Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SpecOp9

9/11 comission meeting

Recommended Posts

After watching, for nearly 3 hours, of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, talk about why 9/11 could not be prevented the way people think it could have been.

Quote[/b] ]

WASHINGTON (April 8) - Under contentious questioning, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified Thursday ''there was no silver bullet that could have prevented'' the deadly terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and disputed suggestions that President Bush failed to focus on the threat of strikes in advance.

Bush ''understood the threat, and he understood its importance,'' she told a national commission investigating the worst terror attacks in the nation's history.

In nearly three hours in the witness chair, Rice stoutly defended Bush when Democrats on the commission raised questions about the administration's attentiveness to terrorism, and implicitly and explicitly rebutted a series of charges made two weeks ago by former terrorism aide Richard Clarke.

In widely anticipated testimony, Rice offered no apology for the failure to prevent the attacks - as Clarke did two weeks ago. Instead, she said, ''as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt.''

Rice said the president came into office determined to develop a ''more robust'' policy to combat al-Qaida. ''He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies','' she told the commission delving into the attacks that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the twin World Trade Center towers in New York and blasted a hole in the Pentagon.

But she also said, ''Tragically, for all the language of war spoken before Sept. 11, this country simply was not on a war footing.''

Her comment about swatting flies drew a sharp response from former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted the administration made no military response to an attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

''Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once ... How the hell could he (Bush) be tired,'' Kerrey asked.

''I think it's only a figure of speech,'' she replied, adding that Bush felt that the CIA was ''going after individual terrorists.''

She later said a further, similar attack may have emboldened the perpetrators, and American interests were better served by a broader response designed to undermine al-Qaida.

Maybey swatting flies as in possible terrorists?

or maybey it's that he is tired of eliminating terrorists across the middle east, even when he's the one not on the field...  But now I understand there is ALOT more to it than just sending troops to war.  It's said that the terrorists decided to go to war with us...and terrorism is not war, it's a tactic?

Why go in so much detail?  They are only screwing themselves up I think.  

One of the more arguably interesting questions was why, if the report said "Something very very very very big was going to happen", why was'nt the very very very big top dogs put together to have a meeting that could have prevented 9/11?  I did'nt see that answered very well, mostly whent he FBI and CIA don't share their damn info, when it could be helpful..I think they are just wanting to be the heroic fools while more crap happens within out country, and outside.

Also did you guys notice that she said the gathered of info on a possible attack was NOT a threat...yet she says

Quote[/b] ]Bush ''understood the threat, and he understood its importance,''
 Using the word "threat".

We I'm not here to bash on her...I just wish the damn TV stations fully covered the debate because there are still questions yet to be asked and answered fully..

To tell you the truth I have no clue what the hell I'm saying, I just felt like posting this....

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of her double speak just makes matters worse. She refused to answer any question by going into long winded ramblings.

It's easy after the fact to say "why was this not prevented, look at all this evidence" the failure was in the intel community being able to freely share this information that would have painted the picture we now see today, back then,

I am just glad that all this makes Bush seem even more incompetent and can only hurt his re-election bid.

Uggh this gives me a headache, the Yankees game is starting and it's the home opener, think i will crack open a beer cook up some Fries and Hot Dogs and relax the rest of the day biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´ve seen the complete thing. Rice was winding in endless loops. I thought it was interesting that she didn´t answer some questions but made only vague assumptions. You could expect more from a national security advisor.

She pinpointed that intel was not sufficient. And she fixed that to a date. The 6th of august.

I already posted hat they indeed had intel on a big terrorist attack within the USA wich will involve planes as projectiles from Israel, Russia, Egypt and germany.

She did not lie though. She just excluded it from the timeline by saying that the intel they had untill 6th of august did not point on such things. So she did not lie but avoided to touch the intel stuff.

Winding.

I´m sure this is not over for her as the commission already said they will inquire her another time non-public about the intel things.

White House indeed is not very cooperative with providing papers to the comission. They only get excerpts and glances but nothing complete.

She´s done a good job for TBA today but a bad job for the country.

She tried to blame anyone but herself but a commision member pointed out that she as National security advisore has a responsibility also. She obviously didn´t do much about the warnings as the comission stated.

The rest was a lot of war on terror bullshit and foggy excuses.

She was well prepared and tried to talk her ass off sometimes when the questions didn´t fit her way.

She did not contribute in finding the truth, but contributed in hailing the most flawed president the USA has had for a while.

Edit :

Here is an excerpt text of her hearing today:

Rice at comission 9/11

I have to add that I was pretty surprised to hear that the title of the presidential briefing on 6th of august was "Bin Laden, threats within the USA" or something like that. Even the comission didn´t know the title of the briefing until today. They were only given acess to a part of the briefing. That´s obviouse isn´t it ? She tried to do it away as "historical documents" but the title tells a very different story. The comission is still fighting to make this document public. I guess we can read some real info then. Rice failed to provide this info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Uggh this gives me a headache, the Yankees game is starting and it's the home opener, think i will crack open a beer cook up some Fries and Hot Dogs and relax the rest of the day  

Sounds so gosh darn good..knowing the day is off tommorow smile_o.gif   YANKEES?  What about those Red Sox, the best team in the league?  tounge_o.gif

A bit off topic..but hey who says this can't be a Commission meeting and baseball thread? lol Placebo don't answer that  biggrin_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]I´ve seen the complete thing. Rice was winding in endless loops.

I agree however..I felt the questions being asked were more relevant than the answers being given, and more interesting and appropiate...  I think the the Country is becomeing a little too  independant, independant with ourselves..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bals, is it just me or does your link just end abruptly?

I think Mr. Kerrey did a good job of pointing out the fact she was babbling on and not answering the questions. He even had to suppress a laugh when she just kept going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full text of her statement is also available at the 9/11 commisions website in .pdf format right here

It doesnt include her entire testimony, if anyone can find a full transcript please post a link to it.

Thanks unclesam.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Bals, is it just me or does your link just end abruptly?

Yes maybe the secretary is still busy typing it biggrin_o.gif

I like to see full coverage also as there are nice parts about the 6th of august briefing missing.

What was the name of the guy who insisted on answering the questions like he asked them. Rice talked bullshit again and he got angry and made it plain simple for her to anwer the question wether she had informed the president about Clark´s thesis. She just refused to answer and babbled on.

A politician in front of a commision that has the task to research the reasons that led to the attack and the failures made by governmental institutions should not be blocked.

It should be a major goal of the TBA to assist them and show transparancy to avoid such things in the future.

If you have nothing to hide you can speak truth.

If you can´t speak truth and hide things, you show no respect for your country and the people who got killed on 9/11.

I had to laugh when she used the WMD phrase a lot. Yeah yeah WMD´s , Iraq, terrorists...yeah yeah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the name of the guy who insisted on answering the questions like he asked them.

That was Bob Kerrey, he even started to laugh when she kept going on and on. The best was when he said "Your going to just keep speaking until you find an answer" then when everyone started to applaud he told them to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I wonder if the 6th of August [edited I put the wrong month it was august not september] Report is the one the FBI Whistle Blower pointed them at?

She says the transcipt she saw said that Al Qaida was due to attack US cities with hijacked aircraft and specificly mention certain cities they include New York and Washington.

The fact that the economic conference a few months before had a ban on aircraft overflying its airspace shows that european intelligence took the threat seriously.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I wonder if the 6th of September Report is the one the FBI Whistle Blower pointed them at?

She says the transcipt she saw said that Al Qaida was due to attack US cities with hijacked aircraft and specificly mention certain cities they include New York and Washington.

Why would she have access to a presidential briefing?

Quote[/b] ]The fact that the economic conference a few months before had a ban on aircraft overflying its airspace shows that european intelligence took the threat seriously.

Majority events (presidential, sporting events, and etc.) usually has a no-fly zone around.

Note: Clarke even said that 9/11 would of still happen even if TBA followed his plan all the way before it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I think a person with a reasonable IQ can figure out she is just wasting everyones time. Especially this: "we were not told where, when, how" business, I mean come on I'm not stupid, terrorists don't tell you everything to get caught. tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi billybob2002

The 6 of August I meant to say My bad I have edited my original post to reflect this and noted the edit.

Anyway to answer your point billybob2002.

Quote[/b] ]Some of the most contentious exchanges came over an Aug. 6, 2001, "presidential daily brief," a still-classified document that Rice confirmed under questioning had as its title, "Bin Laden [is] determined to attack inside the United States."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60511-2004Apr8.html

If the presidential briefing refers to the intercepts that specified the cities in US that were to be attacked and the method to be used hijacked planes to be flown into cities. The ones given in evidence by the FBI whistle blower.

Quote[/b] ]during more than three hours of testimony to investigators for the 9/11 panel on Feb. 11.

Edmonds, who was hired as a translator by the FBI nine days after the attacks, told the investigative panel she has seen and handled intelligence documents and cables that show Rice, the national security adviser, is wrong when she says there was no advance warning of air attacks on U.S. soil.

She saw intelligence documents that pointed to the use of aircraft against skyscrapers in major U.S. cities.

"We had various information from various sources and investigations," she said in an interview yesterday.

"In terms of specific cities? Yes. It was not only New York and Washington, D.C. There were four or five cities specifically named.

"There were specific activities known. Domestic institutions were being targeted and airplanes were going to be used. That was known. Now, did it say Sept. 11, 8:30 in the morning? I am not aware of such information. Did it say it was going to crash the planes in the building? I am not privy to that information.

"But there was specific information on the use of airplanes. There were people issuing orders and information on people already in place in this country months before Sept. 11."

She said she is not passing on hearsay, but information on specific documents, the names of witnesses, the names of FBI agents and other information so investigators can rely "not on my word," but on the documents themselves. Most of them were dated April and May, 2001, she said. She has previously provided such information to congressional investigators.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp....6611085

At the time there was a case allready accepted as honest testimony by the US senate that pressure was put on the whistle blower to change translations she made by senior members of the FBI this she refused and blew the whistle on. The intercepts had already been translated before 9/11 and past on. She was then asked to retranslate them. She did then a senior FBI official then told her to change the translations which is when she blew the whistle. So they may be the foundation of the August 6th briefing.

It begs the question were the intercepts the silver bullet and somone was trying to cover them up by having them re translated?

Several things flow from it IF that is the Case:

1) TBA will have had a clear warning that could have prevented 9/11 hence there was a silver bullet.

2) TBA will have been clasifying intell to aid a cover up

3) Members of TBA will have purjured themselves

4) Members of TBA will have been involved in a criminal cover up of frightening proportions.

Obviously to clear this up the briefing and intercepts must be declasified.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Pressure is growing to release the so called "silver bullet evidence" that TBA new there was a threat to the US home land from Al Qaida.

Quote[/b] ]The existence of that August 6, 2001, memo, called a presidential daily briefing, has been reported before, but details about it came out Thursday.

Asked by Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor who has read the memo, to recall the title, Rice said: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

http://edition.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

If the briefings are linked to the multiple sources in US inteligence that said Al Qaida terrorists planned to use hijacked aircraft to attack 7 named US cities. It will be a prima facie case that members TBA are involved in a criminal cover up.

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was on for like 6 hours, and in that time she talked about nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note: Clarke even said that 9/11 would of still happen even if TBA followed his plan all the way before it...

Oh boy. Here comes FSPilot, Jr. again.

Something else interesting he said was that Rice said the exact same facts that he had, but interpreted them differently.

For Example:

Clarke said terrorism was a low priority. Rice said terrorism was not a low priority. She had 33 cabinet meetings and not one was about terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

There is increasing speculation in the US that members of TBA were involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up evidence that TBA new there was a specific threat to hijack aircraft before 9/11 and that TBA new the threat existed.

Quote[/b] ]At the time the briefing was prepared for the president, the document said the FBI had 70 active field investigations into suspected al Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States, Rice said in her testimony. Rice also said the document contained "no new threat information" and "did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."

But former Nebraska senator and governor Bob Kerrey, a Democratic member of the commission, quoted the briefing as saying that the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking."

Kerrey's description was supported by a joint House-Senate intelligence committee report. That report, released last July, said the briefing included "FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."

The presidential briefing was first detailed in a May 19, 2002, news report in The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64562-2004Apr9.html

In other words if this was in the briefing there is proof that TBA and the President in particular was informed of the the threat to hijack aircraft before 9/11 and either purposfully or with complete criminal negligence ignored it.

The evidence is starting to stack up for something so shocking it is is beyond words.

walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Oh boy. Here comes FSPilot, Jr. again.

Something else interesting he said was that Rice said the exact same facts that he had, but interpreted them differently.

He did say that under oath about if his plan was used early on rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]In other words if this was in the briefing there is proof that TBA and the President in particular was informed of the the threat to hijack aircraft before 9/11 and either purposfully or with complete criminal negligence ignored it.

She admitted that terrorists wanted to hijack planes but for another purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

Busted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is declassified August 6th document.

Actual image of document:

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2285-2004Apr10.html

Quote[/b] ]

The following is the text of an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing for President Bush that outlined al Qaeda plans to strike within the United States. It was released Saturday by the White House.

 

Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ...(redacted portion) ... service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an ... (redacted portion) ... service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ... (redacted portion) ... service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Seems the FBI as to do some explaining.

Were not some of the hijackers uninformed that they were going to die in a crash in to a building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They didnt even write Bin Ladens name right...

You can type Bin Ladin also.. but Bin Laden has become the commonly used form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Request to the MODs I would like the sub title of this thread to be changed to: "there was a silver bullet."

Kind Regards Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×