Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ThUnDeR

9/11 Commission Hearings

Recommended Posts

It all looks to me as if she is there under protest and is fulfilling an obligation that she'd rather not fill.

 

I would also point out that the questioners (Mr Kerrey in particular) should be asking questions, not making partisan political speeches. Too many opinions being given and asked for and not enough of an inquisition for my liking.

What particular statement did Kerry make that you are referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to know what the mistakes were, where they were made and by whom in order to not have them repeated.

I agree, but I dont think anyone is interested in finding facts, they are interested in hurling insults and spinning to the left as fast as they can.

 

and im sorry, but it #%^*! me off.

 

angela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all looks to me as if she is there under protest and is fulfilling an obligation that she'd rather not fill.

 

I would also point out that the questioners (Mr Kerrey in particular) should be asking questions, not making partisan political speeches.  Too many opinions being given and asked for and not enough of an inquisition for my liking.

What particular statement did Kerry make that you are referring to?
Just about everything that came out of his mouth :lol:

 

Surely I am not the only one that viewed his 10 minutes of fame being used to attack Dr Rice and the Republican gov't instead of questioning her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you mention peoples rights and "climbing walls" :lol:

Bruce, what does one have to do with the other? or was it just an easy way to take a good swing at me?

 

standing in line at the airport for two hours and the RIGHT BY LAW to tell a Judge how your life has changed since your wife, husband, child, etc was murdered and taken from you is the same thing?

 

angela 0

bruce 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i understood correctly, it was anticipated that Rice was going to refute what Clarke had testified to pretty much point by point....given that i was somewhat surprised to read this

 

In her prepared testimony, Rice neither criticized Clarke nor offered a point by point rebuttal of his appearance.

 

She said she made the unusual decision to retain him when the new administration came into office, saying, he was an "expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager."

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040408/.../D81QMKLG1.html

 

am i to now understand that Clarke has been asked, or will be, to come on board after the upcoming inaugurals? of so, i'm a might confused given this administrations position that Clarke lied through his teeth about what transpired....does this mean that Clarke's credibility has been bolstered?

 

as a side note, i'd like this thread to remain open and toward that end it might be be wise to remember that the folks posting in this thread are simply people with their own opinions and ideas who, with or without a degree, ought to be afforded respect. simply because someone is finding fault with Rice's testimy does not make them a whining liberal. there are plenty of conservatives, and even ultra-conservatives, who are having a difficult time with all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all looks to me as if she is there under protest and is fulfilling an obligation that she'd rather not fill.

 

I would also point out that the questioners (Mr Kerrey in particular) should be asking questions, not making partisan political speeches.  Too many opinions being given and asked for and not enough of an inquisition for my liking.

What particular statement did Kerry make that you are referring to?
Just about everything that came out of his mouth :lol:

 

Surely I am not the only one that viewed his 10 minutes of fame being used to attack Dr Rice and the Republican gov't instead of questioning her?

Well if you call an attack on Rice as bringing up very very crucial memos by Clark, the FBI, and the CIA discussing insider Al Qaeda operatives that are possibly in the country and at airline training schools, then by all means I do not think that it was an attack on HER. Her staff and the ability to do something? Yeah of course, what do you think this hearing is about? :lol:

 

I wonder if there will be some sort of text given out showing the exact questions from each member of congress and the answer that Dr. Rice provided them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply because someone is finding fault with Rice's testimy does not make them a whining liberal.  there are plenty of conservatives, and even ultra-conservatives, who are having a difficult time with all of this.

I want this as well (thread to stay open), and I could not agree more (we owe some level of respect to everyone here)... to that degree, lets show members of our government the respect they deserve. and this ultra conservative stands behind her government, and behind Dr Rice.

 

If you see it or not, Im trying my behind off to be good here, it is not easy.

 

angela

Edited by Angela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about the families rights to know what the hell went on Angela. I have no need to "swing" at anyone.

 

I suggest you take a chill pill, get a grip on yourself, and offer some "constructive" criticism.

 

It was 5 women from New Jersey who lost family members that demanded the hearings, it was those 5 women from New Jersey who demanded to know what happened, it was those same 5 women from New Jersey who staged the walk out on the hearings when Rice refused to testify, and Bush sent a flunky in her place who couldn't answer any questions.

 

This isn't about Rices race, her sex, or her intelligence, it is about finding out what happened, why it happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future. Most of all it is not about "you" or your self imporatnt idea that I post in this thread to take swings at you.

 

This is about the families of people who are no longer with their wives, husbands, mothers, fathers and children, and their right to know why their loved ones are dead. It is about the "victims" of a horrible crime who want to know why their families have been torn apart. Not allot unlike your victims rights thread. That is why I made reference to it. No other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you see it or not, Im trying my behind off to be good here, it is not easy.

 

Take a large cross headed screwdriver, jam it in yer tummy button and crank it clockwise a couple of turns.

I do believe yer butt is becoming a little loose :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Bruce :tup:

Edited by GBPackersFan2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

respect is earned and not a given. I don't care what her title is, what her education is, what race she is or what gender she is, she has shown she gets very flustered under pressure and had conflicting accounts on several issues. I want to review what all was said because there were people in the office talking and I didn't get everything word for word. However when I do express my viewpoint on how I saw things to occur... I would hope not to be flamed or told I am a liberal or any other label because my opinion of the proceedings or the person in question isn't in agreement of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope not to be flamed or told I am a liberal or any other label because my opinion of the proceedings or the person in question isn't in agreement of others.

I have deleted the offensive posts and I would hope that same courtsey is extended to me, and others, in the future.

 

my apologies tracy and others, continue on with no fear of comment from me other than that which is subdued.

 

happy angela understands your view point and realizes her mistakes.

 

angela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Psst, Angela, you have mail. ;)

 

Edit: Carry on folks. Sorry for the slight interruption.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, its old, I knew something was odd when they were interviewing Albright.....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar23.html

 

if you still want to look

 

Ok here we go

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116563,00.html

 

I'm not "dissing" fox news, but I dont care much for it. They do have the transcript though, so there we go

Edited by GBPackersFan2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to blame Clinton on dropping the ball? If I remember right, the USS Cole incident happened during the Bush administration. Thats when the memos and the evidence that Al Qaeda was now aiming inside the US came to the Security Advisor's attention.

The attack on the Cole was on October 12, 2000. Bill Clinton was in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he was. It was then that he and Newt Gingrich (non partison effort) worked together to put together a plan to attempt to combat such attacks. They did just that, and turned that plan over in January. That plan was handed over to the incoming administration. According to Ms. Rices testimony today the Bush administration decided not to act on it because it was an event in the past. Simply put they obviously didn't think it was important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cole was during the last 2 months of the Clinton administration. I think the testimony is/was that they had no good suspects until January when Al quid was thought to be behind it.

 

As for her taking the 5th amendment she, Dr. Rice, certainly could have done that but it would have ended Bush's election hopes immediately. After all she can only assert a constitutional privilege under the 5th amendment if she acknowledges that her response could incriminate her. The president could have continued to assert executive privilege and if he had withstood the political heat it is unclear that his assertion would have withstood court challenge. After all this is an executive commission not a congressional/legislative committee. How can the President successfully assert a commission he formed cannot be privy to executive branch information based upon a separation of powers arguments.

 

I am surprised by her evasiveness and self serving responses. If this were a quasi judicial hearing I would hope that she would be admonished for being non responsive. Having said that I heard no bomb shells or smoking guns. I don't think the Bush administration was on top of terrorism and in hindsight he should have been but at the time they had other issues on their mind. I think that it is unfortunate that the President decided to stop "swatting at flies" hoping to somehow wait until he could keep flies from being around. It seems to me that if they had kept swatting at flies they may have killed some annoying even deadly flies while waiting to do the impossible of destroying fly production/existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh dangit, I forgot about the inauguration thing :bang:

 

Yes he was. It was then that he and Newt Gingrich (non partison effort) worked together to put together a plan to attempt to combat such attacks. They did just that, and turned that plan over in January. That plan was handed over to the incoming administration. According to Ms. Rices testimony today the Bush administration decided not to act on it because it was an event in the past. Simply put they obviously didn't think it was important.

Yes, it did sound like it. It came up when Kerrey was questioning Rice, but Rice basically said they didn't react period. I don't see how a known enemy taking down one of your military ships becomes an event that requires no action. That right there is almost an entire basis for war!

 

I am surprised by her evasiveness and self serving responses. If this were a quasi judicial hearing I would hope that she would be admonished for being non responsive. Having said that I heard no bomb shells or smoking guns. I don't think the Bush administration was on top of terrorism and in hindsight he should have been but at the time they had other issues on their mind. I think that it is unfortunate that the President decided to stop "swatting at flies" hoping to somehow wait until he could keep flies from being around. It seems to me that if they had kept swatting at flies they may have killed some annoying even deadly flies while waiting to do the impossible of destroying fly production/existence.

Thats what I meant earlier when I had posted this

 

Now, what if we had done this in July/August. Don't you think we may have filtered out some of the terrorists? If we get even a few out of the plan, it goes out of whack. Bam, everything is prevented. See?

If they would have got on the ball and get moving, they might have taken out a few terrorists at a time before Sept 11th, enough so that maybe the entire plot could have been foiled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting statement of all was

7 months was not enough time to make the changes that were suggested we need to make.

Next breath

After 9/11 we made the suggested changes "immediately"

Fielding was probing Dr. Rice to look at coordination problems and legal roadblocks that prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing intelligence prior to 9/11, and to try to answer the question "through a pre-9/11 lens". This is why she makes "the most interesting statement of all" that more exactly is:

 

But structural reform is hard, and in seven months we didn't have time to make the changes that were necessary. We made them almost immediately after September 11th.

Prior to 9/11 and with the vague information that she was given about terrorist operations, in her opinion the reform would have taken a longer time to implement, because what exactly needed to be done was also vague. After the attacks it became apparent what needed to be done and action could be taken to directly counterattack what had happened.

 

The only thing you contributed in that post was that you thought that it was "the most interesting statement of all" without giving anyone who didn't have the opportunity to watch the hearings a contradictory sounding statement that was simply paraphrased out of context.

 

If you thought that it was that interesting, maybe you should reread the entire transcript and maybe put a little more thought into what you post instead of taking a comment that sounds like an easy target and trying to make yourself sound superior to someone who has a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a PHD.

 

Here's a question that might be more interesting. If you had the information that Dr. Rice had, what would you have done in her situation that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks? Do you actually think that the administration in charge knew what was about to happen, and simply ignored it without having a care in the world about the lives of thousands of Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to sound superior LOL.

 

In fact what I said is about identicle to your exact quote of what she said. I was typing in the middle of the hearing along with others who were watching the hearing. I would love to see the entire transcript, and I am sure it will be available later today.

 

No I don't believe that the attacks could have definately been thwarted. Is that an excuse for not trying? Maybe one or two less planes would have been highjacked, maybe if the terrorists thought they were under surveilance they would not have attacked at all. Who knows, there are a thousand different scenarios. After all they knew at least two of them were here, they knew there were terrorists taking flying lessons in the country, they knew there were threats against the nations capital, they knew Bin Laden was behind the threats, the list is long... they say there was not enough time in 7 months to put in place a p[lan of action, yet they managed to put the very plan submitted by Clarke into action immedaiatly after the attacks.

 

But the excuse that we couldn't have known, is no excuse for basically ignoring theproblems, using the excuse we didn't want to swat flies, while doing nothing at all is inexcusable. The attitude of it's all or nothing is rediculas, especially when there is no way to implement an all or nothing plan unless there is an attack on the country.

 

The question simply is what were they doing if anything other then thinking about it? Pondering questions is great, thinking of a new way to do things is even better. But abandoning the problem during the interim until something new can be done is not responsible behaviour.

 

There were allot of mistakes made in the past 10 years concerning terrorism(both administrations), but until people are willing to admit the mistakes, we are destined to make them over and over.

 

Could it have been prevented? I guess we will never know because no one ever even tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the political mud slinging going on she did real well.

 

This commision ain't going to produce anything contructive anyway.

 

Just more goobldegook for the press and the professional flamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had I had the information she had and had I taken it seriously I would have done what she said. 'We should have started reinforcing cockpit doors 3 months before but we didn't suspect a hi-jacking' this was in response to a warning in August I think. So if you can't reinforce the doors three months before why not start in August. Would they have stopped any hi-jackings. I don't know. Maybe if they had started to reinforce cockpit doors in August the Hi Jackers would have thought their plan was known and they would have delayed it allowing them to be caught. We can play maybe all day and all night but the 1 thing we do know is that taking their time and doing nothing because they don't want to swat flies, or they have bigger fish to fry, or it is too hard to institute reform seems to suggest that this was not a very big concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in response to james.halsey

 

The comment was an easy target, you obviously realized that yourself. The possibility of terrorist activity in the US wasn't a priority to the administration until after the devastating day when they knew their priorities would be questioned. Hence, immediate changes followed the 9/11 attacks in an easy-to-see attempt to cover themselves.

Edited by Henry8866

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...