a second... Do you want them to stand up and give their plans for fighting Al Queda? That would be pretty smart... Oh W was readiing to kids and didnt mention al queda.. must not have been thinking about it.
Rice gave a speech, probably pushing for Missle Defense... prob not thinking about it...
GET A GRIP. Just because someone doesnt mention something in public, doesnt mean it's on the radar.
If they are working to put a bullet in on of these towel heads, i dont want to hear about it, just do it.
If i look up grasping for straws in the dictionary, they would reference most of your threads.
QUOTE
GET A GRIP. Just because someone doesnt mention something in public, doesnt mean it's on the radar.
I'm assuming you meant "OFF the radar". I do not agree that critics of this administration are grasping at straws here. I remember the big deal the Bush administration made about the need for a missile defense shield and all of the concern about how many billions it would cost. Several large nations expressed unfavorable thoughts about the whole missile defense plan and this administration played it up very prominently for a long time.I don't believe the current administration is skilled and/or subtle enough to have used the whole missile defense idea as a red herring, actually focusing on destroying terrorist cells the whole time. If this speech included criticism of the Clinton administration for having focused on terrorist cells and indicated that the Bush admin. considered this to be wrong, it would seemm to make their claims that they were always fighting terrorism ring false.
It would support Clark's and others' accusations that Bush administration was NOT focusing on the right targets, but preoccupied with other ideas.
Even then, I am not convinced that it really is that big of a deal. Undoubtedly both the Clinton and Bush administrations made several missteps.
I wish we could just get the partisan crap behind us and get the terrorists while effectively making life better for the average citizens.
I also realize that this post makes me a target for one of your sharp criticisms, but I wont run away crying...I hope!
I remember all too well being depressingly suspicious of the success that supporters of the anti-missle defense were having at the beginning of this Bush administration.
It may be one of the biggest scams that military-industrial corporations have pushed on the US population.
Even if it could be made to work perfectly it does not, and did not, address our current needs.
[ April 02, 2004, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
It may be one of the biggest scams that military-industrial corporations have pushed on the US population.
Even if it could be made to work perfectly it does not, and did not, address our current needs.
[ April 02, 2004, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
Uh, let's not forget that translator, Sibel Edmonds, who was on "60 Minutes" and who has come forward to testify warnings about the 9/11 attacks were ignored by the W Ltd. House!
New Zealand Herald: Warnings of translator about 9/11 ignored
Washington Times: White House withheld Clinton papers from 9/11 panel
Yahoo!: White House to let 9/11 panel see Clinton papers
[ April 02, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
New Zealand Herald: Warnings of translator about 9/11 ignored
QUOTE
A former FBI translator with top-secret security clearance says she has provided detailed information to the panel investigating September 11 that proves senior officials knew of al Qaeda plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes in New York and Washington.
She said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's claim that there was no such information is \"an outrageous lie\".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed-door session with the commission's investigators providing information circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place.
The Bush Administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gag order from a court by citing the rarely used \"state secrets privilege\".
Then they were withholding Clinton Administration documents from 9/11 Commission, who didn't realize it at first, I guess to try and make their predecessors look bad and themselves not so bad..."base, how low can you go?" (Chuck D.)She said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's claim that there was no such information is \"an outrageous lie\".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed-door session with the commission's investigators providing information circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place.
The Bush Administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gag order from a court by citing the rarely used \"state secrets privilege\".
Washington Times: White House withheld Clinton papers from 9/11 panel
Yahoo!: White House to let 9/11 panel see Clinton papers
[ April 02, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.