Condi Rice testifies before 9-11 commission

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Bush outsmarted them by rolling right over.

It was clever, but I sincerely doubt it was Bush's who came up with it.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Oh -- and thank you for asking this question.

The WTC is mentionned in the first paragraph.

Bin Laden 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".

The report has either been prepared further to a specific request from a top executive (or even Condi Rice or the President), or spontaneously prepared by Clark. In both cases it shows that the admin was seriously concerned about Bin Laden, nobody believing that memos *for the President only* can be lightly issued. So I dont understand why the admin preferred to say that the President receives useless reports from unreliable executives.

As for historical, this adjective refer to events that are not only past but settled, which cannot be the case for three years old events relating to a terrorist threat.

[DAVOUT]

BBC : Key points of 9/11 testimony
...
Following 11 September 2001 attacks, none of Mr Bush's advisers counselled doing anything against Iraq, the focus was on Afghanistan.
...

Bob Woodward, in Bush at war, writes that on September 12, the National Security Council had two meetings. During the second one, D. Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq; he asked why the US would attack only Al-Qaida and not Iraq. And he made the assumption that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorists attacks to attack Saddam immediately.

If Woodward described faithfully the meeting, on this point at least Condi Rice lied to the Commission.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
BTW Chegitz, exactly what are you saying Dr. Rice lied about?

See DrosDar's post on the first page of this thread. Partially I am engaging in the same sort of behavior as those who similarly disparaged Dick Clarke. According to DrosDar's links, however, I am also correct.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Bob Woodward, in Bush at war, writes that on September 12, the National Security Council had two meetings. During the second one, D. Rumsfeld raised the question of Iraq; he asked why the US would attack only Al-Qaida and not Iraq. And he made the assumption that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorists attacks to attack Saddam immediately.

If Woodward described faithfully the meeting, on this point at least Condi Rice lied to the Commission.

How did Condi lie? She said that they discussed Iraq but decided to focus on Afghanistan. From Woodward's book, this is indeed what happened. Rumsfeld brought up Iraq, and it was discussed, but it was decided to focus on Afghanistan.

[Ramo]

On NPR, Clarke said that Condi basically agreed with him on the facts, but disagreed with him on interpretation (which once again demonstrates, BTW, that Clarke is a rabid partisan that can't be trusted ).

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by The diplomat


How did Condi lie? She said that they discussed Iraq but decided to focus on Afghanistan. From Woodward's book, this is indeed what happened. Rumsfeld brought up Iraq, and it was discussed, but it was decided to focus on Afghanistan.

Condi Rice said :

none of Mr Bush's advisers counselled doing anything against Iraq, the focus was on Afghanistan.

In this sentence, CR is not stating about the NSC conclusions, but about advisors counsels. D.Rumsfeld clearly, the day following 9/11, was focusing on Iraq as much, or even more on Iraq than on Afganistan.

As I dont believe that Rumsfeld opinion was ignored by Rice, particularly when expressed during an official meeting of the NSC, I am obliged to conclude that C.Rice lied.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Focusing on Iraq and advocating action against them are two different things.

The day after 9/11 things were very murky. The intel was coming in and the subject was still out there whether Iraq had any involvemnt.

No discrepany IMO.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Focusing on Iraq and advocating action against them are two different things.

You are mkising the point. She was asked a direct question. She gave an answer which was contrary to the facts as she knew them. Hence, she lied.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I don't see it that way. Raising the question is posing a set of actions that allows for a group consensus. How strongly did Rummy advise teh course of action? Was it a simple "What do you think?" or was it a "We should do this now while we have the chance!"

Two different framings of the subject. In the first I would say it is not an advocacy of action, hence not lie.

You know the definition of "is".

[GePap]

Set willy free!

re: aggie

[Dauphin]

If it was known that Rumsfeld did raise the issue of Iraq on 12/9, why was Rice's comment that no-one counselled on action on Iraq not questioned there and then at the Commission Inquiry?

[chequita guevara]

Ah, but Rummy did say we should go after Iraq.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You got your commie spy bug planted in the situation room again. How was the issue raised?

[chequita guevara]

You conservatives have such short memories.