| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2006 05:28:49 PM |
| Object: |
Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 02 October 2006
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have committed perjury in
her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a
minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and
omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent
bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony
omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in
the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror
attack two full months before 9/11.
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
"Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts," read the Post
story, "and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda
communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive
intelligence brief contained an article headlined 'Bin Laden Threats
Are Real.' Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting
would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two
main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to
attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself ...
Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be
addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment -
covert, military, whatever - to thwart bin Laden."
The meeting, according to Tenet and Black, went nowhere. "Tenet
and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite,
but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want
to swat at flies," the Post story reported. "Rice seemed focused on
other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile
defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different
place."
"Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated," continued the Post
story. "Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate
action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep
planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had
been in hibernation too long. Afterward, Tenet looked back on the
meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or
disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Black later said, 'The only thing we
didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her
head.'"
The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor's Note: "How
much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin
Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week
after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush's
'neocons' and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the
attacks. Rice responded in an interview that 'what we did in the
eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton
administration did in the preceding years.'"
This comment suggests the entire Post story was inspired by
former President Clinton's remarkable denunciation of the Bush
administration's efforts to thwart bin Laden in a recent Fox News
interview. The seriousness of this meeting, however, goes far beyond
political sniping and gamesmanship.
Peter Rundlet served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and has
accused the White House of hiding the meeting between Tenet, Black
and Rice from the commission. Rundlet practiced at the influential
law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and was formerly
associate counsel to the president and a White House Fellow, serving
in the Office of Chief of Staff to the President, before joining the
commission.
Writing for the online news magazine Think Progress, Rundlet
stated, "Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about
this revelation, questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked,
had the commission been told about this significant meeting.
Suspiciously, the commissioners and the staff investigating the
administration's actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the
meeting. As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick pointed out, 'We didn't know
about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our
report if we had known to ask about it.'"
This is a remarkable revelation in and of itself. The head of CIA
and the head of CIA's counterterrorism branch delivered a warning in
the strongest possible terms to Ms. Rice two months before the
attack, yet this meeting was not revealed to the 9/11 Commission. It
may well have remained a historical non-event had Woodward not
written about it.
Which brings us to Ms. Rice's sworn testimony in May 2004 before
the commission.
At one point in this hearing, Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton
directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading
up to 9/11: "At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to
protect our people. And you suggest in your statement - and I want
you to elaborate on this, if you want to - that in hindsight it would
have been - better information about the threats would have been the
single - the single most important thing for us to have done, from
your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better
intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right?
Are there other things that you think stand out?"
Rice responded, "Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on
the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most
government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might
imagine, I've asked myself a thousand times what more we could have
done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in
Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try
and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might
have prevented that attack."
Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to
her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she
nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further,
she claims that "no single thing could have prevented that attack."
"The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went
unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept.
11 attacks," read the Post report on Sunday, "but it stood out in the
minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the
White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda."
Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing
delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to
attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between
Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have
and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11
attacks. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter
may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet
another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.
"A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me," wrote Peter
Rundlet in his Think Progress article, "when I read about revelations
in Bob Woodward's new book about a special surprise visit that George
Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice,
also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the
administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two
officials in the best position to know."
Indeed.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206X.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
03 Oct 2006 10:35:01 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein. It's
very easy *after* the fact to say we should have done this or shouldn't
have done that. We don't know exactly how "urgent" the warnings were,
exactly what actions were advocated, and whether they would have made
any difference.
I think if the administration acted on every urgent warning they got,
we'd see a lot more military activity and covert nastiness than we do
see. I'd prefer to see a more civil country myself.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
04 Oct 2006 10:10:56 AM |
|
|
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1159932901.286915.84370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein.
One important difference here, and it only takes one to excuse one from
hypocracy, is that there was no evidence that Saddam was planning anything
against the United States. The Bin Laden warnings concerned action on U.S.
soil.
It's
very easy *after* the fact to say we should have done this or shouldn't
have done that. We don't know exactly how "urgent" the warnings were,
exactly what actions were advocated, and whether they would have made
any difference.
I think if the administration acted on every urgent warning they got,
we'd see a lot more military activity and covert nastiness than we do
see. I'd prefer to see a more civil country myself.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
04 Oct 2006 01:29:44 PM |
|
|
Bert Bishop wrote:
One important difference here, and it only takes one to excuse one from
hypocracy, is that there was no evidence that Saddam was planning anything
against the United States. The Bin Laden warnings concerned action on U.S.
soil.
The real question here is primarily whether or not Rice lied about the
meeting. I find it extremely plausible that, at the time, there was
nothing about the meeting that would have stood out in her memory.
I just don't see why this is an issue. Nobody foresaw the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 who didn't also forsee at least a dozen similar threats
that turned out not to be real.
I see no credible evidence that this warning was so different in
character from the many others that were rightfully ignored (and many
that were wrongfully heeded) that you can criticize Rice for not having
acted on it.
And, of course, if it was a run-of-the-mill warning, why should she
have remembered it?
As for the specifics about the Bin Laden warnings concerning action on
U.S. soil, I don't find the isolationist thinking behind it to be
reasonable in the world we live in today. We have to take threats
against others as seriously as we take threats against ourselves. If we
don't, we will ultimately face much stronger versions of the enemies we
face today.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
04 Oct 2006 06:50:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1159932901.286915.84370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein. It's
very easy *after* the fact to say we should have done this or shouldn't
have done that. We don't know exactly how "urgent" the warnings were,
exactly what actions were advocated, and whether they would have made
any difference.
well, the administration has clearly lied about so many things, it's
difficult to know for sure.
of course the article you are commenting on focuses primarily on
rice's perjury, not on whether she should have acted, which is a
different issue, although equally clear.
I think if the administration acted on every urgent warning they got,
we'd see a lot more military activity and covert nastiness than we do
see. I'd prefer to see a more civil country myself.
yet you seem to endorse the administration acting on lies they made
up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
03 Oct 2006 11:06:38 PM |
|
|
JoelKatz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein.
The warnings about Iraq that were, in fact, all lies?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
04 Oct 2006 05:06:59 PM |
|
|
On 04 Oct 2006 04:06:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein.
The warnings about Iraq that were, in fact, all lies?
--
Just proves Republicans, who are to a large degree are Christians
prefer lies to the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
04 Oct 2006 03:08:15 PM |
|
|
In article <j1c8i2pm9kqu9505rrssk8em27o2t8ge27@4ax.com>,
Robert <robpar@netportusa.com> wrote:
On 04 Oct 2006 04:06:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein.
The warnings about Iraq that were, in fact, all lies?
Just proves Republicans, who are to a large degree are Christians
prefer lies to the truth.
it would appear that their religious training compells those lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies |
03 Oct 2006 11:56:01 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
JoelKatz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
Sunday's edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled
"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice." The story
described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA
counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice's attention to the
looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet
and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This
meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, "State of
Denial."
Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that the same people who criticize
the administration for ignoring warnings about Bin Laden also criticize
the administration for acting on warnings about Saddam Hussein.
The warnings about Iraq that were, in fact, all lies?
Exactly. Easy to say that after the fact. It's too bad the
administration *didn't* ignore the urgent warnings they were getting
about Iraq. Those turned out to be lies.
Note that I'm not saying that the administration is not to some extent
responsible for that poor intelligence. However, Rice may well have
feared that the intelligence on Bin Laden was equally poor. (Although
it's also possible she was just sloppy. It's hard to tell because she
is denying recalling the meeting. It's possible the warnings were so
weak she forgot them. But it's also possible she's lying.)
If you act on every warning, you don't just get Iraq, you get massive
military involvement and covert nastiness for every possible threat.
You may still get 9/11's, maybe even more of them, as many people will
be justifiably displeased with all that involvement and nastiness. I
don't think we want to be that kind of country.
It's very easy after the fact to complain that the wrong balance was
struck -- you know what the balance should be. I will bet you dollars
to donuts that had George Bush ordered a covert assassination of Bin
Laden, and that gotten out before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there
would have been a huge outcry. If other terrorists had responded with
an attack such as we saw on 9/11, Bush would have been blamed for it by
killing Bin Laden.
To some extent, Bush is being criticized for not being omniscent. I
think it's very important to sort the legitimate criticism from the
suspect criticism, because the legitimate criticism is *very*
important. It must not get lost in the noise. For example, the damage
the administration is doing to important civil liberties is
unforgivable.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
