I thought Condi Rice's presentation last week went rather well.

She was able to clear up some of the mischaracterizations left by Clarke and I did not see her short on answers.

I was dismayed, however, by the partisan approach that some of the panel took to questions. I had thought that this was supposed to be a truth-seeking panel and not a witch hunt. :argue:

That woman is definitely a smart cookie, I'll give her that. She's also cool under fire, for the most part. I'll agree that there were some questioners that did seem to have agendas other than factfinding, but I also think she was being rather evasive at times. Arguing what actually constituted a threat and how it was used in context is simply an argument over semantics...

I wonder if they're going to be able to get that Aug 6th document declassified? Seems that would be the next logical step...

even when it is declassified, there will be arguments about what the memo actual says, if it is legitimate, and "what the definition of 'IS' is".

this whole subject has become so partisan that it makes me sick.

What's funny, is the same people being condemned as partisan (Kerrey for example) were rather strong-stanced in trying to get the truth from Clarke and Democrats. Kerrey believes both administrations were wrong, and could have and should have done more.

The irony of the situation is that before 9/11 occured, very little of substance COULD have been done. That goes for the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Clinton, for example, had announced that he wanted to invade Afghanistan BEFORE an attack like that of 9/11 had occured?

Hell, we can't prevent the NEXT attack. How could anyone possibly think that we could have prevented 9/11?

that is true...but if they knew who was behind the original bombing of the towers and that the same people were behind the U.S.S. Cole and the embassey bombings, I don't think that American would ahve been willing to go to war, but that they should have wanted something done. I am prior military and I know I did.

I just don't think that the American media or the Clinton's took it seriously.

Mm
News as of late is pointing to how they knew AQ were in the US, that AQ were "preparing" for a "hijacking", and so on and so forth.

But I don't have much faith in that info, since it came from "Democrat and Chronicle".

just because there was a possiblitity of a hijacking, doesn't mean anyone knew of the intent to fly the planes into buildings like some manned guided missle.

Just means that the possibility was there.

Well, here is the Aug 6 PDB that is supposed to be so damning. Judge for youself.
***********************

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.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company

I think more should have been done, and agree with Senator Bob Kerrey that both administrations should have 'shaken the trees'. 'Shaking the trees' DOES work, and helps to get past the flaws in our intelligence agencies. I'm also rather accepting of the possible recommendation the 9/11 commission might make, to form sort of an American 'MI5', to counter terrorism specifically.

The democrats have a secondary agenda to tear down Rice personally. She's a possible future candidate for president. The democrats would have fits if they had to run against a female black republican, so they want to take her down now while it's still safe.

How rather baseless of a statement for you to make, Synikul. I still fail to see where Kerrey or Ben-Veniste were any more critical of Rice than they were of anyone else. Was it the part where she was filibustering? (Yes, she was; when you're asked a yes or no question, you don't take 2 minutes).

Shaking the trees is a nice trite sound bite. But exactly what does it mean? What would you have done--precisely--that was not done?

The whole point of the "yes or no" question was to establish a false premise. That being the the administration had prior knowledge of an attack comming on 9/11.

I was particularay proud of the way Condi stood her ground and refused to allow that nonsense to get by her.

The 9/11 panal is supposed to be a truth seeking expedition, not a witch hunt.

"Shaking the trees" means to make it clear to officials on the top of the food chain in intelligence agencies (namely, CIA, FBI) to try to seek specific information - in this case, Al Qaeda. We now know that the FBI, at lower levels, had information on known Al Qaeda members INSIDE the US taking flight classes. If the leadership of the FBI had been tasked to find ANY information on Al Qaeda cells within the US, it is safe to assume that this information would have made its way up the ranks more quickly.

Further, I think there's a misconception as to Rice's job. Her job is NOT only to react to known threats. Her job is to be proactive to find unknown threats.

Question: Did the Democratic members of the commission treat Rice more aggressively than they did Clarke?

Their job is to find out the truth, regardless of partisan divide. The fact that Rice has said many misleading statements in the public - NOT under oath - might have led to several of the questions asked of her.

I always thought the job of the NSA and the FBI were to deal with any and every terrorist related activity aimed toward American targets.

Oh, I am sure that they were well aware that finding out what these groups were doing was a top priority. But the facts are that regardless of what we might THINK of the FBI, they do not know EVERYTHING.

It is comparitively easy to solve a crime after it has been committed, but it is almost impossible to solve a crime BEFORE it is committed.

Look at it this way: We KNOW that there will be murders in Detroit in 2004. Which do you think that it easiest--to solve a murder after it occures or to prevent a murder BEFORE it occures?

That is the problem with terrorism. There is usually no sign ahead of time that one can point to and say "there! if we don't arrest that man, he is going to do such and such."

Sure, after the fact, it all makes sense, but by that time, the crime has already been done. There are systemic changes that can be put into place that will help our odds a little, but no one thinks we will ever get to the place where we can prevent this type of thing from occuring.

Yes. Didn't you see the testimony?