Officials ignored warning signs, 9/11 panel says

[RussSchultz]

An interesting take on the 9/11 panel investigation techniques.

http://www.wonkette.com/archives/911_hearings_flowchart_014384.php

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And more on Clarke:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115344,00.html

 

[John Reynolds]

Wow, certain Repubs want Clarke's classified testimony from last year declassified yet we can't get Rice to publically take the stand. And I hope Ralph Murdoch is getting some of that war chest Bush has to get re-elected.

That said, Clarke's publisher should've, if possible, gotten this book out months sooner, before the campaign started. Whether mostly factual or not, the timing of his book's publication does lend credence to the assertion it's a hatchet job on Bush's plans for re-election.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Wow, certain Repubs want Clarke's classified testimony from last year declassified yet we can't get Rice to publically take the stand.

Wow...I don't recall Rice actually giving conflicting stories, hence a reason for it.

I thought the point of these hearings was to "get to the bottom" of 9-11? How is Clarke's conflicting testimonies aiding this?

 

[John Reynolds]

Wow...I don't recall Rice actually giving conflicting stories, hence a reason for it.

I thought the point of these hearings was to "get to the bottom" of 9-11? How is Clarke's conflicting testimonies aiding this?

You mean purported conflicting testimony, right? Are have you already pre-determined something in your head?

And if the panel's job is to get to the bottom of 9/11, why isn't the Bush administration agree being more forthcoming? Do they have something to hide?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You mean purported conflicting testimony, right? Are have you already pre-determined something in your head?

No, I mean conflicting testimony. Clarke doesn't even dispute this. He admits it, but "justifies" with a "I want to make the administration look good".

And if the panel's job is to get to the bottom of 9/11, why isn't the Bush administration agree being more forthcoming? Do they have something to hide?

Who's not being forthcomng? Rice is testifying, just not publiclly. Has any one in the commission raised any doubts concerning her consistency?

 

[Babel-17]

Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/26/MNGSR5RPMV1.DTL

 

[Babel-17]

Some backround in the top link and information relating to credibility/"false to fact" statements in the second.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_hot_seat_1


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26COND.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, acknowledged in his own public testimony to the panel this week that the White House had moved too slowly in developing the adminstration's plans for eradicating Al Qaeda.

"I think it is the case — it is certainly in hindsight — that we weren't going fast enough," Mr. Armitage said. "You can make your own judgments about whether we were going faster or slower than other administrations."

Mr. Armitage also raised questions about the accuracy of Ms. Rice's account of the counterterrorism policy that was about to be presented to Mr. Bush in early September 2001. Asked at the hearings this week about an opinion article that Ms. Rice had written for The Washington Post, in which she said that the policy could have resulted in "military options to attack Al Qaeda," Mr. Armitage said that there was no direct military component to the policy at the time of the attacks.

 

[Natoma]

No, I mean conflicting testimony. Clarke doesn't even dispute this. He admits it, but "justifies" with a "I want to make the administration look good".

From another thread,

Speaking of feeling pressure from former bosses.... Richard Foster, an actuary for Medicare, is claiming that he was pressured last year with losing his job if he didn't release numbers that supported the administration's claims of keeping the price tag of the Prescription Drug Benefit below $400 Billion. His estimates were actually about ~$100 Billion higher.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595920/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595442/

Hmm, tow the line or get fired it seems, and if you don't work for the administration, have your credibility attacked viciously. Richard Foster towed the line to keep his job (though he considered quitting out of disgust), but decided to come out and tell the truth. Paul O'Neill didn't tow the line. He got fired. Lawrence Lindsey didn't tow the line. He got fired. Ambassador Wilson didn't tow the line. His credibility was attacked and his wife outed as an undercover CIA operative, a crime I might add, perpetrated by someone in the bush white house. Richard Clarke didn't tow the line. His credibility is being attacked. The list goes on and on with this administration.

Anyone see a pattern here?

I think it's fairly obvious that a lot of "present the best light possible and ignore the bad" occurs when people work for administrations. Is it possible that they come out later with the full truth and it seems to not jive with their prior statements? Certainly. Anything would if you ignore all the bad stuff. I've said this before, and gave John Snow as a very high level example of this.

John Snow is on record as being one of the most ardent deficit hawks among economists. When he joined the Bush Administration, all of a sudden he repudiates everything he said and says that deficits don't really matter.

People who are not part of political bodies tend to be more honest with their assertions.

and

As I mentioned to Russ earlier, John Snow, before joining the Bush Administration, was one of the foremost deficit hawks in the country, and a highly respected economist. When he joined the administration, his tone has changed and now deficits don't really matter. People of all political stripes change their tone when they're in office vs when they're in the private sector.

My point? Someone's word while part of a political body should always be taken with a grain of salt. Because usually when they deviate from the party line, they get fired or retire to "spend time with the family." Paul O'Neill, Larry Lindsay, George Stephanapolous, Christine Todd Whitman, etc etc etc. The political graveyard is littered with people like the aforementioned.

And if the panel's job is to get to the bottom of 9/11, why isn't the Bush administration agree being more forthcoming? Do they have something to hide?

Who's not being forthcomng? Rice is testifying, just not publiclly. Has any one in the commission raised any doubts concerning her consistency?

Seems as though Condoleeza Rice does want to revise some of her statements. 2 posts above from babel-17.

 

[Ty]

Wow, certain Repubs want Clarke's classified testimony from last year declassified yet we can't get Rice to publically take the stand. And I hope Ralph Murdoch is getting some of that war chest Bush has to get re-elected.

I'm all for open government. Funny how the Repubs aren't fighting for Cheney to open up the Energy Task Force minutes though. Oh that has to be kept secret because it's obviously endangers the state unlike documents that could deal directly with state security. What a bunch of hypocrites.

That said, Clarke's publisher should've, if possible, gotten this book out months sooner, before the campaign started. Whether mostly factual or not, the timing of his book's publication does lend credence to the assertion it's a hatchet job on Bush's plans for re-election.

Actually they did try. But it took the government over 3 months to clear the book.

 

[Babel-17]

One last link, has some statements Ms. Rice might have to account for.

She didn't make them but some of the statements she has made have run counter to them.

Sample:

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"
-- CNN, April 30, 2001

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/03/25/claimfact/

 

[Natoma]

Wow, certain Repubs want Clarke's classified testimony from last year declassified yet we can't get Rice to publically take the stand. And I hope Ralph Murdoch is getting some of that war chest Bush has to get re-elected.

I'm all for open government. Funny how the Repubs aren't fighting for Cheney to open up the Energy Task Force minutes though. Oh that has to be kept secret because it's obviously endangers the state unlike documents that could deal directly with state security. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Indeed. In fact, The hypocrisy is almost nauseating.

That said, Clarke's publisher should've, if possible, gotten this book out months sooner, before the campaign started. Whether mostly factual or not, the timing of his book's publication does lend credence to the assertion it's a hatchet job on Bush's plans for re-election.

Actually they did try. But it took the government over 3 months to clear the book.

I guess some people weren't reading the book too closely since they let it through.

 

[Vince]

Wow, certain Repubs want Clarke's classified testimony from last year declassified yet we can't get Rice to publically take the stand.

How are these topics related in any tangible manner? If Clarke perjured himself, and did it in classified testimonies on National Security, then he certainly deserves to wear an orange jumpsuit for quite awhile.

The 9-11 commission is about finding the flaws in our system and correcting them, I'd think the counter-terrorism czar lying under oath in classified briefings (as his later statements and book would indicate) would only prove to be a massive source of error and criminal activity. And this goes well beyond any simplistic, incorrect, statement like Rice's on using airplanes as weapons - a sentiment many expressed in the aftermath.

If you're going to talk about National Security shortcomings, Richard Clarke is a prime candidate. He's a guy who most likely lied to reporters, lied to the American people, and then - most dangerously - lied in Classified Briefings to Congress. That is... if his book and current attitude are to believed about how he knew oh so clearly what was needed - yet kept chugging along and sure as shit submitted his name to lead to the newly founded Dept of Homeland Security. Ohh, and is not engaging in a selfish act of selfpromotion for a book which was mysteriously pushed up in publication from April to the same time as the 9-11 interviews. All while carrying on about how he cares about the problems and pulled that public apology stunt - if he really cares, why aren't the proceeds going to 911 families and not his pocket?

And on Rice, why should she testify publically? John, do you understand what her position is and how it legally relates to the government and administration?

Why should an active advisor to the president testify in public concerning the politics of national defense? Because, lets face it... the only thing which seperates 4 hours (IIRC) of testimony behind closed doors to the commission and 2 hours in public is politics. What the fuck is this, a neoMcCarthyistic witchhunt?

And I hope Ralph Murdoch is getting some of that war chest Bush has to get re-elected.

I hope for a day when you actually say something which is competent; unlike this blather.

PS. Are we trying to talk about Rupert Murdoch?

 

[Vince]

Actually they did try. But it took the government over 3 months to clear the book.

Blah! I just saw him interviewed on TV in which he was asked why his book was slated in a publication journal to be published in April (IIRC) and then, suddenly, moved up.

He responded that he wanted it to be out for Christmas, but the Administration took over 3 months to check it. Alright... nice dodge. So, did the administation move the date from April to right around the time of the 911 commission too?

"The timing is classic Clarke," observe Pincus and Eggen. "Former colleagues say Clarke is a wily tactician in the political world of Washington and would be well aware of the firestorm he would cause by the release of his book during a presidential campaign."

 

[John Reynolds]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002772

 

[RussSchultz]

Are we down to quoting partisan political blogs/editorials to bolster our religious beliefs?

There's a ton out there 'fisking' what Josh Marshall is proseletizing.

It isn't republicans tearing Clarke apart, its Clarke himself.

 

[John Reynolds]

Are we down to quoting partisan political blogs/editorials to bolster our religious beliefs?

There's a ton out there 'fisking' what Josh Marshall is proseletizing.

It isn't republicans tearing Clarke apart, its Clarke himself.

Religious beliefs? And if Joe and others can quote Fox News, I'm going to quote Josh Marshall.

 

[Ty]

Hell people have been using some whacky pro-israeli or pro-palestinian websites before, why stop now? It's better still when the B3D poster comes here and says something to the effect of, "Oh, I found some good information" as if the website is "honest" and "impartial".

 

[Vince]

John, so very simple question. If someone lies to Congress, and by extention the citizens of this country - are they to be prosecuted or not? Yes or No.

Religious beliefs? And if Joe and others can quote Fox News, I'm going to quote Josh Marshall.

Fox... is that the one owned by "Ralph Murdoch"?

 

[Natoma]

Vince,

It is possible to stress the good in one's statements, ignore the bad, and have two separate and seemingly conflicting accounts be "the truth," as I pointed out earlier on this page.