Rice: Trojan horse - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 04-08-2004, 08:34 AM

Now as some of you don't know, Rice already gave 15 hours of testimony to the 9/11 commission before today in private.

There was little new that could be added.

So why did Bush cave and let her testify? Why give what looks like a democrat victory?

Well lets look at what she got today. Every TV station has her on it, every newspaper is on it, every news internet site has her testimony.

I think it was the plan, perhaps all along. Bush wanted her testimony public, and what better a way to have it public. If she really had something to hide, she would not be testifying today. Now she looks like a unwilling witness, and is there only because of political pressure, and based on what I’ve read so far she is making the democrats trying to ‘get her’ look really bad.

She was a Trojan horse.

Now both Clinton and Gore said they were going to testify publicly but quickly changed that to private. How is that going to look?

Superbelt · 04-08-2004, 08:43 AM

Hmm, I watched it and enjoyed greatly seeing her get constantly berrated.

She did everything but read directly from the phone book. Every question she gave long non-answers to run down the clock.

Several times different commissioners told her that their time is short and they don't appreciate her wasting it.

Her prior meeting with commissioners didn't count as it wasn't official testimony and the WH demanded that the whole commission not meet with her. The WH demanded that only 3 be allowed in, (still 2 more forced their way into the meeting)

Overall not a good showing for her. In fact she came off as stonewalling. And the family of 9/11 victims in the background appear to agree as they applauded every time the Commissioners had to verbally force her back on track.

Lebell · 04-08-2004, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Hmm, I watched it and enjoyed greatly seeing her get constantly berrated.

Superbelt · 04-08-2004, 08:55 AM

I'll admit to it. I don't like her and from everything I have digested so far it seems that there were major failures on the part of the admin and at every turn where we try to learn the truth the Admin stonewalls us. I want to see her get nailed

Superbelt · 04-08-2004, 08:56 AM

I'll also admit my perception of her testimony is colored by that.

Ustwo · 04-08-2004, 08:58 AM

Amazing how two people can see/hear/read the same thing and have two completely different views.

Quote:

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al-Qaida involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct?

You knew that in 1999, late '99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al-Qaida attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.

As of the August 6th briefing, you learned that al-Qaida members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.

And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheik warning of hijackings to free the blind sheik indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6th consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn't that so?

RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not _ you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations _ not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al-Qaida cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

(APPLAUSE)

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB _ exceptional access. But let me address your question.

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al-Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do _ speculative, much of it _ in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

RICE: It had a number of discussions of _ it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States _ Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing ...

RICE: Now, we had already taken ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

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. 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.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

The bold part is my favorite.

Now for Bob Kerry

Quote:

KERREY: Well, I think it's an unfortunate figure of speech because I think, especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of October, 2000, it would not have been swatting a fly. It would not have been _ we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan.

Dick Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations. He turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration _ military plans in the Clinton administration.

In fact, since we're in the mood to declassify stuff, there was _ he included in his January 25th memo two appendices _ Appendix A:

Strategy for the elimination of the jihadist threat of Al Qaida, Appendix B: Political military plan for Al Qaida.

So I just _ why didn't we respond to the Cole?

RICE: Well, we...

KERREY: Why didn't we swat that fly?

RICE: I believe that there's a question of whether or not you respond in a tactical sense or whether you respond in a strategic sense; whether or not you decide that you're going to respond to every attack with minimal use of military force and go after every _ on a kind of tit-for-tat basis.

By the way, in that memo, Dick Clarke talks about not doing this tit-for-tat, doing this on the time of our choosing.

RICE: I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.

That's a strategic view...

(APPLAUSE)

And we took a strategic view. We didn't take a tactical view. I mean, it was really _ quite frankly, I was blown away when I read the speech, because it's a brilliant speech. It talks about really...

(LAUGHTER)

... an asymmetric...

KERREY: I presume you read it in the last few days?

RICE: Oh no, I read it quite a bit before that. It's an asymmetric approach.

Now, you can decide that every time Al Qaida...

KERREY: So you're saying that you didn't have a military response against the Cole because of my speech?

RICE: I'm saying, I'm saying...

(LAUGHTER)

RICE: No.

KERREY: That had I not given that speech you would have attacked them?

RICE: No, I'm just saying that I think it was a brilliant way to think about it.

That is just classic.

Rice for Pres 2008.

Superbelt · 04-08-2004, 09:11 AM

Yes, it is amazing. Where you see good answers I see stalling and clock running.

Ustwo · 04-08-2004, 09:17 AM

I saw democrats trying to make political statements and grandstand, and a woman who wouldn't let them do it.

Is this about the truth or politics? If they didn't want her to speak then they shouldn't have had her come back.

smooth · 04-08-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Is this about the truth or politics?

Come on, ustwo, you know better than that. How do you disentangle the two? It's not as though it's about one and not the other.

seretogis · 04-08-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I saw democrats trying to make political statements and grandstand, and a woman who wouldn't let them do it.

Is this about the truth or politics? If they didn't want her to speak then they shouldn't have had her come back.

Absolutely -- this is what I saw from it as well.

GWB was stupid to let her testify, he knew that this was all about politics and nothing to do with finding the truth. His administration clearly isn't very smart politically -- they give up to Democrats on so many issues (prescription drugs, the farm bill, education bill) expecting some sort of reciprocation from them. Instead, he merely leads himself into a trap time and time again.

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Come on, ustwo, you know better than that. How do you disentangle the two? It's not as though it's about one and not the other.

The 15 hours of private testimony was about the truth. The cry for public testimony was purely political. The idea that truth is entangled with politics seems backwards to me. Politics is entangled with outright lies, to obscure the truth.

onetime2 · 04-08-2004, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
-- they give up to Democrats on so many issues (prescription drugs, the farm bill, education bill) expecting some sort of reciprocation from them. Instead, he merely leads himself into a trap time and time again.

There are significant political reasons for both. Bush promised to be a uniter and the examples you gave are prime areas where the Dems and Republicans could have worked together. The Dems can not afford to let him succeed at this for fear of him winning reelection.

Ustwo · 04-08-2004, 09:53 AM

I've already seen the liberal spin on Rice, but I don't think it was stupid to let her talk, in fact I think it was brilliant.

She nailed them.

Superbelt · 04-08-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

The 15 hours of private testimony was about the truth. The cry for public testimony was purely political.

It's not testimony if it is not official (no fear of perjury) and if the Administration will not allow the whole body of the commission to attend her questioning.

mml · 04-08-2004, 03:24 PM

Don't any of you look at this stuff without using your party glasses? Dr. Rice needed to go before the public, because we deserve to know what happened. Do we get all the salient details? - NO. Dr. Rice is an impressivly bright individual with a great deal of political accumen and she handled herself like a pro. The Bush administration was not pulling some great P.R. coup, they have a philisophical opposition to the 9-11 Commission and its purpose, but in the end, it is an election year and they need to carefully choose their battles.

Is this commission political - YES. Will the final report be political- I don't think so. Did Dr. Rice get tougher questions from the Dems - Yes, and her answers took a great deal of time, thus she was cut off frequently(and often rudely) by Dems. Reps asked much more general questions and her answers were much more brief, so they got to ask more questions. I think that this was good for America. We saw that this administration has some very competent people and that they may have made some mistakes. We also learned that 9-11 stemmed from a long history of failures dating back several decades and numerous administrations.

Ben-Veniste is an old, and experienced trial lawyer, and he was just doing what trial lawyers do. Kerrey was doing what, if you look at all of the interviews, he always does. He aggressively asks tough questions. When you hear commissioners talk, they have only positive comments about each other. I have the feeling that they came to the decision that they would leave it to those of the opposition party to ask the tough questions, depending on who was testifying.

ubertuber · 04-08-2004, 03:51 PM

I was struck while watching, and again reading the excerpt of the transcript that ustwo posted, by the sense that the commission (particularlyBen-Veniste) was not asking questions to get information - they were asking questions to make points. Those are two completely different approaches, and I was impressed by Rice sticking up for responding with information. As for the commission's approach, I wsa under the impression that this was supposed to be an inquiry, not a trial...

tecoyah · 04-08-2004, 04:17 PM

You are ALL correct.

onetime2 · 04-09-2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
You are ALL correct.

LOL, pretty much true.

losthellhound · 04-10-2004, 10:42 AM

The Republicans tried to nail Clark, the Democrats do the same for Rice.. I don't think anyone here hld the illusion that there was anything else but grandstanding coming from this commitee so we all got what we were shopping for...

damianjames · 04-11-2004, 02:21 PM

I always liked what my Contemporary World Problems teacher in high school told me:

"In politics, there is no truth, only opinion."

I for one was happy she was able to speak publicly and put some people in their place. I really don't think the whole 'truth' will ever be known though.

Edit - by whole truth being known I refer to people like you and me.

Dostoevsky · 04-15-2004, 08:34 PM

I think Rice was great. She may have been the most intelligent person in that room. I hope she run's on the ballot in 2008.

04-08-2004, 08:34 AM	#1 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Rice: Trojan horse Now as some of you don't know, Rice already gave 15 hours of testimony to the 9/11 commission before today in private. There was little new that could be added. So why did Bush cave and let her testify? Why give what looks like a democrat victory? Well lets look at what she got today. Every TV station has her on it, every newspaper is on it, every news internet site has her testimony. I think it was the plan, perhaps all along. Bush wanted her testimony public, and what better a way to have it public. If she really had something to hide, she would not be testifying today. Now she looks like a unwilling witness, and is there only because of political pressure, and based on what I’ve read so far she is making the democrats trying to ‘get her’ look really bad. She was a Trojan horse. Now both Clinton and Gore said they were going to testify publicly but quickly changed that to private. How is that going to look? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-08-2004, 09:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I saw democrats trying to make political statements and grandstand, and a woman who wouldn't let them do it. Is this about the truth or politics? If they didn't want her to speak then they shouldn't have had her come back. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-08-2004, 09:53 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I've already seen the liberal spin on Rice, but I don't think it was stupid to let her talk, in fact I think it was brilliant. She nailed them. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-08-2004, 03:24 PM	#14 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	Don't any of you look at this stuff without using your party glasses? Dr. Rice needed to go before the public, because we deserve to know what happened. Do we get all the salient details? - NO. Dr. Rice is an impressivly bright individual with a great deal of political accumen and she handled herself like a pro. The Bush administration was not pulling some great P.R. coup, they have a philisophical opposition to the 9-11 Commission and its purpose, but in the end, it is an election year and they need to carefully choose their battles. Is this commission political - YES. Will the final report be political- I don't think so. Did Dr. Rice get tougher questions from the Dems - Yes, and her answers took a great deal of time, thus she was cut off frequently(and often rudely) by Dems. Reps asked much more general questions and her answers were much more brief, so they got to ask more questions. I think that this was good for America. We saw that this administration has some very competent people and that they may have made some mistakes. We also learned that 9-11 stemmed from a long history of failures dating back several decades and numerous administrations. Ben-Veniste is an old, and experienced trial lawyer, and he was just doing what trial lawyers do. Kerrey was doing what, if you look at all of the interviews, he always does. He aggressively asks tough questions. When you hear commissioners talk, they have only positive comments about each other. I have the feeling that they came to the decision that they would leave it to those of the opposition party to ask the tough questions, depending on who was testifying. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

04-08-2004, 03:51 PM	#15 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I was struck while watching, and again reading the excerpt of the transcript that ustwo posted, by the sense that the commission (particularlyBen-Veniste) was not asking questions to get information - they were asking questions to make points. Those are two completely different approaches, and I was impressed by Rice sticking up for responding with information. As for the commission's approach, I wsa under the impression that this was supposed to be an inquiry, not a trial... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-08-2004, 08:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Hmm, I watched it and enjoyed greatly seeing her get constantly berrated. She did everything but read directly from the phone book. Every question she gave long non-answers to run down the clock. Several times different commissioners told her that their time is short and they don't appreciate her wasting it. Her prior meeting with commissioners didn't count as it wasn't official testimony and the WH demanded that the whole commission not meet with her. The WH demanded that only 3 be allowed in, (still 2 more forced their way into the meeting) Overall not a good showing for her. In fact she came off as stonewalling. And the family of 9/11 victims in the background appear to agree as they applauded every time the Commissioners had to verbally force her back on track.

04-08-2004, 08:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'll admit to it. I don't like her and from everything I have digested so far it seems that there were major failures on the part of the admin and at every turn where we try to learn the truth the Admin stonewalls us. I want to see her get nailed

04-08-2004, 08:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'll also admit my perception of her testimony is colored by that.

04-08-2004, 09:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes, it is amazing. Where you see good answers I see stalling and clock running.

04-08-2004, 04:17 PM	#16 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	You are ALL correct. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

04-10-2004, 10:42 AM	#18 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	The Republicans tried to nail Clark, the Democrats do the same for Rice.. I don't think anyone here hld the illusion that there was anything else but grandstanding coming from this commitee so we all got what we were shopping for... __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

04-11-2004, 02:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
damianjames Insane Location: Vancouver. No, the OTHER Vancouver	I always liked what my Contemporary World Problems teacher in high school told me: "In politics, there is no truth, only opinion." I for one was happy she was able to speak publicly and put some people in their place. I really don't think the whole 'truth' will ever be known though. Edit - by whole truth being known I refer to people like you and me. __________________ Visualize Whirled Peas.

04-15-2004, 08:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	I think Rice was great. She may have been the most intelligent person in that room. I hope she run's on the ballot in 2008. __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged