9/11 for the Record (Condosleeza lies and propaganda)

[Nancy Waterman]

Breathtaking lies!! There is even an article earlier in the Wash Post today that refutes some of what she says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.


During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.

We adopted several of these ideas. We committed more funding to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts. We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances.

<snip>

Through the summer increasing intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures. The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks on Americans.

Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."


Also in today's Wash Post, about how Ascroft never took the counterterrorsim seriously and did little to support it:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13541-2004Mar21.html

The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks.

<snip>

"Despite multiple terror warnings before and after 9/11, repeatedly rejected counterterrorism resources that his own security agencies said was desperately needed to protect America," said David Sirota, spokesman for Podesta's group, which plans to post the documents on its Web site today.

<snip>

Other documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's "Strategic Plan" from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nancy Waterman]

2. I thought of it as LBN

because it is the administration's propaganda response on the editorial page of the Wash Post. If you want to move it to GD, that is also fine. I am just so appalled at the blatancy of the lies. And the second article isin the same paper and refutes the editorial!

[rasputin1952]

3. I think here is fine for the time being.....

I just thought that GD would be better for the "play" aspect.

:)

[displacedtexan]

4. Link to Podesta's 9/11 documents

The docs are available in several formats for your reading enjoyment:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039

[jobycom]

5. Notice the new approach to Clinton

Before, it was "Clinton never did anything, and we did all we could to recover from his dereliction." Now it's "Clinton and Bush were on the same page. We both did all we could."

Thoughts on why Bush is now allying himself with Clinton? Is this just Condeleeza being a bad liar? Is this a Bush strategy? Is this just another example of Bush's "Cover all angles" spin, where he has different people in his administration say completely contradictary things so that he can point at one of them as getting the story straight?

My own answer would be that they've figured out that the "Clinton did nothing" routine means that "Bush did nothing, either," so by saying "Clinton tried hard, and so did we, and it still happened" they mean Bush wasn't the only one who screwed up.

It could also be a Kerry bomb. Bush can say "Kerry is an extremist, and we need moderates like me or Clinton to protect the nation." That way, Kerry can't ally himself with Dems. It's not the complete strategy, it's just one little plant in Bush's strategy garden. He can show this plant to moderates, while showing his extremists his Ashcroft bushes.

[Festivito]

10. YUP! The "both sides do it" when Republicans go bad.

But, when Democrats do something it's special news and only Democrats, all notions of Republicans BEING WORSE are ignored. It's amazing.

[0007]

6. This information has gotta get out to the folks of America

[chopper]

7. right...

We increased efforts to go after al Qaeda's finances

which is why you guys dropped the surveillance of Bin Laden's family. makes sense.

[Beetwasher]

8. Hey Condi! How About Testifying Under Oath?!

Not willing to do that, are you? I wonder why, you lying sack of shit...This tripe you write is all well and good, but if it's the truth, then why not REALLY set the record straight and testify, under oath, before the 9/11 commission...

[bagnana]

9. I hate the word "homeland" -- sounds like we're in Nazi Germany n/t