Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TEXT OF DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE OPENING REMARKS THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS
US Air Force E-mail | 8 Apr 2004 | Condi Rice

Posted on 04/08/2004 7:25:49 AM PDT by commish

 As Prepared for Delivery

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE OPENING REMARKS THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC

April 8, 2004

I thank the Commission for arranging this special session. Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to learn all we can about the September 11th attacks, while preserving important Constitutional principles.

This Commission, and those who appear before it, have a vital charge. We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic day, and the events that led to it. Many families of the victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions to the Commission's work.

The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.

The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this country simply was not on a war footing.

Since then, America has been at war. And under President Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that day. But I do want to describe the actions this Administration was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th, 2001.

After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and al-Qaida. This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and the Balkans.

Because of these briefings and because we had watched the rise of al-Qaida over the years, we understood that the network posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to ensure there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaida. On an operational level, we decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence, and Louis Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's counterterrorism team on the NSC staff. I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to ensure continuity of operations while we developed new and more aggressive policies.

At the beginning of the Administration, President Bush revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office -? meetings which I attended, along with the Vice President and the Chief of Staff. At these meetings, the President received up-to-date intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence officials. From January 20 through September 10, the President received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on al-Qaida, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al-Qaida and terrorism.

Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We were improving America's relations with the world's great powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S. planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And we had to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.

We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration -? not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -? intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military ?- to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:

* It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.

* It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.

* It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

* It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.

* And it directed the Secretary of Defense to -? and I quote ?- "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 -? which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.

More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the complexities of the region.

Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new strategy to get right. Al-Qaida was both client of and patron to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those relationships provided al-Qaida with a powerful umbrella of protection, and we had to sever them. This was not easy.

Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office, President Bush sent a strong, private message to President Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al-Qaida training camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis, including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban. I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of 2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a rote, expressionless response.

America's al-Qaida policy wasn't working because our Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign policy.

To address these problems, I made sure to involve key regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the Secretary of State and his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus on the Northern Alliance, we emphasized the importance of the south -? the social and political heartland of the country. Our new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability on the subcontinent.

While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke. Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last Administration, and some had been on the table since 1998. We increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida.

When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion about the relationship between the development of our new strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that summer. Policy development and crisis management require different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both simultaneously.

For the essential crisis management task, we depended on the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs), the State Department, and the Secret Service. The CSG had met regularly for many years, and its members had worked through numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes daily, to review and analyze the threat reporting and to coordinate actions in response. CSG members also had ready access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns they had at the highest levels.

The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague. Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up that Spring and Summer:

* "Unbelievable news in coming weeks" * "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar" * "There will be attacks in the near future"

Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us how.

In this context, I want to address in some detail one of the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently been mischaracterized. On August 6, 2001, the President's intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had earlier raised about any al-Qaida intentions to strike our homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible al-Qaida plans to attack inside the United States. It referred to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat information. And it did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was also concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland. Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.

Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack. For instance:

* The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

* The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.

* The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all 56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

* The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijackings.

* The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.

* During this period, the Vice President, DCI Tenet, and the NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign officials requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer of 2001.

Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and break the spirit of America. As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the American people and the leadership of the President that day.

Now, we have an opportunity and an obligation to move forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes only possible in the wake of catastrophic events -? events which create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of thinking and acting. Just as World War II led to a fundamental reorganization of our national defense structure and to the creation of the National Security Council, so has September 11th made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our homeland.

President Bush is leading the country during this time of crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and analyze terrorist threat information, directed the transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence agencies, and, working with the Congress, given officials new tools, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, to find and stop terrorists. And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with preserving our character as a free and open society.

But the President also recognizes that our work is far from complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically in the last two years, but they must be stronger still. The President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas and fresh thinking. We are eager to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this Commission.

We are at war and our security as a nation depends on winning that war. We must and we will do everything we can to harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk their lives every day to make us all safer, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. And, let's remember, those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day.

That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on offense, to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live, hide, and plot around the world. If we learned anything on September 11th, 2001, it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.

After the September 11th attacks, our Nation faced hard choices. We could fight a narrow war against al-Qaida and the Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world. President Bush chose the bolder course.

He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under his leadership, the United States and our allies are disrupting terrorist operations, cutting off their funding, and hunting down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller. The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now pursue them with energy and force.

We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of terrorists, seizing dangerous materials in transit, where necessary. Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMD-related programs and materials.

And as we attack the threat at its sources, we are also addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform, we removed from power two of the world's most brutal regimes -- sources of violence, and fear, and instability in the region. Today, along with many allies, we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the alternatives to instability, hatred, and terror. This work is hard and dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and our sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.

In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right choices for America to make -- the only choices that can ensure the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.

Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.

# # #


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911commission; alqueda; bush; condirice; condoleezzarice; condolleezzarice; dickclarke; openingremarks; ricetestimony; transcript
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
Recieved this a few minutes ago.
1 posted on 04/08/2004 7:25:52 AM PDT by commish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Rank Location Receipts Donors/Avg Freepers/Avg Monthlies
41 Nevada 105.00
4
26.25
119
0.88
60.00
3

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

2 posted on 04/08/2004 7:29:10 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Freepers post from sun to sun, but a fundraiser bot's work is never done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic
bookmrked
3 posted on 04/08/2004 7:29:55 AM PDT by Mo1 (Make Michael Moore cry.... DONATE MONTHLY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: commish
Bump!
4 posted on 04/08/2004 7:30:50 AM PDT by SheLion (Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish
What an ass hole Ben "Venereal Disease" a Demo-rat - is in his questioning of Dr Rice..........
5 posted on 04/08/2004 7:31:50 AM PDT by ldish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Ok. I'm pissed off about this.

This panel is supposed to be nuetral?

Isn't this supposed to be an investigation?

So why in the hell does the crowd applause after this lady slanders Condi Rice?
6 posted on 04/08/2004 7:32:11 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
With a name like Jamie Gorelick no wonder she's a Dem. Shudder!
7 posted on 04/08/2004 7:33:43 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: commish
The audience should be gagged! I can't believe they let the audience interrupt the hearing with clapping and other noise. I wish the let an audience sit in on Clinton's grand jury testimony.
8 posted on 04/08/2004 7:34:07 AM PDT by Andy from Beaverton (I only vote Republican to stop the Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Did anyone of you saw the conference. I didn't have a chance to see it.

Thank you
Bogdan
9 posted on 04/08/2004 7:34:08 AM PDT by bogdanPolska12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
I know. Do the Dems also have a Representative named Clintonservicer?
10 posted on 04/08/2004 7:35:43 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
With the way the demo-rats deal on every subject (you know they think they are actually smarter than all of the rest of us) there is never going to be anything bi-partison again in the USA......could well be the beginning of the end for our form of society!
11 posted on 04/08/2004 7:37:15 AM PDT by ldish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Wait until you see how the press plays this circus and then you can really be pissed.
12 posted on 04/08/2004 7:38:12 AM PDT by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
LOL!
13 posted on 04/08/2004 7:38:19 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
bttt
14 posted on 04/08/2004 7:39:54 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ldish
WOW, hindsight, these pompous pols are so brilliant. What a bunch of jerks, "I am a student of history myself...", give me a break!
15 posted on 04/08/2004 7:40:59 AM PDT by Eire1916
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: commish
I think Condi is doing a great job, but I wish she could be less careful with her words. The general public needs to be reminded more of all that happened under the Clintons' watch. She has mentioned incidents and the years that they occurred, but people need to be reminded of who was in charge during those times.
17 posted on 04/08/2004 7:46:21 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never again trust Democrats with national security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: ConservativeMan55
The applause is from a small chorus of "families of 9/11". We've all seen this before. People who are aggrieved and who manage to focus on the wrong cause/party to take out vengeance upon. The 9/11 attacks had specific victims - but it was an attack on the entire country. These misguided folks are trying to focus blame where it does not belong. It's really quite pathetic. And they're trying to articulate a special role or privilege in the process. I had a former colleague who was killed at the WTC - does that give me special privilege to determine the architecture of the rebuilt WTC or some memorial? No. And the families more direct connection to the crime of 9/11 dose not give them a privileged position to act as a peanut gallery for the Democratic partisans who want to turn the Bush Administration into a punching bag.

And let me say this about Jamie Gorelick who is questioning  Rice as I write. In George Stephanopoulos' book about his time in the White House he wrote about the scene as the verdict in the O.J. Criminal Trial was coming down. President Clinton, Stephanopoulos and Gorelick were at the White House watching it on television. Stephanopoulos point out that Gorelick had in her hands a statement to be read to the press at the White House which was a contingency plan for the event that O.J. had been convicted. It would have indicated that an investigation in Mark Fuhrman was to begin at the Justice Department and was intended to diffuse what the White House was expecting to be a race riot in L.A. over a conviction. How do you like that - they prepare for the political consequences of a conviction, but cannot find the time to direct the justice department to investigate the federal basis for a projection of O.J. on federal conspiracy to commit murder charges. These slimy, ass covering folks wanted to make sure they kept Maxine Waters happy but couldn't lift a finger to do justice. And Gorelick was right there as Deputy AG.

19 posted on 04/08/2004 7:47:57 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
...how much money and resources are being squandered on this democrat PR exhibit..

**
Good one! Can you IM that to Condi?
20 posted on 04/08/2004 7:48:26 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Never again trust Democrats with national security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Bump!
21 posted on 04/08/2004 7:49:26 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55 (There is no problem so great that it cannot be solved with high powered explosives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Partisan crowd applauds when Democrat questioner insinuates that President Bush and his team were asleep at the switch and silent otherwise!! This garbage makes nobody safer.
22 posted on 04/08/2004 7:49:47 AM PDT by AlienCrossfirePlayer (proud of our brave warriors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AlienCrossfirePlayer
 

And now in new and improved spell checked form....

The applause is from a small chorus of "families of 9/11". We've all seen this before. People who are aggrieved and who manage to focus on the wrong cause/party to take out vengeance upon. The 9/11 attacks had specific victims - but it was an attack on the entire country. These misguided folks are trying to focus blame where it does not belong. It's really quite pathetic. And they're trying to articulate a special role or privilege in the process. I had a former colleague who was killed at the WTC - does that give me special position to determine the architecture of the rebuilt WTC or some memorial? No. And the families more direct connection to the crime of 9/11 does not give them a privileged position to act as a peanut gallery for the Democratic partisans who want to turn the Bush Administration into a punching bag.

And let me say this about Jamie Gorelick who is questioning  Rice as I write. In George Stephanopoulos' book about his time in the White House he wrote about the scene as the verdict in the O.J. criminal trial was coming down. President Clinton, Stephanopoulos and Gorelick were at the White House watching it on television. Stephanopoulos point out that Gorelick had in her hands a statement to be read to the press at the White House which was a contingency plan for the event that O.J. had been convicted. It would have indicated that an investigation in Mark Fuhrman was to begin at the Justice Department and was intended to diffuse what the White House was expecting to be a race riot in L.A. over a conviction. How do you like that - they prepare for the political consequences of a conviction, but cannot find the time to direct the Justice Department to investigate the federal basis for a prosecution of O.J. on federal conspiracy to commit murder charges. These slimy, ass-covering folks wanted to make sure they kept Maxine Waters happy but couldn't lift a finger to do justice. And Gorelick was right there as Deputy AG.

23 posted on 04/08/2004 7:54:05 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken (Seldom right, never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
"Do the Dems also have a Representative named Clintonservicer?"

Nope.
"Pelosi" comes pretty close, though!

24 posted on 04/08/2004 7:57:26 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ldish
Who are the ass-clowns in the background who keep clapping? They should be removed from the hearing.
25 posted on 04/08/2004 7:59:44 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Bob Kerry just made my enemy list..
26 posted on 04/08/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
"The applause is from a small chorus of "families of 9/11"."

And haven't I read that the most of vocal of these "victims" groups is financed in large part by one of Teresa Heinz KERRY's foundations?

27 posted on 04/08/2004 8:00:53 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
"And Gorelick was right there as Deputy AG."

I guess she's lucky her name isn't Clintonlick or Renolick.

28 posted on 04/08/2004 8:03:39 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Yeah Condi, you go girl!!!
29 posted on 04/08/2004 8:04:19 AM PDT by Eire1916
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: commish
I would have liked to see more focus given to the WTC attack in 1993. The *only* difference between the 1993 attacks and 9/11 was the fact that 9/11 was successful. The intent in 1993 was to bring the towers down. The terrorists' failure in 1993 wasn't because of anything the United States did - only because they didn't plan effectively.

So in 1993 we dodged a 9/11 bullet. What was done about the root of the problem then? What questions were raised about our intelligence failures THEN? We got lucky and the Clinton administration's answer was non-existant.
30 posted on 04/08/2004 8:04:28 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
He's another ass-clown.
31 posted on 04/08/2004 8:06:22 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
What a jerk, I used to think this guy was a reasonable Dem. He is trying to make a name for himself to get back into politics. This is criminal behavior.
32 posted on 04/08/2004 8:07:35 AM PDT by Eire1916
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Calling him an ass clown is an insult to clowns and rears everywhere. Not one comment about the 8 year Clinton admin, but are hammering the 233 day old Bush admin. Bob Kerry is an enemy, I could give two sh*ts about his Vietnam service. He is an assh**e now.
33 posted on 04/08/2004 8:09:11 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Eire1916
I would love to see Dr. Rice as GW's VP. Would it not be great to see her debate Hillary?
34 posted on 04/08/2004 8:11:04 AM PDT by roylene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Don't worry about the crowd in the audience. Condi kept her cool and was very professional about it...something that Kerry never seems to be able to do. Kerry would have been firing off insulting remarks to the people who disagreed with him.
35 posted on 04/08/2004 8:11:17 AM PDT by Bush Cheney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eire1916
It boggles the mind that Clinton STILL hasnt been brought up!!!
36 posted on 04/08/2004 8:13:28 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
True. No matter how hard Rice drives home the point that the administration was concerned, and that there were systemic problems with the FBI and CIA which should have been resolved a long time ago, and that airline cockpits should have been hardened, jerk-offs like Kerry don't care. The Bush Administration was supposed to solve these things immediately. Kerry sucks.
37 posted on 04/08/2004 8:15:44 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
I told you all in a post yesterday, one of these socialist would be appointed as the front man to be a smart ass and try to make a name for himself by acting a complete asshole. Said it yesterday.
38 posted on 04/08/2004 8:16:36 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: commish
Dr. Rice is more than holding her own with the FOB's on the panel. She certainly put Ben-Veniste is his place by refusing to answer a lengthy question with a simple yes or no. She did the same thing with Kerrey.

39 posted on 04/08/2004 8:17:07 AM PDT by RdhseRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Why does this Kerry guy keep calling here Dr. Clark??
40 posted on 04/08/2004 8:18:48 AM PDT by Ganndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
Bob Kerrey is a rude partisan jerk. He thinks he knows better than the director of the NSA what the adminstration did! Even though she didn't have to, she comes in front of this commission to get to the bottom of things and answer his questions and then he just interrupts her, talks over her, and tells her what the real answers are. Disgusting and I hope voters see thru these sheningans
41 posted on 04/08/2004 8:19:04 AM PDT by the right side jedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ganndy
oops sorry, here = Her, obviously
42 posted on 04/08/2004 8:20:22 AM PDT by Ganndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All
I have always been impressed by Condoleeza, but I havent watched her this long. What a woman! She has more smarts and class than the entire Clinton NSC staff. I heard some where that she entered the University of Denver at the age of 15. I dont know if thats true.
43 posted on 04/08/2004 8:20:43 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: commish
Nice post!

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4.

This is actually pretty speedy for our gov.

44 posted on 04/08/2004 8:21:13 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RdhseRat
"Dr. Rice is more than holding her own with the FOB's on the panel."

Exactly...FOB's are trying to "pay back" for the Clinton Impeachment! Their hatred and venom is showing through quite clearly. Condi Rice is standing her ground, and will come out of this more powerful and dangerous to the Democrats than ever. Condi for VP -- or Condi in 2008!

45 posted on 04/08/2004 8:21:59 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: the right side jedi
Disgusting and I hope voters see thru these sheningans

I think they do. But it still doesnt make it any easier to watch this lynching from Kerrey. Lehman is going easier on her, though.

46 posted on 04/08/2004 8:22:08 AM PDT by cardinal4 (Terrence Maculiffe-Ariolimax columbianus (hint- its a gastropod.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: roylene
She is a brilliant gal if McCain goes with Kerry Bush has to switch to someone like Condi. She is a bigger person than Bob Kerry, she had a great comeback there against him.
47 posted on 04/08/2004 8:22:30 AM PDT by Eire1916
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ganndy
His name is "Kerry." Enough said.
48 posted on 04/08/2004 8:23:00 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
It's true.
49 posted on 04/08/2004 8:23:44 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: the right side jedi
unfortunately our citizen base is much dumber these days and there is only a 50% / 50% chance that anyone voters see thru these sheningans of Bob Kerry and the other very bitterly partisan s**T heads.........
50 posted on 04/08/2004 8:24:04 AM PDT by ldish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson