Rice will not testify before 9/11 panel

[Doomstone]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0322clark22.html



WASHINGTON - Starting Tuesday, the most important Sept. 11 Commission hearings yet will scrutinize counterterror efforts of two presidential administrations, but a star witness will not be there.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice refuses to testify under oath, insisting that presidential advisers need not answer to legislative bodies.



What is she so afraid of?

<center><img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/slogans.gif"></center>

[A.J.]

What is she so afraid of?

Iraqi WMD.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[HBox]

Iraqi WMD.

Don't forget the Boogeyman.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Tall_James]

And some of those congressman have been sending her naughty emails.


<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/tj2_sig.gif>


Frank Burns eats worms

[DarkHippie]

And some of those congressman have been sending her naughty emails
She is kinda hot. Wouldn't mind havin a steamin bowl of Rice.

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~jamesgpatton/eo.jpg>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discretion, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[smiler grogan]

I've heard other people say she's hot but I don't see it.
p.s. she should testify.

[high fly]

She should testify.
I want to hear her say whether or not she passed along specific warnings of an Al Qaeda attack .
I want to hear an explanation as to why nothing was done.

It is helpful to look at the events leading up to 9/11 on a timeline.
Here is part of what I have come up with:
JAN. 2001 Sandy Berger meets with Rice and her staff 10 times, warning her that terrorism in general and bin Laden in particular will occupy her attention far more than she could imagine. He tells her of the plan that the Clinton administration had been developing to attack Al Qaeda. This plan had been finished a few months previously but they did not want to just drop it in their laps.
Richard Clarke briefs Rice on the plan and she asks him to stay on in the new administration, and to brief DICK Cheney on it. As the administration is eager to "stay on message" of missile defense, the plan is sent for review of the major department deputies.
FEB15 Hart/Rudman Comission issues it's third and final report on terrorism. It says terrorism is our #1 national security threat, warns of attacks resulting in mass casualties here, our lack of preparedness, as well as recomending a department of homeland security. This comes on top of the Bremer Commission report on terrorism that had been released the previous June and the Gilmore Commission report of Dec., 2000.
APRIL 30 Clarke presents the plan to Cheney deputy Libby, Powell deputy Armitage, DOD deputy Wolfowitz, Tenet deputy McLaughlin. They felt Clarke and Clinton administration was over-obsessed with terrorism, but scheduled 3 more meetings. They were in no hurry to address the warnings they were being given.
JUNE CIA becomes aware that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is sending operatives to connect here with an Al Qaeda support structure.
EARLY JULY We are warned that bin Laden is finishing plans for a major attack on us or Israel.
JULY 10 Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends memo to FBI HQ about Arabs at flight schools infiltrating our civilian aviation system, requesting an investigation. Request denied.
JULY 16 Clarke meets again with the deputies, they agree to kick the plan upstairs to their principals, but reject a Clarke request for a meeting in early August. Everyone is concerned with the month-long vacation being planned by the White House.
MID JULY Tenet briefs Rice, telling her that there will certainly be a major attack by Al Qaeda in the near future.
Also at this time, roughly, U.S. intelligence picks up over 30 signals from Al Qaeda officials indicating a major attack against us.
AUG, a classified report is widely circulated among administration officials. It speaks of Al Qaeda seeking to attack the U.S. and points out that a support structure for such an attack exists here.
Also in august, acting FBI chief Pickard requests additional $58 million for counterterrorism from Ashcroft.
AUG 6 Tenet gives Bush report and briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S." in Crawford. Bush springs into action by getting in 9 holes of golf, followed by brush cutting.
AUG 16 INSarrest Zacarias Moussaoui. Arresting officer reports that Moussaoui is "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center."
AUG 21 Minneapolis FBI, reporting on Moussaoui, tells HQ to warn Secret Service of the possibility that Moussaoui or someone like him could hijack a plane from London to NYC and have enough fuel to get to D.C. Warning not passed on.
AUG 25 FBI agent in New york requests a full investigation of Khalid Almihdhar, one of the hijackers of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Request denied. Agent says this denial helps bin Laden and that it would cost lives.
SEPT 4 Clarke meets with Cheney, Powell, Rice Rumsfeld & others who decide to reccomend the plan to Bush.
SEPT 9 Congress proposes moving $600 million from missile defense to counterterrorism. Rumsfeld threatens a presidential veto.
SEPT 10 Ashcroft turns down Pickard FBI request. Asks for spending increases in 68 programs, none having to do with counterterrorism.
Also, a presidential dir

[Doctor Manhattan]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/911.commission/top.clarke.rice.ap.jpg

Wow, she looks like a fun gal!

<a href="http://www.danasoft.com/sig/SKWsig.jpg"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/skw04.jpg" border=0></a>

[HBox]

She had much more important things to do, like sliming Richard Clarke anytime a microphone got within 50 feet of her. Sometimes you just got to have priorities.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Doctor Manhattan]

now she's going to testify publicly before 9/11 panel (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/rice.testimony/index.html)

Now she better know what she's talking about since now there was this big deal about her not not testifiing before. More people will be watching to see what she does.

<a href="http://www.danasoft.com/sig/SKWsig.jpg"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/skw04.jpg" border=0></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 3-30-04 @ 12:46 PM

[Doomstone]

If she would have agreed to just do this from the beginning it would have been so much easier for her. Now every word she says will be subject to that much more scrutiny...

BTW anyone else see the Daily Show yesterday? If you didn't try to catch a replay, one of Jon Stewart's finest moments.

<center><img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/ds_sig.jpg">
Thanks to M1 for the sig!</center>

[JerryTaker]

I really think Rice is going to be the Sacrificial lamb of this administration over 9/11. they're going to use her to refute Clark (was it Clark? you know who I mean, the guy who said Reagan and Bush Jr handled terrorism horribly)

Rice will eventually be sent down the river for purgery before 2008. I'm calling it now. You know that the Republicans don't care what happens to her personally.


<IMG SRC="http://web.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[furie]

has a national security advisor ever appeared before a panel like this in this manor before?


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/nosalvation1.jpg">

[Doomstone]

Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 investigation into an accusation that Billy Carter had tried to influence the US government on behalf of Libya.

Sandy Berger in 1997 during the Asian campaign contribution hearings

<center><img src="http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/ds_sig.jpg">
Thanks to M1 for the sig!</center>

[HBox]

When will the flip-flopping stop? Don't these people any principals!? WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO TELL THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

This message was edited by HBox on 3-30-04 @ 6:53 PM

[FUNKMAN]

If she would have agreed to just do this from the beginning


you would think there was 'stalling' so she and president could get their stories straight...

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm_sig.jpg">
sig by #1 Monster

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 3-30-04 @ 7:45 PM

[keithy_19]

C-unt
L-esbian
A-ss
R-etarted
K-illjoy
E-ver

It's so much fun doing these poems!

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/pridesig.jpg
Thanks to katylina...

[HBox]

R-etarted

When calling someone retarded, it helps to know how to spell retarded.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[NewYorkDragons80]

BTW anyone else see the Daily Show yesterday? If you didn't try to catch a replay, one of Jon Stewart's finest moments.
If you're talking about the Clarke interview, it was fucking shameful. If you don't agree with Bush's policy or think Bush is a liar, that's fine, but to claim that Clinton was "obsessed" with terrorism and bin Laden is a blatant lie.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

[Bestinshow]

Everybody needs to get their facts straight! She has appeared before the 9/11 witch hunt, but her 4 hour testimony was behind closed doors! But obviously the unbiased media finds it more important that she appears in public because its insufficient for the commision to have her testimony unless the NY Times gives their expert opinion.

Oh, and it kills me how much credibility liberals give to that fucking liar Dickface Clarke. I have heard a recording of him saying that the resources Bush gave to terrorism were fivefold what Clinton spent. And I dont see an explanation how he stuck it out working two years for someone that had such differences with his findings. Geeeee, maybe hes trying to sell his book? No conflict of interest here.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 3-31-04 @ 12:19 PM

[HBox]

But obviously the unbiased media finds it more important that she appears in public because its insufficient for the commision to have her testimony unless the NY Times gives their expert opinion.

And the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans want her to means nothing because we're all puppets of the liberal media. BTW, every person who testified in public last week had already testified in private. That's not what those hearings we about.

And I guess we'll see how much of a witch hunt you think this is if they come back with a scathing indictment of Clinton.

Geeeee, maybe hes trying to sell his book? No conflict of interest here.

So I guess anybody who ever wrote a book can't be credible becaue all they want to do is sell books. Like I said before, if it was only about making money, he could write a book sucking Bush's dick for 700 pages and sell just as many or more books. Of course, instead of attacking Clarke you could attack what he's saying. But, of course, you can't do that either because he's telling the truth.

And I dont see an explanation how he stuck it out working two years for someone that had such differences with his findings.

If you'd read the book, you'd see he gave a very clear reason. Let's not forget that lying Dickface Clarke was the guy Bush and co. decided to put in charge on 9/11.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

This message was edited by HBox on 3-31-04 @ 12:26 PM

[mdr55]

What are the chances of Rice writing a book bashing Bush in the future? I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. The titles could be "A Rice in the Bushes" or "Black Rice and White Bush don't mix" or "My life as Bush's Ms. Jefferson".

(Place YOUR AD here) Call now!

[Bestinshow]

By the way, when does Clinton testify in public? And this isn't supposed to be about public opinion. It's supposed to be about the breakdown in the system and how do fix it. And the scathing indictments about Clinton are to be expected considering his wonderful track record and the overwelming amount of intelligence agents that testified that Clinton wanted Bin Laden alive.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[Bestinshow]

If you'd read the book, you'd see he gave a very clear reason. Let's not forget that lying Dickface Clarke was the guy Bush and co. decided to put in charge on 9/11.


Yeah, especially when they put him in charge of cyberterrorism. I would always use my big guys as spam blockers.



Of course, instead of attacking Clarke you could attack what he's saying. But, of course, you can't do that either because he's telling the truth.


Did you read my post? I heard with my own ears an interview with Clarke saying Bush spent fivefold(His words) what Clinton spent on resources for terrorism. Maybe you believe hes telling the truth. Thats because you want too. You dont think the timing of the book is strange?

I'm curious, Clarke worked for several years for Clinton also. Did he just discover in January 2001 that Bin Laden was such a threat? Because I'm sure, as obsessed with Terrorism and Bin Laden that Clinton was according to Clarke, that if he gave Clinton the same information he would have immediately done something.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 3-31-04 @ 12:43 PM

[curtoid]

I'm curious, Clarke worked for several years for Clinton also. Did he just discover in January 2001 that Bin Laden was such a threat? Because I'm sure, as obsessed with Terrorism and Bin Laden that Clinton was according to Clarke, that if he gave Clinton the same information he would have immediately done something.

In September/October 2000 Clark was pretty certain that big shit was coming down, and he went to President Clinton. While the FBI and CIA were certain that Osama was behind the mischief out there, they would not give 100% for sure.

Based on that - based on the fact that it was a very heated election - and based on the reaction the press, the Republicans and some of the American people had when Clinton did his supposed "wag the dog" attack during Monica-gate, Clinton chose not to listen to Clark's advice.

When the new administration came in, they were presented with the same information that had been passed on earlier by Clinton, only now, because of the time, Clark felt it was even more urgent.

And since it had nothing to do with Iraq...well, we know how the Bushies handled that.



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

This message was edited by curtoid on 3-31-04 @ 1:00 PM

[curtoid]

If you're talking about the Clarke interview, it was fucking shameful. If you don't agree with Bush's policy or think Bush is a liar, that's fine, but to claim that Clinton was "obsessed" with terrorism and bin Laden is a blatant lie.

Ummmm...no it's not.

When the organization "Project for the New American Century" (which included members like Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy) approached President Clinton in 1997 with a white paper detailing how important it was that we invade and occupy Iraq (!), the written response back from Clinton specifically mentioned that Osoma was a bigger threat, and that was who they were focusing on.

"Obsessed" may be an exageration (it may not - we don't fucking know because we were not there!), but from the public information that's out there and is known, it's not a "blatant lie."



http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/45.gif
[b][i]Much thanks to M1 for the siggie...!i][b]

This message was edited by curtoid on 3-31-04 @ 1:05 PM

[HBox]

Yeah, especially when they put him in charge of cyberterrorism. I would always use my big guys as spam blockers.

Again, IF YOU READ THE BOOK, you'd know that 1. Clarke created the cyberterrorism job when Rice asked him to spin off some domestic terrorism responsibilities from NSC. 2. Clarke chose to take that job in protest of Bush's inactivity on terrorism, and made that clear to his superiors. 3. Clarke believed Cyberterrorism was a major priority.

I heard with my own ears an interview with Clarke saying Bush spent fivefold(His words) what Clinton spent on resources for terrorism.

This is what you heard:

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Hmm, he increased five-fold the budget for covert action against Al-Qaeda. One aspect of battling terrorism. Accentuating the positives and ignoring the negatives. Jeez, that sounds EXACTLY like what Richard Clarke said he was doing!

Now, he was too eager, IMO, to make excuses for Clinton. However, he described many instances in which the Clinton administration wanted to use CIA covert action and the CIA said they couldn't do it. Maybe that funding had something to do with it. All I know is that Richard Clarke would know that better than you or me.

You dont think the timing of the book is strange?

OK, so now he's not greedy, he's an opportunist. OK. Yes, it does seem odd. However, Clarke said he wanted this book out at Christmas. He finished it in October. The White House received it then. They took their time with it. I'm sure that the publisher salivated at the opportunity of releasing it right before the 9/11 hearings. However, the timing of the book has no bearing on what's written in it.

And as for Clinton testifying in public, yes I would like that. I would also like Bush to testify in public. But I realize that latter is impossible and probably not a smart thing to do anyway. I'd still like to see Clinton testify in public, but that ain't gonna happen I suppose.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Bestinshow]

However, Clarke said he wanted this book out at Christmas. He finished it in October. The White House received it then. They took their time with it. I'm sure that the publisher salivated at the opportunity of releasing it right before the 9/11 hearings. However, the timing of the book has no bearing on what's written in it.


Common sense tells me if you want a book out for christmas, especially one this touchy, you have to give it to the White House way before October. You have to expect a couple of months of going through it with a fine tooth comb. This defense holds no water.


Based on that - based on the fact that it was a very heated election - and based on the reaction the press, the Republicans and some of the American people had when Clinton did his supposed "wag the dog" attack during Monica-gate, Clinton chose not to listen to Clark's advice.


Thats a poor excuse to do nothing about a terrorist attack you supposedly know is imminent. I don't buy it, even for Uncle Bill.



And since it had nothing to do with Iraq...well, we know how the Bushies handled that.


Please ,enough of that. Thats as assinine as the war for oil comments people used to make. And everyone knows Clinton bombed Iraq several times.

3. Clarke believed Cyberterrorism was a major priority.


Which shows what an expert he was. Maybe that explains why nobody was listening to him.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[NITRON]

She is kinda hot. I STRONGLY DISAGREE

Wouldn't mind havin a steamin bowl of Rice.
I WOULD

"It matters not how straight the gate,
How charge with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate the
captain of my soul."

[jeffdwright2001]

She is kinda hot. Wouldn't mind havin a steamin bowl of Rice.
http://www.tjf.or.jp/eng/ge/geimg/gohan_s.jpg

I'd rather eat this steamin bowl of rice.

[TheMojoPin]

Hey, the panel's finally "Rice"-d themselves out!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-31-04 @ 5:33 PM

[Bestinshow]

I wish they would come up with a de-RICE- ive strategy.


<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

[PSYCHOMARKFAN]

They've just released some hidden recordings made by Condoleeza Rice in her office..


"OH, LAWDY LAWD, HE DESPERATE, HE DESPERATE DO WHAT HE SAY, DO WHAT HE SAYYYYYY!!!!" :eg:

You're a Filthy Whore

[mdr55]

Rice, Rice Baby. To go.

Play that funky music, White House.

My name is Rice.
There's no Comission.
That can get me
to testifying
under oath and in public
but flip on the tv and you can see me.
I'm a bitch but so what.
You know you want me but can't have me.
I'm too much Rice, Can't ya'll see.
It's all about the executive privacy.

Stop!
Rice, Rice, baby. To go.
Play that Funky Music, White House.

I've changed my mind, pass me the bible.
I'll go under oath, for my revival.
All da playas, that keep dissing me.
What do you all think about now about,
Condoleeza Ri-ce.


(Place YOUR AD here) Call now!