Clinton slaps down Fox, sets record straight on terrorism

Fred, who would you nominate as the conscience of America? Henry Kissinger? Dick Cheney? Maybe the whole idea of having a national conscience is laughable in today’s America – a foolish anachronism like the Bill of Rights or Geneva Conventions which failed miserably when put to the real test.

Condi Rice for President! (Why not? We’ve tried an idiot. Now it’s time to stay the course and try an idiot-savant.)

". . . The book (State of Denial, Bob Woodward) also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review. . . . "

Gee…the Nuevo-Cons are now coming out with smear about/against Sec. Rice…Wow…thats class guys…real class…as in low class.

Sharpen your pencils, its going to be a long ride to Nov 2008.

And spook - Changing context by omission is so tacky.
from the article:

[quote]"The July 10 meeting of Rice, Tenet and Black went unmentioned in various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, and Woodward wrote that Black “felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”

Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. “We didn’t know about the meeting itself,” she said. “I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.”

White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with Woodward’s portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response.

“This is the first time these thoughts and feelings associated with that meeting have been expressed,” McCormack said. “People are free to revise and extend their remarks, but that is certainly not the story that was told to the 9/11 commission.”

Tenet and Black did not respond to messages yesterday.[/quote]
-emphasis added.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Gee…the Nuevo-Cons are now coming out with smear about/against Sec. Rice…Wow…thats class guys…real class…as in low class.

Sharpen your pencils, its going to be a long ride to Nov 2008.

And spook - Changing context by omission is so tacky.
from the article:

[quote]"The July 10 meeting of Rice, Tenet and Black went unmentioned in various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, and Woodward wrote that Black “felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”

Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. “We didn’t know about the meeting itself,” she said. “I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.”

White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with Woodward’s portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response.

“This is the first time these thoughts and feelings associated with that meeting have been expressed,” McCormack said. “People are free to revise and extend their remarks, but that is certainly not the story that was told to the 9/11 commission.”

Tenet and Black did not respond to messages yesterday.[/quote]
-emphasis added.[/quote]

I wonder if there’s any connection between this:

And this:
"Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. “We didn’t know about the meeting itself,” she said. “I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.”

Now that would be an omission worthy of a medal.

Another top level administration official steps up to provide evidence as to the near near insane myopia of your country’s administration and making reference to it is “low class”? That comment is itself “low class” no? Or by “low class” did you mean: Not in line with the gas guzzling, gun peddling economic elite’s official position of “don’t criticize Bush no matter how badly he messes up because the more he screws up the more money we make”?

Don’t strain yourself now, there are only hundreds of thousands, perhaps hundreds of millions,
of lives, in the balance.

The real incompetents in the war on terror: part II

"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called “findings” that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance – Black called it an “out of cycle” session, beyond Tenet’s regular weekly meeting with Rice – would get her attention.

Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he’d seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer’s instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.

He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism director: “It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.”

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.[/b]

Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30 (2001), a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined “Bin Laden Threats Are Real.”

Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment – covert, military, whatever – to thwart bin Laden.

The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent, the two men told Rice. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain “voodoo” but said it was often this voodoo that was the best indicator.

Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn’t want to swat at flies.

As they all knew, a coherent plan for covert action against bin Laden was in the pipeline, but it would take some time. In recent closed-door meetings the entire National Security Council apparatus had been considering action against bin Laden, including using a new secret weapon: the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, that could fire Hellfire missiles to kill him or his lieutenants. It looked like a possible solution, but there was a raging debate between the CIA and the Pentagon about who would pay for it and who would have authority to shoot.

Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. “Adults should not have a system like this,” he said later.

The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.

Philip D. Zelikow, the aggressive executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and a University of Virginia professor who had co-authored a book with Rice on Germany, knew something about the July 10 meeting, but it was not clear to him what immediate action really would have meant. In 2005 Rice hired Zelikow as a top aide at the State Department.

[b]Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn’t get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

Black later said, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.”[/b]

Another top level administration official steps up to provide evidence as to the near near insane myopia of your country’s administration and making reference to it is “low class”? That comment is itself “low class” no? Or by “low class” did you mean: Not in line with the gas guzzling, gun peddling economic elite’s official position of “don’t criticize Bush no matter how badly he messes up because the more he screws up the more money we make”?
Don’t strain yourself now, there are only hundreds of thousands, perhaps hundreds of millions,
of lives, in the balance.[/quote]bob -
Oh please…please stop. You’ll hurt my insensitive knuckle-dragging feelings…/not really.
This accusation of blind allegance/“see no fault” to President Bush is quite insulting. I do think it has passed its usefulness. Like much of the ‘loyal oppo’s’ other bleatings.

Quite frankly I do’t think you really give a damn one way or the other. As long as you have the scantest of reasons to ‘slag off’ (a term I’ve seen on here but have never used - I hope it is appropriate in this context) on President Bush, The USA or the the Republican party you will be quite happy to do so. And insert whatever supporting analogies you deem sufficient to merrily promote your views. It beats having to factually discuss a topic…and it feels better also, eh?

Honestly, I am constantly reminded of the bored zoo gorillas who develop the pastime of flinging their dung at visitors as they pass their cages. I don’t think they do it out of malevolence as much as to provoke some type of reaction. Boredom can be a terrible thing.

News accounts about the Woodward book led with Andy Card trying to oust Rumsfeld with the support of Laura Bush.
But White House spokesman Tony Snow quoted Laura Bush’s office as saying Woodward’s claim relating to her was "flatly not true.”
In addition, Card told the Associated Press that Laura Bush never encouraged an effort to oust Rumsfeld.

"Mrs. Bush and I never discussed it,” Card said.
Only two major news outlets ran Laura Bush’s denial — the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.

[quote]Andy Card Denies Woodward Account
Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. "Andy” Card, Jr. has denied Bob Woodward’s
claim that he and first lady Laura Bush tried to get Donald Rumsfeld fired as defense secretary.

Card told NewsMax’s chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler that the assertion in Woodward’s
book “State of Denial” that he thought Rumsfeld should have been the one to leave the administration
instead of himself was also "not true.” Card left as chief of staff in April.
newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 … shtml?s=lh[/quote]

[quote]Woodward
Michael Ledeen

There doesn’t seem to be much interest in Woodward’s book here, and for good reason.
Anyone who thinks he knows what other people are thinking, especially in situations he didn’t
witness—which is after all what most all Woodward books are all about—is not to be taken seriously.
I haven’t read a Woodward book since I reviewed his thing on Casey, which famously contained an
account of a sort of conversation he claimed he had with the stroke-stricken director of central
intelligence in the hospital. Woodward was scheduled to go on Nightline, and earlier that day
Ted Koppel called me and asked what I would ask Woodward. “Ask him to describe the room,” I said.
“You know, what was Casey wearing? Were there lots of flowers? What color were his pajamas, that
sort of thing…” And Koppel did. And Woodward froze, deer-in-the-headlights. Then he said he
couldn’t discuss it because it would “reveal sources.”

He couldn’t discuss it because he wasn’t there. He was the source himself.

I’m not going to read this one either.
National Review - Books[/quote]

Careful with the sourcing.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Oh please…please stop. You’ll hurt my insensitive knuckle-dragging feelings…/not really.
This accusation of blind allegance/“see no fault” to President Bush is quite insulting. I do think it has passed its usefulness. Like much of the ‘loyal oppo’s’ other bleatings.

Quite frankly I do’t think you really give a damn one way or the other. As long as you have the scantest of reasons to ‘slag off’ (a term I’ve seen on here but have never used - I hope it is appropriate in this context) on President Bush, The USA or the the Republican party you will be quite happy to do so. And insert whatever supporting analogies you deem sufficient to merrily promote your views. It beats having to factually discuss a topic…and it feels better also, eh?

Honestly, I am constantly reminded of the bored zoo gorillas who develop the pastime of flinging their dung at visitors as they pass their cages. I don’t think they do it out of malevolence as much as to provoke some type of reaction. Boredom can be a terrible thing.[/quote]

I wasn’t in the least bit bored when I wrote that. In fact I’d just returned home from an evening of the most delightful gallavanting in quite a while. I was relaxed, a little bit high and feeling terrific.

If you want to know, what I think is that the extreme right is running a little propoganda mill here and while I don’t have the energy or time to counter every point, point by preposterous point, I have set myself the task of at least reading what you guys write, finding the most egregious nonsense and doing what I can to tell you guys when you are full of it.

And I really do appreciate spooks contribution. Where he finds the patience and compassion to continue educating a monkey like you is beyond me.

[quote=“spook”]"Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
Rice bad…Bush bad…etc etc…[/quote]
Tenent and Cofer Black are hearing a lot of intelligence “noise”.
They have “anxiety”. Tenent has been losing sleep (according to
Woodward’s mysterious source). They go to Condi Rice with what
they admit is “voodoo” intelligence to buttress their warning
about bin Laden. Strangely, Condi’s attention is not fully captured
by this noise, sleeplessness, anxiety, and voodoo, and she doesn’t
“act”. They are frustrated. They had wanted her to “do something”.
But she “didn’t listen” and 9-11 is all Condi’s fault. Riiiight…

The perception has to be created that the Dems are better at national
security. That 9-11 was a failure of the Republicans to listen to Clinton’s people.

This is one big “cover my ass” account by Tenet and Black–both of
whom were Clinton holdovers, and both of whom let Bin Laden slip away 8 times before Bush ever took office.
Woodward did not get Condi’s side of the story, so of course only the holdover failures get advocacy.
The Admin. should just say the book is a pack of lies, and that Woodward did not verify source claims at all.

“This is a work of fiction” is what, IMO, Snow should say.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”] The Admin. should just say the book is a pack of lies, and that Woodward did not verify source claims at all.

“This is a work of fiction” is what, IMO, Snow should say.[/quote]

Yeah, too bad about this part…

The meeting is a matter of public record dumbo.

How anyone can still support Condi at this stage in the game is mind boggling. (read this one page declassified overview of Richard Clarke’s Al-Queda Memo). Condi had all the information, Clarke was trying to push for a principle meeting in January, 9 months before 911. She blew him off. Later she blew off the 911 commission hearing to cover up her incompetence.

Funny how she later twists everything around:

Someday, the truth will come out. Its no wonder bush pushed for the legislation that gives him and his staff inmunity for war crimes. Another thing that really bothers me is that Woodward mentioned Kissinger is consulting Bush. When I read this a few days ago, I knew we were in trouble.

I love how Fox lured Clinton on to talk about his Global Initiative and then, not even two minutes into the interview, tried to jump on him about 9/11. And then when he said things that made them uncomfortable, they tried to direct him back to the Global Initiative, as if Clinton was the one who went off-topic.

Fox has more spin than a turbo jet engine.

Informative discussion of the interview on Charlie Rose.

It’s odd to look back at the Bush administration pre-9/11, because it was so directionless.
Maybe, as Richard Clarke suggests, it’s useless too…

[quote]All the finger-pointing and hunting for scapegoats last week won’t rectify those failures, or help us avoid future ones.
[…]
If we are going to defeat the enemy, we must learn again to discuss our differences about Iraq and terrorism in civil and analytical terms. We must reject the use of fear and terrorism to divide America for political advantage. And we must not let ourselves get trapped in pointless, partisan debates that result only in having the past obscure the future.
[/quote]

Unless, of course, looking back can help avoid a future failure.

[quote=“NYT: Rice briefed”]A review of White House records has determined that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, did brief Condoleezza Rice and other top officials on July 10, 2001, about the looming threat from Al Qaeda, a State Department spokesman said Monday.

The account by Sean McCormack came hours after Ms. Rice, the secretary of state, told reporters aboard her airplane that she did not recall the specific meeting on July 10, 2001, noting that she had met repeatedly with Mr. Tenet that summer about terrorist threats. Ms. Rice, the national security adviser at the time, said it was “incomprehensible” she ignored dire terrorist threats two months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

When details of the meeting emerged last week in a new book by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, Bush administration officials questioned Mr. Woodward’s reporting.

Now, after several days, both current and former Bush administration officials have confirmed parts of Mr. Woodward’s account. [/quote]
Now, where’s that “Condi for Prez” button? :laughing:

You folks are darn funny…from the New York Times, I believe the same newpaper and article being referred to:

[quote]“According to two former intelligence officials, Mr. Tenet told those assembled at the White House about the growing body of intelligence the Central Intelligence Agency had collected pointing to an impending Al Qaeda attack. But both current and former officials took issue with Mr. Woodward’s account that Mr. Tenet and his aides left the meeting in frustration, feeling as if Ms. Rice had ignored them.

“Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director [i]never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.[/i]”

Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. “We certainly would have followed that up.”

"Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence [color=red]and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Atttorney General John Ashcroft."[/color]

"But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.

“Frankly, I’m disappointed that I didn’t get that kind of briefing,” he said. “I’m surprised he didn’t think it was important enough to come by and tell me.”
New York Times[/quote]

Ooops…I almost forgot to include this little jewel re:Tenet.

[quote]More recently, Mr. Tenet has told friends that he was particularly angry when, appearing recently on Sunday talk shows, both Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney cited Mr. Tenet by name as the reason that Bush administration officials asserted that Mr. Hussein had stockpiles of banned weapons in Iraq and ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney recalled during an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 10 of this year: “George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, ‘George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?’ the director of the C.I.A. said, ‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk.’ ” [/quote]

Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:

And since the proof has come in about the continual lies regurgitated by former Pres. Clinton* in the interview, you really should have tried a diversion with more substance.

Fish in a barrel…fish in a barrel…

Oh, so now she “acted on it.” A while ago she couldn’t remember it.

Back on OT -
Clinton’s Flawed Legacy

I mostly agree with this. It was damage control, which failed miserably, and an attempt at re-writing history, and his legacy which also failed miserably, that was the motivation of former Pres. Clinton*'s hubris and finger wagging.
The ‘after-action’ reports have shown the facts.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Ooops…I almost forgot to include this little jewel re:Tenet.

[quote]More recently, Mr. Tenet has told friends that he was particularly angry when, appearing recently on Sunday talk shows, both Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney cited Mr. Tenet by name as the reason that Bush administration officials asserted that Mr. Hussein had stockpiles of banned weapons in Iraq and ties to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney recalled during an appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 10 of this year: “George Tenet sat in the Oval Office and the president of the United States asked him directly, he said, ‘George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?’ the director of the C.I.A. said,‘It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk.’ ”[/quote]

Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:

And since the proof has come in about the continual lies regurgitated by former Pres. Clinton* in the interview, you really should have tried a diversion with more substance.

Fish in a barrel…fish in a barrel…[/quote]
TC-
Don’t laugh too hard - I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of Cheney or Rumsfeld’s mouth. Cheney has selective memory disorder or creative memory disorder - I’ll bet the words “it’s a slam dunk, Mr. President” NEVER came out of Tenet’s mouth. You emphasized the wrong part of these 2 paragraphs.

Bodo

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]. . . Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:[/quote]

"Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq

Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . . ."

We’ll see who has the last laugh. :slight_smile:

[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]. . . Thankfully American voters are able to see thru this silly ploy for what it really is.
But doggone it it sure does give some folks some running room. Too bad its in a closed room with no way out. Laughing…laughing I am…:banana:[/quote]
"Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq
Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) – A majority of U.S. adults say President George W. Bush has deliberately misled the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. . . . ."
We’ll see who has the last laugh. :slight_smile:[/quote]Uhhh…spook…the post was referring to former Pres Clinton*.
Having some morning perception problems?
Or is this your daily “spookism”?