Condi Rice testimony transcript here...
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
It turned out the UN Inspections were right and our "Intelligence" was wrong. I've had my critisums of the UN, some unfounded and misdirected but some fair. Part of our problem seems to be our arrogance at anything not American generated or controlled. The UN is only as strong as the major nations that participate. When I read the posts of Clinton/Bush quotes on WMD which relied on US Intelligence then I would have to fire everyone in the Intelligence community and start again. No private business would tolerate that kind of incompetence. I've been listening to some analysis of our Intelligence gathering techniques and almost all was done from foreign embassies and consulates. Little or none was with local agents of each country. When you add this kind of intelligence with a president that came into power with little historical or educational background and a personal agenda to revenge his "daddy", and then you also add that to his advisors being Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, it doen't make for an intelligent outcome. Here is a quote from Richard Clarke's book(time, about 1-2 days after 911):
"I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead , I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tradegy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002."
"I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead , I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tradegy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002."
Your hero Clarke has completely discredited himself.
Yea we have heard enough about him. Hopefully he'll fade into the sunset
I guess the answer is to disarm and let the U.N. protect us.
Needtoknow, all your comments about the UN prove is that a blind pig finds an acorn in the forest once in a while. The UN is a failed organization which should be thrown into the dustbinof historyu at the earliest opportunity.
you can make snide comments about Bush and his "Daddy" as well as his advisors, but we have a serious bunch of people who wish to try and drain the swamp and give the people of the middle east a better future. Enjoy the srticle below on the "feckless" Clinton and His advisors.
Gorelick Memo Exposes 'Feckless' Clinton Policy
www.insightmag.com/news/2...8995.shtml
Posted April 13, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
In a dramatic moment of his testimony before the 9/11 commission this afternoon, Attorney General John Ashcroft released a previously classified memo from 1995 that instructed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys around the country to ensure they had "walled off" overseas intelligence information from domestic crime-fighters. The separation between overseas intelligence gathering and domestic criminal prosecution has been widely criticized by both Democrats and Republicans on the committee for having helped make the 9/11 attacks possible.
"[T]he simple fact of Sept. 11 is this," Ashcroft testified: "We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on Sept. 11 was destined to fail."
Ashcroft went on to explain the "wall" that had been erected between criminal investigators and intelligence agents was "the single greatest structural cause for Sept. 11 [successes by al-Qaeda]." He said, "Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before Sept. 11, government was blinded by this wall."
Ashcroft then described the 1995 memo that initially established the wall, which later impeded the investigations of the 9/11 hijackers and their accomplices. When frustrated field agents complained to headquarters about it in August 2001, Justice replied: "'These are the rules.' ... But somebody did make these rules," Ashcroft said. "Someone built this wall."
Then the attorney general dropped his bombshell: "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
The 1995 memo by then Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick - now a member of the 9/11 commission - explains that the new rules dictated by the Clinton administration to separate criminal investigations from intelligence gathering "go beyond what is legally required." The Gorelick rules were meant to ensure that "no 'proactive' investigative efforts or technical coverages" of terrorist suspects be carried out on U.S. soil.
The result of the 1995 Gorelick rules, Ashcroft said, were devastating, and hampered the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to communicate the identify of two of the 9/11 hijackers to law-enforcement agencies, even after they had entered the United States. That failure specifically contributed to 9/11.
you can make snide comments about Bush and his "Daddy" as well as his advisors, but we have a serious bunch of people who wish to try and drain the swamp and give the people of the middle east a better future. Enjoy the srticle below on the "feckless" Clinton and His advisors.
Gorelick Memo Exposes 'Feckless' Clinton Policy
www.insightmag.com/news/2...8995.shtml
Posted April 13, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
In a dramatic moment of his testimony before the 9/11 commission this afternoon, Attorney General John Ashcroft released a previously classified memo from 1995 that instructed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys around the country to ensure they had "walled off" overseas intelligence information from domestic crime-fighters. The separation between overseas intelligence gathering and domestic criminal prosecution has been widely criticized by both Democrats and Republicans on the committee for having helped make the 9/11 attacks possible.
"[T]he simple fact of Sept. 11 is this," Ashcroft testified: "We did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on Sept. 11 was destined to fail."
Ashcroft went on to explain the "wall" that had been erected between criminal investigators and intelligence agents was "the single greatest structural cause for Sept. 11 [successes by al-Qaeda]." He said, "Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before Sept. 11, government was blinded by this wall."
Ashcroft then described the 1995 memo that initially established the wall, which later impeded the investigations of the 9/11 hijackers and their accomplices. When frustrated field agents complained to headquarters about it in August 2001, Justice replied: "'These are the rules.' ... But somebody did make these rules," Ashcroft said. "Someone built this wall."
Then the attorney general dropped his bombshell: "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
The 1995 memo by then Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick - now a member of the 9/11 commission - explains that the new rules dictated by the Clinton administration to separate criminal investigations from intelligence gathering "go beyond what is legally required." The Gorelick rules were meant to ensure that "no 'proactive' investigative efforts or technical coverages" of terrorist suspects be carried out on U.S. soil.
The result of the 1995 Gorelick rules, Ashcroft said, were devastating, and hampered the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to communicate the identify of two of the 9/11 hijackers to law-enforcement agencies, even after they had entered the United States. That failure specifically contributed to 9/11.
I am sure there is going to be a bunch of ranting and raving about Ashcroft targeting guns and drugs instead of terrorism. His poor priorities let 3000 people die in one day. How could he?
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm
In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit use of drugs (17,000).
Add to this, there were no airliners hijacked in the United States in 30 years. Still as anybody traveling before 911 knows, we were tightening up air travel security. We quickly tightened things up enough that there were no copycat hijackings after 911.
Yes, it was obvious something was going to happen. What?
Of all the goverment agencies, I think the CDC is one of the more reliable.
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm
In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia, 75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit use of drugs (17,000).
Add to this, there were no airliners hijacked in the United States in 30 years. Still as anybody traveling before 911 knows, we were tightening up air travel security. We quickly tightened things up enough that there were no copycat hijackings after 911.
Yes, it was obvious something was going to happen. What?
Of all the goverment agencies, I think the CDC is one of the more reliable.
So Keith and Labman, does this mean you are now supporting the 911 commission? I'll wait a little longer for reaction to Ashcroft's testimony. I listened to his presentation where he laid all the blame on Clinton and the Democrats. It's fair comment and should be examined but the commissoners were not to impressed with his salvo. They commented that the problems Ashcroft sighted go back 25 years not 10.
The UN provides peacekeepers not attack and destroy soldiers. So far I have not seen any peace in Iraq. From what I've seen UN forces are usually put into impossible situations with fuzzy orders. What we need to do now in Iraq is get NATO involved. If we don't get control of this soon nobody will want to come in and help. We do need help though, it would better protect our soldiers there and the rest of the population. This admin made sure help was going to be difficult if not impossible to get. So what do you think Bush's exit strategy is? And what do you think he will leave behind?
I support the intent of the commission - a fact finding commission. That pretty much fell apart with Richard Clark's book tour appearance, and the partisan cross examination of Condi Rice where the "questions" were 5 minute campaign ads and Condi was supposed to give "yes sir" answers. Now it is a "grandstanding for TV" event rather than a serious commission. I didn't bother to watch Ashcroft's testimony. Would like to have seen Bill Clinton's private testimony made public, but apparently that is of no interest to the media?
Perhaps the final report, written away from the TV cameras, will be able to bypass all the partisan BS. Not holding my breath on that.
Keith.
I still see the commission as a resource wasting witch hunt. As Keith points out, it is being abused for partisan reasons. And yes some of the problems do go back to Reagan's time. The Democrats did everything they could to hobble him by restricting our intelligence agencies.
Keith,
The 911 commission seemed pretty much ignored until Clarke made his public appearance. The reason I think it got Repubs so incensed is that here was a guy with no political ax to grind and despite all the accusations was telling the truth. I have started to read his book, no left/right slant, but balanced writing. Good historical facts over 4 presidents which tell how we got here(911). Has good things to say about Reagan. Hardly a left/lib. The 911 commission will do a fair job of being non-partisan. They have heard a lot of testimony not heard in public and have reviewed a lot of documents despite the fact that the Bush Admin has kept a lot secret.
Here's some stuff on Ashcroft's testimony.
Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004 NY Times
WASHINGTON, April 13 ? On Tuesday, witnesses and commissioners pondered the role of "the wall" in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick.
The court also said that it was "quite puzzling that the Justice Department, at some point during the 1980's, began to read the statute as" requiring a separation of the two fields of counterintelligence and criminal search warrants.
In her questioning of Mr. Ashcroft, Ms. Gorelick did not refer to the issue of her 1995 memorandum. But Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995 guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."
end quote
And this,
The Failed F.B.I.
New York Times Op/Ed
Published: April 14, 2004
The 9/11 investigation commission has provided a chilling, and sadly believable, account of two presidents' failures to come to grips with the catastrophic intelligence problems that preceded the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The Clinton and Bush administrations failed in different ways, but they shared one central flaw: an inability to manage the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The myriad endemic shortcomings of the agency are at the center of what went wrong with American intelligence. The critical challenge for the commission, and the Bush administration, is to figure out what to do about it.
Under Bill Clinton, the F.B.I. became politically untouchable, and the president was eventually so weakened by scandal that he was incapable of even directing the F.B.I. director, Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh was hostile to the president, but he appeared to be equally hostile to efficient computerization ? a vital step to update an agency in which none of the parts appeared to communicate with one another.
After President Bush came into office, the commission staff found, Attorney General John Ashcroft lowered the priority of the entire counterterrorism issue in his strategic planning. Mr. Ashcroft, who came before the panel defensive and ready for a fight, did not concede the slightest failing on the part of the Bush administration. But the acting F.B.I. director in 2001, Thomas Pickard, testified that he had never seen the famous presidential briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, which talked about a domestic threat from Al Qaeda and dozens of F.B.I. investigations of potential domestic terrorists that were reported to be under way. Communication on the subject seemed nonexistent. In that summer of sky-high terrorist threats, the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not even consult the F.B.I. to determine whether Osama bin Laden wanted to attack the United States.
The attorney general argued that a "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering had kept officials at the F.B.I. from communicating with one another, and with the C.I.A., and had led to both agencies' missing the 9/11 plot. Mr. Ashcroft was eager to blame the previous administration for those failures, and he offered up a newly declassified 1995 Justice Department memo that he said made the wall even larger and more impenetrable. After months in which the administration has refused to make other documents and testimony available, Mr. Ashcroft's eagerness to put this one bit of classified material on the record seemed more than a little self-serving ? especially since Mr. Ashcroft affirmed that policy in August 2001.
Mr. Ashcroft was also intent on claiming credit for moving the policy on Osama bin Laden to "kill" instead of "capture," until some of the commissioners suggested that papers held by the White House until just recently contradicted that account.
The "wall," which reaches back to concerns over domestic spying in the Nixon administration, had indeed become a problem before 9/11, in part because F.B.I. agents were eager to use it as an excuse not to pursue cases. It was certainly not the culprit when the F.B.I.'s own offices failed to share information about terrorism suspects going to flight schools. Information about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minneapolis never made it up the F.B.I.'s degraded reporting chain to Washington ? although somehow the head of the C.I.A. knew about it.
Something must be done about the F.B.I. The chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas Kean, has already suggested that the government take away its responsibility for counterterrorism investigations. The F.B.I. has been politically out of control, poorly organized and ineffective for a long time, and some critics may ask whether, with all the mounting evidence of its incapacity, it should be allowed to continue in its present form at all.
The ragged history of the Department of Homeland Security is a clear caution about moving huge chunks of the government from the supervision of one set of bureaucrats to another. Reform certainly needs to proceed cautiously, but it's distressing to realize that two and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, no real work has been done on getting to the core of the agency's problems. The most that President Bush could say about it at his press conference last night was that he was "open for suggestions."
[ April 14, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
The 911 commission seemed pretty much ignored until Clarke made his public appearance. The reason I think it got Repubs so incensed is that here was a guy with no political ax to grind and despite all the accusations was telling the truth. I have started to read his book, no left/right slant, but balanced writing. Good historical facts over 4 presidents which tell how we got here(911). Has good things to say about Reagan. Hardly a left/lib. The 911 commission will do a fair job of being non-partisan. They have heard a lot of testimony not heard in public and have reviewed a lot of documents despite the fact that the Bush Admin has kept a lot secret.
Here's some stuff on Ashcroft's testimony.
Rule Created Legal 'Wall' to Sharing Information
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: April 14, 2004 NY Times
WASHINGTON, April 13 ? On Tuesday, witnesses and commissioners pondered the role of "the wall" in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The appeals court that demolished the wall said, however, that it had been erected earlier and was only codified by Ms. Gorelick.
The court also said that it was "quite puzzling that the Justice Department, at some point during the 1980's, began to read the statute as" requiring a separation of the two fields of counterintelligence and criminal search warrants.
In her questioning of Mr. Ashcroft, Ms. Gorelick did not refer to the issue of her 1995 memorandum. But Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, challenged Mr. Ashcroft, noting that the deputy attorney general under Mr. Ashcroft renewed the 1995 guidelines. Mr. Gorton said the Bush Justice Department ratified those guidelines, saying in its own secret memorandum on Aug. 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."
end quote
And this,
The Failed F.B.I.
New York Times Op/Ed
Published: April 14, 2004
The 9/11 investigation commission has provided a chilling, and sadly believable, account of two presidents' failures to come to grips with the catastrophic intelligence problems that preceded the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The Clinton and Bush administrations failed in different ways, but they shared one central flaw: an inability to manage the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The myriad endemic shortcomings of the agency are at the center of what went wrong with American intelligence. The critical challenge for the commission, and the Bush administration, is to figure out what to do about it.
Under Bill Clinton, the F.B.I. became politically untouchable, and the president was eventually so weakened by scandal that he was incapable of even directing the F.B.I. director, Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh was hostile to the president, but he appeared to be equally hostile to efficient computerization ? a vital step to update an agency in which none of the parts appeared to communicate with one another.
After President Bush came into office, the commission staff found, Attorney General John Ashcroft lowered the priority of the entire counterterrorism issue in his strategic planning. Mr. Ashcroft, who came before the panel defensive and ready for a fight, did not concede the slightest failing on the part of the Bush administration. But the acting F.B.I. director in 2001, Thomas Pickard, testified that he had never seen the famous presidential briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, which talked about a domestic threat from Al Qaeda and dozens of F.B.I. investigations of potential domestic terrorists that were reported to be under way. Communication on the subject seemed nonexistent. In that summer of sky-high terrorist threats, the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did not even consult the F.B.I. to determine whether Osama bin Laden wanted to attack the United States.
The attorney general argued that a "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering had kept officials at the F.B.I. from communicating with one another, and with the C.I.A., and had led to both agencies' missing the 9/11 plot. Mr. Ashcroft was eager to blame the previous administration for those failures, and he offered up a newly declassified 1995 Justice Department memo that he said made the wall even larger and more impenetrable. After months in which the administration has refused to make other documents and testimony available, Mr. Ashcroft's eagerness to put this one bit of classified material on the record seemed more than a little self-serving ? especially since Mr. Ashcroft affirmed that policy in August 2001.
Mr. Ashcroft was also intent on claiming credit for moving the policy on Osama bin Laden to "kill" instead of "capture," until some of the commissioners suggested that papers held by the White House until just recently contradicted that account.
The "wall," which reaches back to concerns over domestic spying in the Nixon administration, had indeed become a problem before 9/11, in part because F.B.I. agents were eager to use it as an excuse not to pursue cases. It was certainly not the culprit when the F.B.I.'s own offices failed to share information about terrorism suspects going to flight schools. Information about the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in Minneapolis never made it up the F.B.I.'s degraded reporting chain to Washington ? although somehow the head of the C.I.A. knew about it.
Something must be done about the F.B.I. The chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas Kean, has already suggested that the government take away its responsibility for counterterrorism investigations. The F.B.I. has been politically out of control, poorly organized and ineffective for a long time, and some critics may ask whether, with all the mounting evidence of its incapacity, it should be allowed to continue in its present form at all.
The ragged history of the Department of Homeland Security is a clear caution about moving huge chunks of the government from the supervision of one set of bureaucrats to another. Reform certainly needs to proceed cautiously, but it's distressing to realize that two and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, no real work has been done on getting to the core of the agency's problems. The most that President Bush could say about it at his press conference last night was that he was "open for suggestions."
[ April 14, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
Oh please.
MolaKule
Staff member
Political Commentary:
9/11 Commission's Credibility at Stake with Recent Actions
By Bobby Eberle
April 12, 2004
On September 11, 2001, America was shaken out of its peaceful slumber. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 were all warnings, and to be sure, the intelligence community took the information and began to piece together the puzzle of Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, the events of 9/11 showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that America was not prepared for the terrorism that befell it. What went wrong? How can future attacks be prevented? These are the two burning questions that the congressional 9/11 Commission is tasked with answering. The commission's charge is important, to say the least, and their findings could be a most useful tool in better preparing America to fight the war on terror. However, recent actions by commission members are painting a partisan picture that could discredit the findings of the commission in the eyes of the intelligence community, and, more importantly, the American public.
Despite initial protests by the White House, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor to President George W. Bush, testified publicly and under oath recently before the 9/11 Commission. This testimony came despite Dr. Rice previously providing commission members with over 4 hours of private testimony. Why was Dr. Rice asked to testify publicly when she already provided information to the commission? Was it because commissioners wanted to dig deeper into the first eight months of the Bush administration to see if real mistakes were made? Or, perhaps it was simply an opportunity to make a partisan attack against Bush via one of his most trusted and able advisors?
During her public testimony, Dr. Rice was asked by Democrat commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste about the title of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) dated August 6, 2001. The PDB is a classified document prepared for the president of the United States which focuses on important intelligence issues of the day.
"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?" Ben-Veniste questioned. "And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?"
Rice responded by saying, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"
With that reply, Rice answered Ben-Veniste's second question, but when she attempted to answer the first question, she was repeatedly cut off by the Democrat commissioner. Perhaps, as it so obviously appeared, Ben-Veniste was more interested in the shock value of the brief's title than the actual contents. Rice explained that the brief was "not a warning" of a specific impending attack, but rather a "historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew."
"But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C.," Rice said. "There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me."
Despite implications by Ben-Veniste that the PDB contained the "smoking gun" that Bush knew of specific impending attacks and did not act to prevent them, the White House declassified the PDB and released it to the public, showing, as Dr. Rice asserted, that the administration was indeed aware of bin Laden's desires but did not have information of specific attacks. The PDB also shows that, at the time, the FBI was "conducting approximately 70 full field investigations through-out the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."
In addition to Ben-Veniste, former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey is also showing his partisan stripes. In an April 11 editorial in the New York Times, Kerrey writes that President Bush's vision for the war on terror is "wrong."
Kerrey says that America should swallow its pride and "appeal to the United Nations for help in Iraq." Last time I checked, the United States has reached out repeatedly to the U.N. for assistance in Iraq, and it's been the U.N. who has run for cover at the first signs of trouble. Kerrey also criticized the Bush administration for not having the "urgent follow-up" on intelligence matters in the summer of 2001.
"I have not found evidence that federal agencies were directed clearly, forcefully and unambiguously to tell the president everything they were doing to eliminate Qaeda cells in the United States," Kerrey writes in his New York Times op-ed.
Aren't comments like this precisely what the commission is tasked to discover, evaluate, and document in their final report which is due in July? If so, then why is a sitting commissioner engaging in public criticism of President Bush while the commission is still at work? These types of activities are most inappropriate and taint the work of the commission with partisan poison.
Discovering and correcting the intelligence failures that led to the attacks of September 11, 2001 is something that is vitally important to me and all Americans. As someone who saw al Qaeda's work first hand when Flight 77 exploded in front of my eyes into the Pentagon, I was hoping that the 9/11 Commission could put partisan differences aside and come up with analysis and recommendations that could help prevent future attacks. If the actions of the commissioners degenerate into blatantly partisan attacks for cheap political gain, then not only are the recommendations called into question, but America will not be as safe as it could be.
The future safety of the American people should be of paramount importance to the members of the 9/11 Commission. It's time to put partisanship aside and focus on what matters.
---
Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
9/11 Commission's Credibility at Stake with Recent Actions
By Bobby Eberle
April 12, 2004
On September 11, 2001, America was shaken out of its peaceful slumber. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, the embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 were all warnings, and to be sure, the intelligence community took the information and began to piece together the puzzle of Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, the events of 9/11 showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that America was not prepared for the terrorism that befell it. What went wrong? How can future attacks be prevented? These are the two burning questions that the congressional 9/11 Commission is tasked with answering. The commission's charge is important, to say the least, and their findings could be a most useful tool in better preparing America to fight the war on terror. However, recent actions by commission members are painting a partisan picture that could discredit the findings of the commission in the eyes of the intelligence community, and, more importantly, the American public.
Despite initial protests by the White House, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor to President George W. Bush, testified publicly and under oath recently before the 9/11 Commission. This testimony came despite Dr. Rice previously providing commission members with over 4 hours of private testimony. Why was Dr. Rice asked to testify publicly when she already provided information to the commission? Was it because commissioners wanted to dig deeper into the first eight months of the Bush administration to see if real mistakes were made? Or, perhaps it was simply an opportunity to make a partisan attack against Bush via one of his most trusted and able advisors?
During her public testimony, Dr. Rice was asked by Democrat commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste about the title of a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) dated August 6, 2001. The PDB is a classified document prepared for the president of the United States which focuses on important intelligence issues of the day.
"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country?" Ben-Veniste questioned. "And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?"
Rice responded by saying, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"
With that reply, Rice answered Ben-Veniste's second question, but when she attempted to answer the first question, she was repeatedly cut off by the Democrat commissioner. Perhaps, as it so obviously appeared, Ben-Veniste was more interested in the shock value of the brief's title than the actual contents. Rice explained that the brief was "not a warning" of a specific impending attack, but rather a "historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew."
"But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C.," Rice said. "There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me."
Despite implications by Ben-Veniste that the PDB contained the "smoking gun" that Bush knew of specific impending attacks and did not act to prevent them, the White House declassified the PDB and released it to the public, showing, as Dr. Rice asserted, that the administration was indeed aware of bin Laden's desires but did not have information of specific attacks. The PDB also shows that, at the time, the FBI was "conducting approximately 70 full field investigations through-out the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."
In addition to Ben-Veniste, former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey is also showing his partisan stripes. In an April 11 editorial in the New York Times, Kerrey writes that President Bush's vision for the war on terror is "wrong."
Kerrey says that America should swallow its pride and "appeal to the United Nations for help in Iraq." Last time I checked, the United States has reached out repeatedly to the U.N. for assistance in Iraq, and it's been the U.N. who has run for cover at the first signs of trouble. Kerrey also criticized the Bush administration for not having the "urgent follow-up" on intelligence matters in the summer of 2001.
"I have not found evidence that federal agencies were directed clearly, forcefully and unambiguously to tell the president everything they were doing to eliminate Qaeda cells in the United States," Kerrey writes in his New York Times op-ed.
Aren't comments like this precisely what the commission is tasked to discover, evaluate, and document in their final report which is due in July? If so, then why is a sitting commissioner engaging in public criticism of President Bush while the commission is still at work? These types of activities are most inappropriate and taint the work of the commission with partisan poison.
Discovering and correcting the intelligence failures that led to the attacks of September 11, 2001 is something that is vitally important to me and all Americans. As someone who saw al Qaeda's work first hand when Flight 77 exploded in front of my eyes into the Pentagon, I was hoping that the 9/11 Commission could put partisan differences aside and come up with analysis and recommendations that could help prevent future attacks. If the actions of the commissioners degenerate into blatantly partisan attacks for cheap political gain, then not only are the recommendations called into question, but America will not be as safe as it could be.
The future safety of the American people should be of paramount importance to the members of the 9/11 Commission. It's time to put partisanship aside and focus on what matters.
---
Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
MoleKule,
Does GOPUSA have a balanced viewpoint? The name would suggest it's not BALANCEDUSA concerned. The commission has both Repubs and Demos and a large staff, let's see what the final report says. Don't forget the Bush Admin. fought the creation of this commission from the beginning and has done nothing but stonewall and restrict access. Now they want to appear to support it after the public gets to see and hear testimony and 7of10 believe the Admin is either lieing of hiding about 911. As for the PBD it was at first "classified" for national security reasons, then selected contents were "decalssified", then the title was "declassified" then the whole thing was declassified. After all that it turns out none of it contained much national security info, but it did contain political security info. Who's playing partisan politics the most?
Does GOPUSA have a balanced viewpoint? The name would suggest it's not BALANCEDUSA concerned. The commission has both Repubs and Demos and a large staff, let's see what the final report says. Don't forget the Bush Admin. fought the creation of this commission from the beginning and has done nothing but stonewall and restrict access. Now they want to appear to support it after the public gets to see and hear testimony and 7of10 believe the Admin is either lieing of hiding about 911. As for the PBD it was at first "classified" for national security reasons, then selected contents were "decalssified", then the title was "declassified" then the whole thing was declassified. After all that it turns out none of it contained much national security info, but it did contain political security info. Who's playing partisan politics the most?
MolaKule
Staff member
9/11 Commissioner Pressured to Resign Over Conflict of Interest
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
April 15, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) called on 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick to resign Wednesday over what he says is a conflict of interest he revealed during Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the panel. Ashcroft pointed to a 1995 memo written by the former deputy attorney general that heightened the 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information.
In a press release, Sensenbrenner said, "Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in question."
He cited the commission's own guidelines on recusals that states, "commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service."
Sensenbrenner said, "Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that '[goes] beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the commission."
In his testimony, Attorney General Ashcroft called Gorelick's DOJ policy "the single greatest structural cause for September 11" and said that the policy "embraced flawed legal reasoning."
Sensenbrenner believes that Gorelick is in the "unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue."
He added, "The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives."
Ashcroft told the commission in his opening statement that in 1995, the Justice Department imposed a series of draconian restrictions on the FBI. He said the wall created was a barrier between law enforcement and the intelligence community.
"In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail," Ashcroft said.
The Attorney General testified that that wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zaccarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. He pointed out that after the FBI arrested Moussaoui shortly before 9/11, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.
He also said that when the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. It was al-Midhar and al-Hamzi that were among the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
Ashcroft quoted a chillingly prescient FBI investigator who wrote headquarters about his frustration over the incident.
The memo said, "Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' Let's hope the national security law unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us, UBL, is getting the most protection."
He also noted the FBI headquarters response, which was, "We are all frustrated with this issue. ... These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up."
Ashcroft said, "But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall."
He then read from the memo that he declassified only days earlier and said, "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
He was speaking about Gorelick, who was clearly stung by the revelation. Her subsequent questioning of Ashcroft was not as contentious as some had expected, based on the harsh partisan treatment of other members of the Bush administration.
Gorelick appeared on CNN Wednesday and told Wolf Blitzer that the alleged conflict of interest was "a bogus factual issue."
She pointed out that neither chairmen Thomas Kean nor Lee Hamilton thought she should resign. The former deputy attorney general did confirm that she was the author of the memo, but said that it was "a creature of statute that existed from the mid 1980s."
Gorelick continued to maintain that no conflict of interest existed.
She said, "We're just going to move on from this. ... I'm not going to give any credit to this. ... I'm not going to talk about this, it's not worth it."
Blitzer did not ask her why she did not disclose the memo to the commission during the months prior to Ashcroft's testimony.
Sensenbrenner said, "While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a commissioner."
He indicated that Gorelick's work as the deputy attorney general under Janet Reno could be quite valuable to the commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' He said, "However, that contribution should come as a witness before the commission - not as a member."
The House Judiciary chairman said, "Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice have all testified before the commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the commission."
He added, "Testifying before the commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
April 15, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) called on 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick to resign Wednesday over what he says is a conflict of interest he revealed during Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the panel. Ashcroft pointed to a 1995 memo written by the former deputy attorney general that heightened the 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information.
In a press release, Sensenbrenner said, "Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in question."
He cited the commission's own guidelines on recusals that states, "commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service."
Sensenbrenner said, "Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that '[goes] beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the commission."
In his testimony, Attorney General Ashcroft called Gorelick's DOJ policy "the single greatest structural cause for September 11" and said that the policy "embraced flawed legal reasoning."
Sensenbrenner believes that Gorelick is in the "unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue."
He added, "The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives."
Ashcroft told the commission in his opening statement that in 1995, the Justice Department imposed a series of draconian restrictions on the FBI. He said the wall created was a barrier between law enforcement and the intelligence community.
"In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail," Ashcroft said.
The Attorney General testified that that wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zaccarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. He pointed out that after the FBI arrested Moussaoui shortly before 9/11, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.
He also said that when the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. It was al-Midhar and al-Hamzi that were among the hijackers of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
Ashcroft quoted a chillingly prescient FBI investigator who wrote headquarters about his frustration over the incident.
The memo said, "Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.' Let's hope the national security law unit will stand behind their decision then, especially since the biggest threat to us, UBL, is getting the most protection."
He also noted the FBI headquarters response, which was, "We are all frustrated with this issue. ... These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up."
Ashcroft said, "But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall."
He then read from the memo that he declassified only days earlier and said, "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
He was speaking about Gorelick, who was clearly stung by the revelation. Her subsequent questioning of Ashcroft was not as contentious as some had expected, based on the harsh partisan treatment of other members of the Bush administration.
Gorelick appeared on CNN Wednesday and told Wolf Blitzer that the alleged conflict of interest was "a bogus factual issue."
She pointed out that neither chairmen Thomas Kean nor Lee Hamilton thought she should resign. The former deputy attorney general did confirm that she was the author of the memo, but said that it was "a creature of statute that existed from the mid 1980s."
Gorelick continued to maintain that no conflict of interest existed.
She said, "We're just going to move on from this. ... I'm not going to give any credit to this. ... I'm not going to talk about this, it's not worth it."
Blitzer did not ask her why she did not disclose the memo to the commission during the months prior to Ashcroft's testimony.
Sensenbrenner said, "While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a commissioner."
He indicated that Gorelick's work as the deputy attorney general under Janet Reno could be quite valuable to the commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' He said, "However, that contribution should come as a witness before the commission - not as a member."
The House Judiciary chairman said, "Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice have all testified before the commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the commission."
He added, "Testifying before the commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
Copyright © 2004 Talon News -- All rights reserved.
In the meantime this is interesting, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117125,00.html
Fox News is as reliable or more so than a bunch of other stuff posted here.
Fox News is as reliable or more so than a bunch of other stuff posted here.
As I said.
- Status