The W
Views: 121254579
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.2.10 1334
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Rice gives 9/11 testimony under oath Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1268 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 41

Posts: 40/360
EXP: 472192
For next: 7957

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 4048 days
Last activity: 3652 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 8.4.04 1116.40
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1120.05
http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/ 911.commission/index.html

This is some really good TV as you can tell Rice is really nervous on the stand. I really don't know where I stand on the blame game but I think we can all agree that the White House didn't do a good enough job of protecting us before 9/11 and that includes the last few months of Clinton.
Promote this thread!
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 48

Posts: 103/517
EXP: 814404
For next: 9144

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on 8.4.04 1131.35
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1133.28
    Originally posted by BWT
    I really don't know where I stand on the blame game...


I didn't think it would be all that hard to figure who is to "blame" for 9/11, although from watching the news & reading various newspapers I could see how the issue might get confused.

As far as the impression I was under, it seemed that the "blame" should fall on the Islamic terrorists that actually perpetrated 9/11. Maybe that's just me...
Jobberman
Kishke
Level: 45

Posts: 249/426
EXP: 654101
For next: 6068

Since: 2.1.02
From: West Palm Beach, FL

Since last post: 939 days
Last activity: 257 days
#3 Posted on 8.4.04 1132.56
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1134.57
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    As far as the impression I was under, it seemed that the "blame" should fall on the Islamic terrorists that actually perpetrated 9/11. Maybe that's just me...


Sounds about right.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1659/3059
EXP: 12586320
For next: 85664

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2844 days
Last activity: 2778 days
#4 Posted on 8.4.04 1248.53
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1249.00
It's not a case of saying that the government were to blame for what happened, but whether or not they did what they could have done to stop such an atrocity happening. Rice says that there was nothing they could do before the attacks. How about all the post-9/11 airport security they implemented? Why didn't they put that in place when they learnt of the threat? The entire approach to the terrorist threat has been based in reactionism, and with a many-headed snake like the religious extremist movement that's the worst possible approach. Covering each new wound will only stop the bleeding 'til the next bite is taken. It's not going to kill the animal.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 127

Posts: 3022/4700
EXP: 23555369
For next: 171262

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2126 days
Last activity: 581 days
#5 Posted on 8.4.04 1255.37
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1259.01
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    How about all the post-9/11 airport security they implemented? Why didn't they put that in place when they learnt of the threat?
Imagine what the Democrats would have done. Given the context of the 2000 election, the Democrats would've gone on crying about:

1. Racism in profiling Arab terrorists; but especially

2. Crying that Bush was an illegitimate President establishing a dictatorship.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 2081/2679
EXP: 10048592
For next: 305840

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 4119 days
Last activity: 4119 days
#6 Posted on 8.4.04 1304.40
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1305.31
I remember everyone in the US making jokes about Osama Bin Laden as that "crazy guy in the cave" and even saying that Clinton was making the whole thing up to get heat off the Lewinsky debacle.

It's clear to me that both administrations completely underestimated Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and believed the hype about the United States being untouchable.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 1083/4750
EXP: 24353900
For next: 27866

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 398 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 8.4.04 1316.15
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1319.27
Bin Laden was on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List since June '99, so SOMEONE was worried about him.

(edited by JayJayDean on 8.4.04 1119)
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 41

Posts: 41/360
EXP: 472192
For next: 7957

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 4048 days
Last activity: 3652 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 8.4.04 1316.34
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1319.32
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    I remember everyone in the US making jokes about Osama Bin Laden as that "crazy guy in the cave" and even saying that Clinton was making the whole thing up to get heat off the Lewinsky debacle.

    It's clear to me that both administrations completely underestimated Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and believed the hype about the United States being untouchable.


As did the rest of America. I remember a few weeks before 9/11 I was telling my mom that America would never get attacked because of both the oceans. How wrong we all were.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 684/2159
EXP: 6986448
For next: 202188

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 3149 days
Last activity: 3146 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 8.4.04 1325.56
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1326.11
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by oldschoolhero
      How about all the post-9/11 airport security they implemented? Why didn't they put that in place when they learnt of the threat?
    Imagine what the Democrats would have done. Given the context of the 2000 election, the Democrats would've gone on crying about:

    1. Racism in profiling Arab terrorists; but especially

    2. Crying that Bush was an illegitimate President establishing a dictatorship.


Beyond that, I could see both sides dragging their feet for one simple reason: these changes cost money. Serious money. And it's much easier to have these changes (which were probably at least 10 years overdue) after something horrible happens.

Should it be that way? Of course not. But unfortunatly sometimes that's the only way things get done.
wmatistic
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 61/2189
EXP: 7075729
For next: 112907

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 568 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 8.4.04 1354.13
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1354.32
I was suprised more at the coverage on CNN after she was done more than what she said. You and I know the news outlets are slanted, but man is CNN pushing it today. So far they've shown a few clips several times without really showing it all or explaning.

First is the exchange where the questioner goes on and on about "swatting flies". For those that didn't watch, Rice says the President didn't want to do a quick, shoot a missle, type of response to the Cole attack because that wouldn't solve the overall problem and they had word that Bin Ladin wanted us to do that so he could come out shouting that he survived another one. Bush said he was tired of "swatting flies" and wanted a more complete strategy for taking care of the problem long term. Well the questioner got all pissy about this one phrase saying, "how the hell can he be tired, he didn't swat any flies!" They cut it off right there every time without giving Rice's explantion that I spelled out above. Not to mention but I think a reasonable person would assume Bush wasn't talking about himself personally so much as the past US way of dealing with Bin Laden.

The second clip they keep showing is her being forced to recall the title of this classified memo. It was something like "Bin Laden wants to attack inside US." Ok so they hear her say that line, then cut off the rest of what she said and each time immediatly end the segment by saying, "Rice denied however that the memo spelled out a threat."

Now that comes across pretty bad for Rice. But if you heard the actual testimony what she said was it was a memo detailing who Bin Laden was, what he had done in the past and that he didn't like us, done as a response to questions Bush had. Not a memo saying an attack is coming soon with details, or a plan for what to do. As for the title, you know it wasn't exactly news that Bin Laden wanted to attack us and had for a long damn time before this.

But anyway, I think it's clear that really this could not have been prevented and those who think so are just hoping to be able to place blame on one party or the other. Hell pretty much every person they've questioned has said that, even Clark. It would have taken the type of changes that were never going to be accepted until after 9/11.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 54

Posts: 543/641
EXP: 1202456
For next: 31421

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 4558 days
Last activity: 4217 days
#11 Posted on 8.4.04 1413.33
Reposted on: 8.4.11 1418.08
If it wasn't for lack of context there would be no news.
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 82

Posts: 523/1694
EXP: 5070430
For next: 138819

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2870 days
Last activity: 2601 days
#12 Posted on 8.4.04 2013.24
Reposted on: 8.4.11 2014.10
    Originally posted by wmatistic
    For those that didn't watch, Rice says the President didn't want to do a quick, shoot a missle, type of response to the Cole attack because that wouldn't solve the overall problem and they had word that Bin Ladin wanted us to do that so he could come out shouting that he survived another one. Bush said he was tired of "swatting flies" and wanted a more complete strategy for taking care of the problem long term. Well the questioner got all pissy about this one phrase saying, "how the hell can he be tired, he didn't swat any flies!"


didn't the Cole attack occur while Clinton was still President? Did he respond to it?
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 134

Posts: 2034/5282
EXP: 28557192
For next: 29856

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 90 days
Last activity: 4 days
#13 Posted on 9.4.04 0256.10
Reposted on: 9.4.11 0258.05
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    Bin Laden was on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List since June '99, so SOMEONE was worried about him.

    (edited by JayJayDean on 8.4.04 1119)


That is true, but he was the "Man who cried Terrorism."

He was always calling for attacks against the US, but all the attacks were not on the great 48 (so to speak). It was always overseas. If you hear him crying about it for a while, you forget.

We all forgot about the first WTC boming. We all assumed that that was the end of it. After years of them striking overseas targets, they waited until we were complacent, then struck.

If you hear unkept promises enough, you tend to dismiss them, then not pay any attention to them, then just ignore the promises are even being made. I hope the government won't repeat their past mistakes.

Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the secruity stopped the terrorists, then the people who were inconvienced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese
Level: 41

Posts: 79/332
EXP: 446913
For next: 33236

Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 2056 days
Last activity: 1589 days
#14 Posted on 9.4.04 0345.22
Reposted on: 9.4.11 0346.15
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the secruity stopped the terrorists, then the people who were inconvienced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"


Lucky for us though, we weren't inconvenienced and we just had to pay with, well, everything that's happened. Look, this is a weak argument. I would hope that any administration would "deal with" people's whining if it meant they'd save a few thousand lives...even if the whiners themselves never did realize what had been prevented. That's what being in charge is all about; sometimes what's popular is not always best.
AWArulz
Scrapple
Level: 115

Posts: 749/3658
EXP: 16419582
For next: 391833

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 9.4.04 1255.11
Reposted on: 9.4.11 1256.26
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    We all forgot about the first WTC bombing. We all assumed that that was the end of it. After years of them striking overseas targets, they waited until we were complacent, then struck.

    If you hear unkept promises enough, you tend to dismiss them, then not pay any attention to them, then just ignore the promises are even being made. I hope the government won't repeat their past mistakes.

    Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the security stopped the terrorists, then the people who were unconvinced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"


True enough. At Sears Tower, after WTC in '93, we went nuts. We revamped our fire response system, put all of our elevators into the access control system, started requiring all employees to card into the common area, basically closed our lobby to guests - we only had guest access to the skydeck. We created a separate entrance for the skydeck. We started to swap out our old fire system for a modern one. We made our garage access controlled and placed a guard in the loading dock at all times to vehicles entering and required all delivery people to have a picture taken and to have a card for entry. We had drills by the zillions and hire security folks who weren't complete losers (ok, that may be a stretch).

and we didn't get bombed and we didn't get attacked. Not that any of that would have stopped 9/11, but it might have stopped the other stuff. But it seems invisible - like nothing happened. I point out that there have been no terrorist acts in the US that we know of since 9/11 except for the anthrax thing that happened right after. Is that because OSB is waiting, biding his time, or because the Homeland security thing, the Patriot Acts and the rest of it are working?

I choose "Because it's working"
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 127

Posts: 3025/4700
EXP: 23555369
For next: 171262

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2126 days
Last activity: 581 days
#16 Posted on 9.4.04 1342.59
Reposted on: 9.4.11 1345.20
Incidentally, Bob Kerrey suggested we oust Hussein after the Cole during a speech on the floor of the Senate:

For all these reasons, I hope we will direct the anger and desire for vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein. I hope we will begin to plan a military strategy with our allies that will lead to his removal and replacement with a democratically elected government. This would allow us to end our northern and southern no-fly zone operations, remove our forces from Saudi Arabia, and cease the naval patrols of the Persian Gulf. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 79

Posts: 1063/1528
EXP: 4443230
For next: 136257

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 3687 days
Last activity: 3530 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on 11.4.04 0027.57
Reposted on: 11.4.11 0029.01
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
      Originally posted by Zeruel
      Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the secruity stopped the terrorists, then the people who were inconvienced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"


    Lucky for us though, we weren't inconvenienced and we just had to pay with, well, everything that's happened. Look, this is a weak argument. I would hope that any administration would "deal with" people's whining if it meant they'd save a few thousand lives...even if the whiners themselves never did realize what had been prevented. That's what being in charge is all about; sometimes what's popular is not always best.


Yes, but what's popular is often what gets done. Look at the fuss the Patriot Act has caused today; if Bush (or anyone) had tried that pre-9/11, they'd have been tossed be out on their ear. The public would not have tolerated a public official enacting the kinds of protections we needed, in hindsight.

(edited by PalpatineW on 11.4.04 0128)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 78

Posts: 994/1495
EXP: 4298127
For next: 84118

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 689 days
Last activity: 613 days
#18 Posted on 11.4.04 1035.58
Reposted on: 11.4.11 1036.04
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Zeruel
      We all forgot about the first WTC bombing. We all assumed that that was the end of it. After years of them striking overseas targets, they waited until we were complacent, then struck.

      If you hear unkept promises enough, you tend to dismiss them, then not pay any attention to them, then just ignore the promises are even being made. I hope the government won't repeat their past mistakes.

      Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the security stopped the terrorists, then the people who were unconvinced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"


    True enough. At Sears Tower, after WTC in '93, we went nuts. We revamped our fire response system, put all of our elevators into the access control system, started requiring all employees to card into the common area, basically closed our lobby to guests - we only had guest access to the skydeck. We created a separate entrance for the skydeck. We started to swap out our old fire system for a modern one. We made our garage access controlled and placed a guard in the loading dock at all times to vehicles entering and required all delivery people to have a picture taken and to have a card for entry. We had drills by the zillions and hire security folks who weren't complete losers (ok, that may be a stretch).

    and we didn't get bombed and we didn't get attacked. Not that any of that would have stopped 9/11, but it might have stopped the other stuff. But it seems invisible - like nothing happened. I point out that there have been no terrorist acts in the US that we know of since 9/11 except for the anthrax thing that happened right after. Is that because OSB is waiting, biding his time, or because the Homeland security thing, the Patriot Acts and the rest of it are working?

    I choose "Because it's working"



It's not like OSB and al Qaeda hasn't shown the ability to bid his time in the past. To the best of my knowledge, the time between attacks in the main homeland that can be attributed to al Qaeda was 9 years (1993 to 2001). And there already have been attacks in other areas of the world. I would choose "it remains to be seen", but would also note my belief that there is nothing that can be done to prevent any and all terrorist attacks.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 100

Posts: 649/2742
EXP: 10040718
For next: 313714

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 1 day
#19 Posted on 11.4.04 1536.29
Reposted on: 11.4.11 1541.02
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
        Originally posted by Zeruel
        Grimis is right. If they "panicked" and started all these new airport measures, and nothing happened, because the secruity stopped the terrorists, then the people who were inconvienced would cry: "See! Nothing happened! This was all for naught!"


      Lucky for us though, we weren't inconvenienced and we just had to pay with, well, everything that's happened. Look, this is a weak argument. I would hope that any administration would "deal with" people's whining if it meant they'd save a few thousand lives...even if the whiners themselves never did realize what had been prevented. That's what being in charge is all about; sometimes what's popular is not always best.


    Yes, but what's popular is often what gets done. Look at the fuss the Patriot Act has caused today; if Bush (or anyone) had tried that pre-9/11, they'd have been tossed be out on their ear. The public would not have tolerated a public official enacting the kinds of protections we needed, in hindsight.

    (edited by PalpatineW on 11.4.04 0128)


And they should be tossed out now. Too much of the Patriot Act IMO abrides our constitutionally recognized freedoms. As far as costs, very few pols on either wside have the fortitude to do what's right.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 156

Posts: 3642/7534
EXP: 47747439
For next: 742289

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 1336 days
Last activity: 1336 days
#20 Posted on 11.4.04 1746.24
Reposted on: 11.4.11 1748.34
I agree with Dr. Dirt, the Patriot Act is probably the worst legislation passed since the late 1790's under John Adams.
Now, onto the pre-9/11 period:
If, on the night of 9/10/01 Bush interrupted the Giants/Broncos MNF game by announcing that: 'Due to the assassination of the leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, my administration believes that this is a signal to cause a terrorist action to occur in the United States. Thus, to prevent this action, I am implementing martial law for the next 72 hours to prevent this from occurring. Now, back to Giants/Broncos.' If he does that, the country laughs at him. After that, the calls come out that this is a right wing coup. Then, the public would call to impeach him within 96 hours, as nothing would have happened, thus the public would believe he was crying wolf.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Air America Radio
Next thread: Crak open a Coors
Previous thread: Ashrcroft misplaces priorities(again)
(1268 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Rice gives 9/11 testimony under oathRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2015 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.329 seconds.