did anyone see Rice's testimony? it is still going on but from what i saw she has made nothing short of mincemeat out of her critics.

and while we are on that subject, why exactly has the national organizatioon for women or the NAACP not said a word support for her (a powerful black woman), when i know the NAACP supported R Kelly (a rapper/rapist) without reservation.
------------------
DUU BistX0rz ein N00b!

[This message has been edited by avenger216 (edited April 08, 2004).]

Agreed. Her testimony has been flawless so far. She's a very intelligent and capable woman, and her critics are getting slammed for underestimating her. Her patience is commendable.

------------------
http://www.mentatmm.com (Status = Down :/)

The NAACP doesn't like Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas either. You would think that he would be a great role model, but like you said they choose rappers instead.

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." -Isaac Asimov

R. Kelly grosses a lot more than Rice or Thomas, and has a lot more media exposure. It's simply a matter of who gets your organization more exposure to the media.

------------------
"To believe in God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter."
"Egotist: a person more interested in himself than in me."
"And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

And who will donate the most money in return for receiving help.

------------------
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon...
DSettahr's Homepage | Cantina Cloud | Rally NY

but why would tehy pass up the oppurtunity to show rice and thomas off as role models.
"see what a man of color can do!"
"See what any little girl of color can accive!"
they are like posterchildren of equality and sucess!

------------------
DUU BistX0rz ein N00b!

They aren't "black" enough for the NAACP

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Maybe the NAACP is a little more Democrat-oriented? That's my impression, at least. Avenger may have a point also.

I'd say they go hand in hand

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Given the summary I've viewed, I'd hardly call it that, considering the anger expressed by many of the 9/11 victims' families who were present during the testimony, as well as critics who saw through her statements.

Saying that memo wasn't a warning? No words can express my distaste for their disregard for something titled "Bin Laden planning attacks in America" that was discussed by the administration in August 2001.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited April 08, 2004).]

The NAALCP will never support Clarance Thomas or Condoleeza Rice because they are both conservatives.

I didn't hear the testimony myself but from the news snippits I heard, she sounded like she knew her stuff and handled situation well.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

How specific could that memo have been? Knowing that someone is planning an attack doesn't exactly give you all then info you need to stop an attack from happening.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

That doesn't mean her testimony was sufficient. And it's not surprising, given how much time she had to prepare for her response to questions.



Given the title, a general security alert could have been announced, and that could have been enough to at least hinder their plan. Considering Bush's apathy regarding terrorism pre-9/11, however, I'm not surprised he didn't respond to the memo.


-Fox

Apparently, after the 9/11 attacks, Bush was quite capable of making sure Bin Laden couldn't launch any such attacks in the future...

...Also, if there had been a decent ammount of responsibility in the White House, they should have known that Bin Laden, who already was on the FBI's most wanted list, would be a top threat; after all, attacks from Al-Qaeda had already killed hundreds of people before 9/11.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

Hind site is always 20/20.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

You're dodging the fact that Bush did nothing to counter terrorism before the 9/11 attacks. Nothing.


-Fox

Wasn't the commision also told what questions they could and could not ask?

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

I wouldn't be surprised. While it's a bipartisan commission, there could be hidden strings.


-Fox

You're assuming Bush knew enough to actually do anything

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Let us not forget that the Sudanese government practially had Bin Laden on a silver platter waiting for us and yet the prior administration did nothing.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

Clinton seemed to know enough to authorize cruise missile strikes, as well as call for anti-terror legislation (which was rebuked by Congress).



Source?


-Fox

If you had actually watched her testimony, you would know that "general security alerts" were issued. The FAA even issued alerts to be on the lookout for hijackings. That's about as specific as you can get, given the information they had.



Again, you're wrong. You should have watched her testimony.

You should be blaming the people that committed the acts. Those in the positions of power did the best they knew to do, given the information they had. Some people just want scapegoats, and want to use this commission as a way to get their candidate elected. It's a big mess, and it probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. I doubt much good will come from it.

I've seen and read enough to draw my conclusions. There were times when people were applauding when she was asked to answer the question instead of evading it.



I do. I also blame the people who did nothing to stop it.


-Fox

because the naacp is a joke.

Right now, the 9/11 commission is a joke to me. The US has always wanted a scapegoat for disasters like this. Pearl Harbor anyone? This commission is Monday Morning Quarterbacking the whole thing. Obviously 9/11 looks like it could have prevented now. But it already occurred now didn't it? If this had happened during the Clinton administration, I'm sure the same thing would be going on. There is no silver bullet, no one scapegoat. Hundreds of people are at fault and one can understand so. With the amount of information the US receives which numbers in pieces in the thousands, perhaps millions, how can we always be sure what is the false or correct stuff? As for the August 6th memo, wow that reveals alot. Bin Laden planning to attack America? Now that is something I would never have believed before 9/11. What a frickin surprise. Of course we knew Bin Laden was planning to attack. He had only made his intentions clear for years. My point is there wasn't enough information about the specifics of 9/11 to do anything about it, and even if there was, how would it be discernable from other pieces of intelligence. What would make 9/11 evidence more credible than say bombings of U.S embassies elsewhere? It's easy to say now that memo was the smoking gun, but we have the advantage of hindsight. The Bush administration did not.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

[This message has been edited by Nubs (edited April 09, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Nubs (edited April 09, 2004).]

Please cite where I said Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks specifically. Just because he didn't have knowledge of a specific threat does not mean he should have sat on his hands until the planes hit.

Roosevelt was to receive the declaration of war by Japan the morning of the attack, but didn't receive it until the afternoon. Bin Laden declared his war years before Bush took office.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited April 09, 2004).]

One last thing before I go, seeing as how these threads get me upset. How do we know Bush didn't do anything? I mean seriously, how much does the average Joe know about the most covert operations the U.S government carries out? Most likely, absolutely nothing. All of these arguments are predicated on the assumption we all know what we are talking about. We don't, otherwise these debates wouldn't occur becuase one side was 100% right. You can't say Bush didn't do anything about terrorism. His associates have supposedly proved the contrary. Just because 9/11 happened, we cannot assume Bush did nothing. And we also just cannot completely believe Bush did everything in his power. Personally, I believe the answer lies in the middle somewhere.

------------------
"This thread is still alive? Someone should kill it."

[This message has been edited by Nubs (edited April 09, 2004).]

Actually, Bush's first national security directive dealt with Al-Queda *specifically*. Clinton's final national security report - it was something like 250 book pages long - mentioned Al-Queda no where.

I wish we would stop trying to blame the President(s) (Clinton AND Bush) for things that no one in this country saw coming. It was a different world and a different mindset, leaders thought differently then. Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't say "Well, because we now can see that THIS could have been done, it must be *insert choice president*'s fault!" WRONG. Clinton cannot be blamed, Bush cannot be blamed. Could things have been done, of course - but there just wasn't the intell that we needed.

Remember, the CIA and FBI have had a very hard time sharing information. Getting together enough resonable domestic intell to see exactly what was coming was a long shot.

But since Firefox brought it up, yes Clinton had enough knowledge to launch some missles at some tents, but he also took no action after the USS Cole bombing. Again - I'm not blaming Clinton for that - it was a different world with different methods. But there were several democrats - including Kerrey, on the 9-11 Commission - who called for us to direct our anger - NOT at Yemen, but at Iraq, and specifically mentioned "liberating the Iraqi people" and "bringing them freedom". Huh. Sounds pretty darn familiar.

But back to the 9-11 Commission. It's a joke, seriously. The Dems on the commission are gonna be out to make Bush look guilty, the Republicans out to cover for him. We're making a mistake of focusing on the past when we should be looking to the future to prevent another attack.

Oh - a spokesman for the Commission said that they are going to reevaluate Mr. Clarke's testimony because of "numerous discrepencies". Perhaps he'll be called out as the liar he is? We can only hope.

[This message has been edited by Charoziak (edited April 09, 2004).]

*sigh*

------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE PLEASE READ

Employees dying on the job are faling to fall down. THIS PRACTICE MUST STOP as it becmes impossible to distinguish between death and the natural movement of he staf.

Any employee found dead in an upright position will be dropped from the payroll.

Actually, they did raise the alert level, according to Rice. but it wasn't public.

This is a very general statement. The government doesn't let us know everything it does.

And that all did jack. Cruise missle strikes at a terrorist training camp did a grand total of 20 kills and the anti-terror legislation was so watered down by the time it was passed that it was unenforceable.

"Off With Their Heads" by Dick Morris is just one of several places you can find it. I thought it was common knowledge at this point.

*applauds*

Then what was Bush supposed to do? "Okay everyone, let's bring down all the planes and start checkpoints at all interstate borders. I've heard Bin Laden might be attacking America soon."

But no one thought they could hit the homeland.

*applauds again*

I watched the The Daily Show with John Stewart, and it looked to me like Rice didn't do too well. I don't know if it was done that way because it was more humorous, but it did show a few interesting things. "No Mr. Commissioner, the Clinton Administration did not leave a plan to deal with any terrorist threats. It was more of a list of actionable items."

------------------
Remember kiddies, you must to be completely devoid of any confidence whatsoever. Otherwise you're an egomaniac.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited April 09, 2004).]

I think the guys on Jim Lehrer's News Hour summed it up pretty well when they said for a 3 hour interview, anyone could control the flow of the interview. If they'd had 5 days like they had with some of the other interviewed people, they could rip her to shreds.

You could see it in the coverage too, at one point one of the commissioners asked a yes/no question and Rice started to warm up into a lengthy reply and the commissioner cut in and reminded her they only had limited time.

.. Do you have /any/ idea how many terrorist threats the US government gets a day?? A lot. From a lot of people. They have to sort out the real ones from the fake ones, and then the low risk ones, to the critical, emergency level ones. And then they have to go about trying to figure out "who's trying to do it, when, where, and how." Just because someone gets a memo that says "Bin Laden is planning an attack" doesn't mean they're going to drop everything. Maybe they were researching another possible, more plausible, attack at that moment.

And don't you /DARE/ ask me to cite my sources..

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

Pearl Harbor was perfectly preventable with the Japanese minisub that was destroyed and the radar picking up the first attack wave (planes) while they were some distance out to sea and the shut down of the Japanese embassy in Washington and such

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Good posts, Nubs.

"Now that's the levelest head I ever hoid."

it's laughable that people would think 9/11 could have been prevented. a memo a month before the attack? how many planes fly in the us daily in the northeast? and how long did it take for security measures to be implemented at airports around the us after the attacks? several months with people working around the clock and expenses in the billions of dollars.

do you honestly think citizens would approve such a drastic measure that would create such massive delays in airports over a vague memo? hell no. nobody would see the need as to why these measures would need to be implemented. to the american people, bin laden was just a name heard every so often. he just blew up buildings in foreign countries.

furthermore, who's to say that when clinton had a chance to kill bin laden, another wouldn't rise up and take over? in fact, wouldn't that have made matters worse? they'd try to avenge his death on top of carrying out the planned attacks.

the truth is, no one could have stopped those attacks, not clinton, gore, or bush. there wasn't enough public support to stop terrorism until after 9/11. we thought we were invulnerable. in fact, it took 9/11 to stop the partisan politics for a short time so that progress could be made.

all this crap that is being brought up is just to try and dirty the bush administration's image before the election. i honestly feel that using something as 9/11 as a stepping stone to the oval office is a sad thing. no one could have stopped it, so no one should use that to smear someone else.

9/11 wasn't pearl harbor. pearl harbor had a complete paper trail that would've given plenty of time for the us to defend against it, even intercept the japanese fleet before they were in striking range. 9/11 had vague memos.

i believe a certain presidential candidate tried to say bush didn't do enough to stop the attacks right after they happened, got slammed because of how little was known, and then was shown the next week talking about how much he supported the bush administration's war on terror, god bless america, blah blah blah... the fact is, 9/11 is the ace up kerry's sleve if he can cast enough doubt, even though he did nothing to stop it himself.

------------------
Current Maps | Inclusion | Restless Endeavor

There is a thin line between insanity and stupidity. I am that line.

Everything I've seen or read about Rice's testimony tells me that, while it's pretty much impossible for me to infer whether or not Bush did a lousy job, it's pretty obvious that she didn't do her's.

For all of the questions she was asked, she just handed the blame to the other people. Sure, the CIA and FBI don't communicate. But if she's the National Security advisor, isn't it up to her to compile the information and advise Bush to take the appropriate action?

Firefox, let me first state that you are obviously a very intelligent person. I also want to state that your arguments and statements are so intellectually dishonest I don't see how anyone can ever expect a fair debate with you. You ask for references to things that are common knowledge (with people who are knowledgable of the issue), criticize an administration for not taking action prior to 9/11, and then criticize them for taking action after 9/11, to name a few. There is so much wrong with what you write in your posts that I personally find it counter-productive to actually take you to task. By your definitions that probably means I've just conceeded and proves you right by default.

Now, I might be willing to take you abit more seriously from now on if you actually started posting some constructive criticism as well as exhibiting less partisan behavior.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

...man, if you could read what I just read...

------------------
Flibbledy-dibbledy! Nyaaaaaaaahhh!

-The Last True Evil

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Nubs, brother, you speak the truth (and ironically, he is my brother!)

------------------
Only To Keep The Public Happy