Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (127474)	3/27/2004 10:40:23 AM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

WH in backpedaling mode now: "Rice revises statement in private session on 9/11 BY KENNETH R. BAZINET AND THOMAS M. DEFRANK New York Daily News WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A member of the 9/11 commission said Friday that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice indicated in a private session she was wrong to have once stated no one expected terrorists to use planes as missiles. The White House reportedly also backpedaled Friday on whether President Bush pressed counterterror czar Richard Clarke the day after the attacks to find evidence that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was involved. Clarke claimed the meeting occurred in the White House Situation Room and presidential aides said earlier this week the meeting never happened. But CBS News reported last night that White House aides now concede the meeting "probably" occurred. The conflicting versions of events before and after 9/11 will ensure that debate will continue through the weekend over Clarke's accusations that Bush downgraded the importance of counterterrorism. Clarke, Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will all appear on talk shows Sunday to press their case. Rice, who has refused to testify before the panel under oath and in public, met with the commission privately for four hours Feb. 7. One issue was her May 16, 2002, statement at the White House when she said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile." Intelligence reports had detailed such plans as much as five years before 9/11. Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 panel, said that during a closed-door session Rice revised that statement. "She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said." And from your link: "CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]" So they created a "task force" because they did feel "no sense of urgency"? Remains the question: what was the purpose of the never convening task force?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (127474)	3/27/2004 11:23:02 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Stockman_Scott, Just out of curiosity... and there is no penalty for failing to answer... I was wondering who you would choose to be President in 2006. Let's say you are all powerful and regardless of the outcome in November, you get to name any adult over the age of 32 to take the job on January 1, 2006, and further that person could serve any term of years you chose. Who would you select and what term would you set? 0\|0

To: stockman_scott who wrote (127474)	3/28/2004 2:06:18 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01] Just to belabor the extremely obvious, before September 11th, the definition of "hijacking" was "terrorists seize control of an airplane in order to hold the passengers hostage to make some demands", not "terrorists seize control of an airplane to turn it into a suicide-bombing cruise missile" Nice touch of total self-righteous while demanding that Republicans have 20/20 foresight.