Grade Condi - How Did She Do?

[curtoid]

How did Condi's appearance in front of the 9/11 panel go on April 8th?

Fabulous - It was a home run for her and the President.

Professional - She reinforced her supporters, but may not have done enough to convince others

Did What Needed To Be Done - It was a chore for her to be there; answers, while truthful, had to be drug out.

Too much fillerbustering - Took too long answering questions eating into the time the panel members had to question her

Garbage - she should be ashamed of herself!

[HBox]

Condoleeza Rice had a "That depends on what definition of "is" is" moment yesterday. It was painful.

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

[jeffdwright2001]

Most of Rice's time was "painful" to watch and hear. Like most people involved in politics, the more they talk, the worse they become.

[keithy_19]

I thought she did great.

Bob Kerry is such a dick. He spent the first two minutes talking about what we're doing in Iraq and thats irellevant to the subject at hand.

He also kept on calling her Mrs. Clarke. Get her name right you fuckin' tool.

http://www.silentpix.com/modules/Coppermine/albums/userpics/zoloft.jpg

[Mike Teacher]

I hope the panel sticks to what the aim of such a panel should be; to determine what happened, what went wrong, and what to do so that something like it can't happen again.

What we had on 9/11 was a failure in human recognition of technology. All of the callers were MMQB-ing this thing to Death.

The fact remains: A Real, Working contigency plan for the hostile takeover of airplanes by people capable of flying them, and flying them on suicide missions in major landmarks, was NOT, I repeat, NOT seriously considered by enough people such that said Real, Working contingency plan existed.

It is SO easy to say Bullshit, we had it. Plans? yes. What I am talking about is a state of readiness for such an event. No one, or not enough, or not the right ones, considered that chain of links would link up; if they had, and had thought the possibility strong enough, we might have had such a plan.

The historic precendence is there:

-Apollo 13: They built two completely independent life support systems. That's how redundant the system was. So when one oxygen tank exploded with enough force to rupture the second; everyone was, 'ummm no. that can't be. impossible. they are seperate and independent. And as they looked at the 'instrument' problem, they soon realised a contingency that only very few had even considered possible, happened.

-Apollo 1: The MMQB-ing on this one was so bad, because it was so obvious, in retrospect. You have three men in a pressurised capsule filled with 100% oxygen. This is a fancy name for a bomb. Well, it didn't so much explode; just that in 100% oxygen things that dont usually burn do burn, and things that do burn, do so exposively.

Why the fuck were the astronauts in a pressurized capsule with 100% O2? For good reason, and the thought of a fire erupting was so remote; the capsule didnt even have any sort of 'emergency' just blow the hatch kind of hatch.

But these examples are different right? Yes, but NASA's job, after the John Glenn incident [another story] said:

We are going to imagine EVERYTHING that can POSSIBLY Go wrong with these craft, no matter HOW NUTS, and have a plan for it. And still, some were seen as even outside that exact policy.

Remember that plane that flew into the Everglades? The crew was busy checking out whether a landing gear light was a 'instrument' problem, or a real problem. Easy right? Well, the crew got so involved in this, they forgot to fly the plane, and it slowly and purposefully flew right into the water. Again, the possibility that a crew could be so distracted, or not notice the ground comping up, was such that their were not the 'fail-safe' squawk boxes of today.

The air disasters show so many examples of people not considering the possibilities.

This isnt about blaming humans for 9/11. It's the hope that the committees for 9/11 are in some way like Apollo 1, 13, etc. The people involved, and with Apollo 1 EVERYONE felt guilty, and many fingers were pointed, but the Government and NASA agreed; we MUST lay bare what happened, no matter Where the trail goes.

---

Wow that wasnt about condi rice, was it. oops.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 4-9-04 @ 2:52 PM

[HBox]

It is SO easy to say Bullshit, we had it. Plans? yes. What I am talking about is a state of readiness for such an event. No one, or not enough, or not the right ones, considered that chain of links would link up; if they had, and had thought the possibility strong enough, we might have had such a plan.

The possiblity that an American plane could be hijacked was something that was a very real possibility. Once a plane is hijacked, there is little that can be done. Was enough done beforehand to prevent that from happening? We shall see.

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

[Mike Teacher]

Ron said something that really rang true for me last night; he asked someone:

What would you say is 'better' in the long run; if the last plane had indeed been shot down.

-Having a cover-up so that people felt 'it was ok, they went down as heroes'?

-Opening up everything, if they did shoot it down and say, 'Yes! of course we did! It was those lives vs. who knows how many. It's still terrible, and we're sorry it happened, but it did.'

Now, I'm no expert; but that plane was not shot down. Having said that; I would feel better knowing my government had fucked up, and owned up to it, rather then covering up something in the interest of something altruistic as opposed to other reasons.

Wow does any of this make sense...


<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">

[Mike Teacher]

The possiblity that an American plane could be hijacked was something that was a very real possibility.


Exactly, and I hope you take it that I am Agreeing with you here. Not only was it a Possibility, it, in the end, indeed happened, making it, I guess, now looking at it, not only a Probable Scenario, but A Certainty; or an Inevitability. Is that a word?

[EDIT: Which reminds me; do we NOW have a Definite PLAN for this if we are to do the Worst-Case Scenario thing and imagine it's tried again? Not just shoe-bomber; I mean what if a planes transponder is turned off and it starts going way off course?]

Double Secret Probation Edit: I have NO IDEA as to the validity of the claims made on this site, but when they were talking about the events of the day I Googled, and this came up:



<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/newsig">Presidents actions during 9/11 (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html)

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 4-9-04 @ 3:07 PM

[curtoid]

The PA plane was not shot down. I know this because I worked in 2001-2002 for an organization that dealt with 9/11 and worked with the military and the FBI on a daily basis. There is a lot that the public doesn't know about what they discovered there in PA, and there is something secretive regarding the Pentagon plane's flight path, but the PA plane every person I dealt with agree that it wasn't shot down - the cover-up would be monumental.

I believe them because before that I worked for the NTSB for a few months back in 1997 in the main office that was investigating TWA Flight 800, and let me just vouche that there is nothing more frustrating in the world than to be in a place like that, to know and see the people (and their families) doing this very tough work, and then to look on the internet, or in the tabloids or talk radio and hear about conspiracies and coveups. NOT A FUCKING CHANCE. You have no idea how many people, from all walks of life, in the federal government have their hands in stuff like this. These were people who work around horrible deaths every day, who do the work because it's important to make sure these things do not happen again. If something hinky was going on SOMEONE would come forward...they always do!

What does this have to do w/ Condi??? Nothing. Sorry.

:confuse:

As far as Condi goes, I think it's interesting that if you really went through the meat of her testimony, in many cases she really did back up what Clark had said. The big difference was the tone that was set - she came across to me as someone who was bothered to be bothered by this whole thing, while Clark presented himself as someone who, while maybe bitter, was still someone who was upset this had happened during his watch, and wanted to do everything in his power, to clear his conscience, to make sure this didn't happen again. Maybe this is because he's now out of public office and can talk freely and she is beholden to party, but yeah - I felt she came across as much more confrontational and with much more of a personal agenda.

Anyone who complains about the Democrats getting too partisan, by the way, obviously didn't see the show the Republicans made with Clark. Most everyone from both sides, with the exception of the Republican Chairman and the Democratic Vice Chairman, came across looking snarky at one time or another - I REALLY like the guys running this, though. If you've seen them on "Meet The Press" or "Fox News Sunday" they actually come across as ADULTS! Something we don't see in politics, or political discussions any more. In fact, if you saw them for the first time, you might have trouble figuring out which one was from which party.

Shocking...grown ups putting COUNTRY before PARTY!

Maybe again it's because they are both "retired" and speak HONESTLY, but it is a sharp contrast to the partisan hacks on all sides.

(BTW - I am very happy I got to use the words "snarky" and "hinky" in the same post).



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 4-9-04 @ 3:28 PM

[high fly]

Once again, a member of the administration that was going to "usher in a new era of personal responsibility" failed to take responsibility.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[A.J.]

Once again, a member of the administration that was going to "usher in a new era of personal responsibility" failed to take responsibility.

Yeah but Clarke did. That's "one".

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[furie]

Once a plane is hijacked, there is little that can be done. Was enough done beforehand to prevent that from happening?


I'll tell you right now, no.

Before being absorbed into the DHS, I was a special agent for FAA; I worked in the civil aviation security division. The FAA had received the same intel as the FBI that a hijacking was almost imminent. But nothing was done other than forwarding the memo to the airlines. It comes down to the FAA was not able to do anything in the event of a hijacking. It didn't have the manpower or the will. That's why it's been dismantled. The internal problems in the FAA strech back to the early 80's and are the fault of 4 administrations for creating and then ignoring those problems.

and curtoid's right. UA93 was not shot down, and TWA 800 was not shot down by a missile.



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

<marquee>"I went home with a waitress, the way I always do. How was I to know she was with the Russians too?"
</marquee>