T Nation

Cooked Rice?


#1


White House national security adviser Condoleeza Rice will testify under oath in front of the 9-11 investigatory commission today. It should be on CSPAN and I hope people will watch it.

Does anybody think she will be the fall guy for the administration's failure to prevent 9-11? I doubt it, so far not a single person has lost their job due to 9-11 incompetence. That has to be unprecedented (?)

Rice has stated that the White House had no idea terrorists might use airliners as a weapon.

Ummm... yes you did. The White House was warned of this possibility on 12 different occasions.

Other questions: Rice was slated to give a policy speech about domestic security on the day of 9-11 (which was obviously cancelled). The white house will not release that speech document. Speculation is that it contains zero mention of Al Qaeda or terrorism.

Richard Clarke has testified under oath that there were 100 National Security Council meetings
before 9/11, but only one devoted to terrorism.

There is also some talk about how the Bush White House was negotiating with the Taliban even up to a few weeks before 9-11, for permission to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. When the Taliban was not cooperative, they were allegedly threatened with force by the White House. A few weeks later 9-11 occurred. Coincidence?


#2

Please tell me why Clinton is innocent.


#3

How much can you bench?


Dustin


#4

Instead of saying the White House was "asking for permission" to build a pipeline in Afghanistan, what I should have said was that the White House was trying to broker a deal with the Taliban.


#5

I watched it while doing cardio this AM...

She impresses me more and more every time I see her. A truly outstanding individual.

B.


#6

Rice is doing an excellent job. My only question is, is she a MILF?


#7

The White House knew, so alot of people are guilty...even going back to the Clinton years thru Bush. I'd just hate to see her take the fall for everyone in the Bush admin.

Did I just stick up for a Requblican?


#8

I listened to her testimony this morning. She completely impressed me. She definitely has her act together.

Me Solomon Grundy


#9

Clinton was in office for 8 years and experienced many terrorist attacks, yet he did nothing.

Oh, I forgot, he hurt some camels and blew up an asprin factory when the whole Lewinsky thing was going on.

Then Bush was in office for a few months and it's his fault because he didn't make up for the 8 years that Clinton did jack shit?


#10

I think the important thing that both clark and rice agree on was that there really wasn't any purposed measures or even feasible measures that could have been taken on day 1 of the bush admin that would have stopped 911.

The only real possibility other than getting extremely lucky would have been for clinton to take out the network in it's infancy. At the time it would not have flown so it isn't even a real possibility.

It seems clear to me that America as a nation is not learning from history and therefore is doomed to repeat it. I won't go into great detail but there were many similarities in the culture of the Roman Empire before it fell and the US now.

Lets just say it's not looking good.


#11
         "Richard Clarke has testified under oath that there were 100 National Security Council meetings

before 9/11, but only one devoted to terrorism."

-->Rice testified that WH records indicate just 33 such meetings took place. I don't believe she mentioned how many were devoted to terrorism.

         "There is also some talk about how the Bush White House was negotiating with the Taliban even up to a few weeks before 9-11, for permission to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. When the Taliban was not cooperative, they were allegedly threatened with force by the White House. A few weeks later 9-11 occurred. Coincidence?"

-->Where has this "talk" taken place?

      "How much can you bench?"

-->290. You?

             "Rice is doing an excellent job. My only question is, is she a MILF?"

-->I don't know about the job she's doing, but she is a remarkable and impressive woman. MILF? a resounding no!

             "The White House knew"

-->As much as I dislike the Admin., I strongly dislike this position and think it is ridiculous for people to make this accusation. I think the better argument, as Clarke has stated, is that they did not fully understand the threat and did not take the appropriate measures before 9/11. This says nothing about whether or not it could have been prevented - again, as Clarke has said, there is really no way to know if it could have been.

                "I think the important thing that both clark and rice agree on was that there really wasn't any purposed measures or even feasible measures that could have been taken on day 1 of the bush admin that would have stopped 911."

-->I agree, and I think more people need to be aware of this and stop barking up that other tree.


#12

I was very impressed with her. And no, she is not a milf, maybe after some dental work she could achieve milf status.


#13

Yes Vegita I agree as one who is working to a masters in History and anthropology we do share some similar circumstances to the Romans, but our problems are even more complex due to our outside threats aren't a hoarde of club swinging barbarians, but organized groups who train and plan in secret with access to very destructive weapons. In Roman times 1 barbarian couldn't cause much damage, but in our modern times 1 terrorist could kill thousands as we have sadly seen.


#14

who is to blame? lets see, 8 years of clinton. 8 months of bush. do the math. if you really want to be honest then we must admit that all politicians are to some degree, imcompotent. this is why we must all be armed. i would never trust another person for my families well being. if you ask me, any adult who is not heavily armed and prepared to use them is an idiot. remember, guns dont kill people. people kill people. its our right as an american to be armed!


#15

If you want to see what Rice said, look here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/rice200404080930.asp

If you want to see what Clarke said, you have to control for time period, as he contradicted himself all over the place. I'll let Lumpy look them up on Google.

Here's a link to a post by Glenn Reynolds (law professor at University of Tennesee, Knoxville) on this, generally:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014957.php

It's interesting reading, but this bit certainly seems to undercut Richard Clarke's claims:

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration ? not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

When coupled with Sandy Berger's statement that "there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect," this would seem to undercut the claim that Clinton focused like a laser beam on terrorism while Bush was distracted with other pet projects. In fact, nobody was really paying enough attention, as Rice notes:

The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing.

Since then, America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day.

Of course many people -- including some of those faulting the Bush Administration here -- are still having trouble admitting that we're at war now, and acting accordingly.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at April 08, 2004 02:37 PM


#16

Hell, I'd do Rice.

mikeyali


#17

I just wanted to let everybody
know Clinton was responsible
for the fall of the Roman empire to.

Seriously, I don't blame Bush or
Clinton fully for 9/11 in that case
there is enough blame to go around.

My beef is how 9/11 was used as
a green light to go into Iraq, something
Bush and his team were going to do
all along!


#18

Elk, I agree emphatically.

"who is to blame? lets see, 8 years of clinton. 8 months of bush. do the math. if you really want to be honest then we must admit that all politicians are to some degree, imcompotent. this is why we must all be armed. i would never trust another person for my families well being. if you ask me, any adult who is not heavily armed and prepared to use them is an idiot. remember, guns dont kill people. people kill people. its our right as an american to be armed!"

-->Though I take issue with this entire post and disagree with the general thinking, I'll ignore much of its contents b/c of its irrelevance to the thread. The first thought (line 1) however, is ass-backward -- why not go back further, and blame the 12 years of Rep. Administrations too? For, these things DO build up over time. Let's just go back to bin Laden's birthday, and we can track the developments from there...


#19

worn out saying still ringing true:
hindsight is 20/20.

clarke had little to say until after that fact. he now sees things could have been done differently. well no shit, sherlock.

ppl think NOW, not THEN, that things should have been done differently. way to have forethought, jackasses. how come none of them had anything to say beforehand?

mistakes are always easy to find after the fact.


#20

You know who I blame for 9/11???

THE MOTHERFUCKING TERRORISTS...

It seems that the tone of this thread is all about where the finger should be pointed within the last two administrations. It is clear that both administrations were hip to the threat, but not fully aware of how severe the actions were going to be.

Once the threat was recognized, our stance as a country, although a little late and reactionary, has been nothing but a full out war against terror and that's better than the way things used to be. Heck, the way we fight war, the way we utilize our troops during deployments and operations, even the way we treat and evacuate wounded has changed drasticly in the last few years. The way we've been training, fighting, budgeting, and planning was based on the paradigms built during the cold war until just recently.

I feel we need to stop wasting gov't money on an internal witch hunt when the focus should be on flushing out and elimitating global terror. Point the weapons at the bad guys, don't point the finger at your ally who only wants what we want, a world free of terror...

B.