Testify

[jay_too]

This afternoon I caught several news and discussion programs. Condi was a major topic. Some praised her demeanor and resilience; others pointed out that she used the same facts and examples over and over again to avoid answering a question while she gave an appearance of responding. On delivery I think she scored high; on content, maybe not so high.

One that comment that needed to pinned down was the assertion that the administration thought that if a hijacking of a plane occurred, it would be for the release/exchange of prisoners for hostages or for ransom. If they had known the intent was to wreck havoc and DECAPITATE the government, they would have taken more aggressive action. Hmmm.

However, no one took her to task on the idiocy of the position/excuse for not reacting to August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing in which the President was told that al Queda was interested in planning attacks within the Unites States and perhaps, hijacking planes. Dr. Rice assured us that if they had known they would use the planes as missiles to destroy buildings and even to decapitate the country, they would have reacted more aggressively. She assumed (and the President) that the hijacking would be to exchange the hostages for prisoners. Huh? Someone should have asked her what was the threshold for an aggressive response by this administration? Would the endangerment of 300 or 500 lives not qualify? A strict reading of the Constitution does not establish a numerical threshold but simply "to provide for the common defense." I would conclude that the possible hijacking and the endangerment of hundreds of lives should have gotten some strict constructionists off their asses and into action.

Whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented is another story, but I would expect my government to attempt to prevent the hijacking of a plane I might be on.

jay

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1081051099;start=20#20 date=04/09/04 at 19:38:44] . . . . Whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented is another story, but I would expect my government to attempt to prevent the hijacking of a plane I might be on. jay[/quote]
Thanks for your excellent, seemingly bipartison synopsis of the Condi testifying farce. The regime's delay in permitting her public appearance was used, no doubt, to rehearse and prepare her for the big show. As you say, her delivery ranked high, but her content pathetically low. There is just so much covering up possible in answering pertinent questions, so pat answers have to be given.

I can't imagine the resentment and hostility I would harbor had I had personal losses on 9/11 or my son/daughter loss his/er life in Iraq.

Luke

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1081051099;start=20#20 date=04/09/04 at 19:38:44]However, no one took her to task on the idiocy of the position/excuse for not reacting to August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing in which the President was told that al Queda was interested in planning attacks within the Unites States and perhaps, hijacking planes. Dr. Rice assured us that if they had known they would use the planes as missiles to destroy buildings and even to decapitate the country, they would have reacted more aggressively. She assumed (and the President) that the hijacking would be to exchange the hostages for prisoners. Huh? Someone should have asked her what was the threshold for an aggressive response by this administration? Would the endangerment of 300 or 500 lives not qualify? A strict reading of the Constitution does not establish a numerical threshold but simply "to provide for the common defense." I would conclude that the possible hijacking and the endangerment of hundreds of lives should have gotten some strict constructionists off their asses and into action.
[/quote]

Jay, that was exactly was I was thinking. I saw a part of her testimony again today. It featured what you brought up, and it raised my eyebrows as well.

To me, saying what she said, that had they known the planes were gonna be used as missiles, is simply a
confession that they fucked up. It means literally what you said, that apparently 300 lives did not matter. However, of course 300 lives matter, also to the Bush Administration. They simply didn't realise the severity of it, failed to act upon it adequately, and in time. To me that is incapability of an Administration.

Something else I was really disturbed by, REALLY disturbed. She said she got the memo on august 6th, and somewhere in her testimony said that they didnt know however at what time, what place, what airline etc. Then she said: so we couldn't really do anything at that point.

O? Is that so?

Why then were we , immediately after the attacks, paying securitytaxes on airports, were cockpits locked, more security personell installed in airplanes, airports thoroughly checked and sometimes even shut down if a threat was imminent, bags checked more thoroughly, and let's say paper box cutters banned right after?

I'm talking within a month after the attacks, all this was in place. If I calculate August 6th till Sptember 11th...hm...a month?

It would have been hard to prevent 9/11, sure. But on second thought, it could have been done, had they taken it seriously and acted swiftly, like they did right after.

The country is safer yet not safe my ass. We are all unsafer.

No displacement? Again, my ass. 9/11 gave the Bushies a mischievous excuse to go to Iraq. Political pressure, and outright blackmail of countries made sure there was a 'coalition' in Iraq. Had this 'coalition' not joined, and listened to it's population, Madrid would never have happened.

I am seriously disturbed by this administration, moreso everyday. It's like they are playing a rather bad game of Sim City, and trying out different scenarios. Well, there's only one scenario, so better not fuck it up!!!!

 

[jay_too]

Jav...

I am impressed with how much you know about the government and political system of the U.S. Me? The only Spanish politico I can name is Alzar...oh wait, was. About the Netherlands, the tally would be zip.

I think if you want to know what the President was thinking in August 2001 - think Crawford and bush whacking, ya know...clearing out the brush. Can't let work interfere with improving the ranch now can we? I think you will find that he spent much of the month on the ranch and looked in Putin's eyes and liked him. huh? Oh well.

While it may not be fair to compare Bush's and Alzar's responses to warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, Spain started looking for explosives along tracks before Madrid. The Bush administration could have reactivated the sky marshall program in August 2001. Or perhaps....but wait, there is brush to be cleared I forgot. Nero fiddled while Rome burned; while Bush whacked [sorry, I could resist], Osama planned.

jay

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Jay, thanx man. Butta...it's Aznar...lol

I am astounded by that fact too, that Bush spent an entire month on his ranch while he recived that memo.

Apparently the commission on 9-11 seems to agree. They had a whole lotta criticism for the administration in office. Needless to say I agree with almost every letter of it. Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/11/911.investigation/index.html

 

[jay_too]

Jav..

See...I told you I don't know squat about Spain or the Netherlands.

While the site was down, I read in the papers that one of the reasons that Americans should include the Netherlands on any European itenerary is that the people speak the best English on the planet. So if English is so widely spoken in the Netherlands, is there a Dutch newspaper in English on the internet?

jay

 

[jay_too]

After a couple of weeks of public testimony and discussions with friends, I think my view of what went wrong in the months leading to 9/11 has been re-enforced. It is summarized in one word, h a t e.

Decision making and decisive action ground to a halt as we engaged in the hate politics of Gingrich and the rabid right. Sure it energized a portion of the Republican party, made great political theater, and embarassed a President. But did it make the country safer or more prosperous? I was taking a government class as the House began to take up impeachment and heard Newt and Dick Armey respond to criticism that it might be better to focus time and energy on other issues. Both reassured reporters that we were prosperous and there were no threats facing America. Hmmm....maybe they were not reading their intelligence briefings or more likely, anything was worth doing that would injure Clinton.

The newly selected administration rejected the Clinton approach of trying to contain al Queda and the Taliban. Terrorism became a low priority - perhaps, because Clinton, Berger, and Reno considered it a major issue. Personal dislike contributed to fumbling a national security issue.

One of my friends [she was a WH intern in the spring of 2000]  has an interesting take of the Hearings. She says that one of the responsibilites of the National Security Adviser is to coordinate the information and activities of all intelligence agencies, essentially NSA is  the focal point for integration. Moreover, the NSA speaks for the President when an agency or agencies are asked to provide an assessment or to provide information. Maybe things changed when Rice took over from Berger....but something may have slipped through the crack.

I tend to doubt if 9/11 in its entirety could have been prevented, but perhaps, one or more of the attacks could have been neutralized if the administration had been alert. Apparently, the Commission thinks that there was sufficient information for elevated activity by government agencies.

In the weeks after 9/11, the national news media reported that not all America was asleep:

"On Sept. 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." (Bush: "We're at War: As the deadliest attack on American soil in history opens a scary new kind of conflict, the manhunt begins," Newsweek, Sept. 24, 2001)

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI. . ." ("Ashcroft Flying High," CBS News, July 26, 2001)

It is a shame not everyone was in the loop.

jay

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1081051099;start=20#26 date=04/19/04 at 01:06:34]After a couple of weeks of public testimony and discussions with friends, I think my view of what went wrong in the months leading to 9/11 has been re-enforced. It is summarized in one word, h a t e.[/quote]

You are preaching to the choir when you justify that statement by using terms like "the rabid right."

Isn't your own hate, jay too, clouding your better judgement?

 

[jay_too]

pecker..

Nope. Hate is a stronger emotion than sadness and dismay.

jay