Interesting Analysis

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, not going to post the entire article, but a NROnline columnist made an argument for why ush refusing to allow her to testify until now was actually a very smart move on his part.

 

Think about it: If she testified when asked to, she would've been just another Cabinet official testifying. What she said would have been of very little importance (how much did people follow what Clinton's people said?) and would've been completely overshadowed by Clarke's testimony.

 

However, by refusing to testify for so long, the White House made HER the star of the show (Clarke is becoming yesterday's news fast) --- and, most importantly --- she will be the last voice heard on this for a while. I'm sure the report will end up damaging Bush (he should've seen the future and shut down DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN for any POSSIBLE dates of attack, apparently) --- but for the next few months, it'll be out of the news and Rice's testimony will be the last thing people remember.

 

And, as Sean Hannity mentioned on his radio show, the last time the Democrats got a Republican President to agree to allow an aide to testify in public --- well, Oliver North wiped the floor with the Democrats.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, why does this deserve a thread again?

 

It's just a speculative "ha ha, we win" thing, with backup by an unnamed columnist and Sean Hannity.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So, why does this deserve a thread again?

 

It's just a speculative "ha ha, we win" thing, with backup by an unnamed columnist and Sean Hannity.

But you can also add your own opinion to this story -- I see no problem with it.

 

Personally, I think Condi will do great. This event is going to be such a grandstanding circus...

[NoCalMike 0]

OK, not going to post the entire article, but a NROnline columnist made an argument for why ush refusing to allow her to testify until now was actually a very smart move on his part.

 

Think about it: If she testified when asked to, she would've been just another Cabinet official testifying. What she said would have been of very little importance (how much did people follow what Clinton's people said?) and would've been completely overshadowed by Clarke's testimony.

 

However, by refusing to testify for so long, the White House made HER the star of the show (Clarke is becoming yesterday's news fast) --- and, most importantly --- she will be the last voice heard on this for a while. I'm sure the report will end up damaging Bush (he should've seen the future and shut down DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN for any POSSIBLE dates of attack, apparently) --- but for the next few months, it'll be out of the news and Rice's testimony will be the last thing people remember.

 

And, as Sean Hannity mentioned on his radio show, the last time the Democrats got a Republican President to agree to allow an aide to testify in public --- well, Oliver North wiped the floor with the Democrats.

    -=Mike

Unless Mrs. Rice stumbles over her words as bad as Bush will, unless he has Cheney there to hold his hand.

 

I'm assuming Rice will be all prepped and ready by April 8th, but lets not just automatically assume she is going to put on some grand performance.

 

Has anyone read the reports about the speech she was SUPPOSED to give on 9/11, which got cancelled because of the attacks. Yeah you guessed, it, pretty much more old tired rhetoric about the need for "Star Wars" In other worlds recycled ideas from two decades ago.

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, not going to post the entire article, but a NROnline columnist made an argument for why ush refusing to allow her to testify until now was actually a very smart move on his part.

 

Think about it: If she testified when asked to, she would've been just another Cabinet official testifying. What she said would have been of very little importance (how much did people follow what Clinton's people said?) and would've been completely overshadowed by Clarke's testimony.

 

However, by refusing to testify for so long, the White House made HER the star of the show (Clarke is becoming yesterday's news fast) --- and, most importantly --- she will be the last voice heard on this for a while. I'm sure the report will end up damaging Bush (he should've seen the future and shut down DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN for any POSSIBLE dates of attack, apparently) --- but for the next few months, it'll be out of the news and Rice's testimony will be the last thing people remember.

 

And, as Sean Hannity mentioned on his radio show, the last time the Democrats got a Republican President to agree to allow an aide to testify in public --- well, Oliver North wiped the floor with the Democrats.

     -=Mike

Unless Mrs. Rice stumbles over her words as bad as Bush will, unless he has Cheney there to hold his hand.

 

I'm assuming Rice will be all prepped and ready by April 8th, but lets not just automatically assume she is going to put on some grand performance.

 

Has anyone read the reports about the speech she was SUPPOSED to give on 9/11, which got cancelled because of the attacks. Yeah you guessed, it, pretty much more old tired rhetoric about the need for "Star Wars" In other worlds recycled ideas from two decades ago.

Of course, Clinton (whose top concern was Al Qaeda, remember?) mentioned them HOW OFTEN in speeches?

 

Bush had a lot of issues on his plate. He was more concerned about the possibility of terrorist groups getting missiles than in the possibility of one hijacking several planes and ramming them into buildings.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So, why does this deserve a thread again?

 

It's just a speculative "ha ha, we win" thing, with backup by an unnamed columnist and Sean Hannity.

Would you prefer the columnist's name? I can pretty easily get it, if it's really that big a deal to you.

-=Mike

...JOTW, deal with it: One and Only threads don't exist in this folder for a reason --- and they never will.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But you can also add your own opinion to this story -- I see no problem with it.

 

Personally, I think Condi will do great. This event is going to be such a grandstanding circus...

Fine.

 

I think people are looking for a bunch of conflicting stories and he said this, but she said that, etc.

 

 

I don't think so. I don't think she'll be nearly as damning in her testimony as he was, but there won't be a smoking gun either.

[NoCalMike 0]

Bush had a lot of issues on his plate. He was more concerned about the possibility of terrorist groups getting missiles than in the possibility of one hijacking several planes and ramming them into buildings.

-=Mike

Why? So they could slingshot a missle towards america?

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush had a lot of issues on his plate. He was more concerned about the possibility of terrorist groups getting missiles than in the possibility of one hijacking several planes and ramming them into buildings.

    -=Mike

Why? So they could slingshot a missle towards america?

Yup, no chance of them buying technology to launch it. No chance of, say, Afghanistan allowing them to do it.

 

Could never happen.

-=Mike

...Heck, there is no way India or Pakistan could get missiles either, right?

[NoCalMike 0]

Of course, Clinton (whose top concern was Al Qaeda, remember?) mentioned them HOW OFTEN in speeches?

If you want to keep bringing up Clinton feel free, but I am not sure how his "weak agenda on terrorism" has much to do with Bush's handling of it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, Clinton (whose top concern was Al Qaeda, remember?) mentioned them HOW OFTEN in speeches?

If you want to keep bringing up Clinton feel free, but I am not sure how his "weak agenda on terrorism" has much to do with Bush's handling of it.

Because, as Clinton showed, a man who has "Al Qaeda as his top concern" can manage to go far without mentioning them once, apparently.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Bush had a lot of issues on his plate. He was more concerned about the possibility of terrorist groups getting missiles than in the possibility of one hijacking several planes and ramming them into buildings.

     -=Mike

Why? So they could slingshot a missle towards america?

Yup, no chance of them buying technology to launch it. No chance of, say, Afghanistan allowing them to do it.

 

Could never happen.

-=Mike

...Heck, there is no way India or Pakistan could get missiles either, right?

Why are you comparing India/Pakistan to Al Qaeda? There is a reason they used planes as weapons. How many modern day terrorist attacks involve missles? What evidence supports Al Qaeda having missles or even obtaining missles, or are you just trying to make another excuse for, "how on gawd's green earth were we supposed to know that people living out of caves might not have the ability to obtain missles and might have to resort to other tactics to attack us"

[NoCalMike 0]

Of course, Clinton (whose top concern was Al Qaeda, remember?) mentioned them HOW OFTEN in speeches?

If you want to keep bringing up Clinton feel free, but I am not sure how his "weak agenda on terrorism" has much to do with Bush's handling of it.

Because, as Clinton showed, a man who has "Al Qaeda as his top concern" can manage to go far without mentioning them once, apparently.

-=Mike

as opposed to mentioning Saddam/Iraq in Bin Laden's place?

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course, Clinton (whose top concern was Al Qaeda, remember?) mentioned them HOW OFTEN in speeches?

If you want to keep bringing up Clinton feel free, but I am not sure how his "weak agenda on terrorism" has much to do with Bush's handling of it.

Because, as Clinton showed, a man who has "Al Qaeda as his top concern" can manage to go far without mentioning them once, apparently.

-=Mike

as opposed to mentioning Saddam/Iraq in Bin Laden's place?

Heck, he didn't mention foreign policy much at all --- well, except in his never-ending attempt to create a legacy for himself by brokering a "Middle East Peace Accord".

Why are you comparing India/Pakistan to Al Qaeda? There is a reason they used planes as weapons. How many modern day terrorist attacks involve missles? What evidence supports Al Qaeda having missles or even obtaining missles, or are you just trying to make another excuse for, "how on gawd's green earth were we supposed to know that people living out of caves might not have the ability to obtain missles and might have to resort to other tactics to attack us"

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

Maybe you should ask our intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is, there is no big history of terrorist organizations using some massive technological artillery to launch at another country. Hell Iraq didn't even have the capabilities to hit America, but somehow magically Al Qaeda would get it overnight? Of course we should be on the lookout for all possibilities, but really, for a bunch of cavemen, what is more likely a scenario?

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

Maybe you should ask our intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is, there is no big history of terrorist organizations using some massive technological artillery to launch at another country. Hell Iraq didn't even have the capabilities to hit America, but somehow magically Al Qaeda would get it overnight? Of course we should be on the lookout for all possibilities, but really, for a bunch of cavemen, what is more likely a scenario?

Osama is a caveman? I thought he was damned wealthy, actually.

-=Mike

[Highland 0]

I'm interesting in hearing Rice's testimony, the only problem I have with the whole 9/11 commission is partisan bickering, nothing new I know.

As far as I can see, neither Rice and certainly not Clarke, have much integrity: Clarke obviously bashed Bush to push sales of his book and Rice refused to come before the commission, yet she had no qualms about making the media circuits and making her views on the matter known.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

Maybe you should ask our intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is, there is no big history of terrorist organizations using some massive technological artillery to launch at another country. Hell Iraq didn't even have the capabilities to hit America, but somehow magically Al Qaeda would get it overnight? Of course we should be on the lookout for all possibilities, but really, for a bunch of cavemen, what is more likely a scenario?

Osama is a caveman? I thought he was damned wealthy, actually.

-=Mike

of course he is wealthy, but obtaining missles and the technology to launch them, let alone launch them all the way to America is a lot more complex then, "here is some cash, gimme gimme gimme" I am just trying to look at what is more realistic of a situation for a terrorist group to do. Not even "planes, we should have known it would be planes" but just ideas in that vein. To me it would see more logical for something more subtle in methods of attack from Al Qaeda then launching a missle. Also you'd think the purchasing of a missle + technology would be a lot easier to monitor and eliminate fast then the airplane scheme, cause I mean hey, Bush knew that "Saddam bought uranium from Africa" right?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

To try and swing this back on topic a bit:

 

Bottom line reason why Rice is testifying: if she doesn't, she can kiss any shot at the 2008 (or future) prez nomination goodbye. It wouldn't just be the democrats playing it up either, it would be her opponents for the GOP nomination as well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

Maybe you should ask our intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is, there is no big history of terrorist organizations using some massive technological artillery to launch at another country. Hell Iraq didn't even have the capabilities to hit America, but somehow magically Al Qaeda would get it overnight? Of course we should be on the lookout for all possibilities, but really, for a bunch of cavemen, what is more likely a scenario?

Osama is a caveman? I thought he was damned wealthy, actually.

-=Mike

of course he is wealthy, but obtaining missles and the technology to launch them, let alone launch them all the way to America is a lot more complex then, "here is some cash, gimme gimme gimme" I am just trying to look at what is more realistic of a situation for a terrorist group to do. Not even "planes, we should have known it would be planes" but just ideas in that vein. To me it would see more logical for something more subtle in methods of attack from Al Qaeda then launching a missle. Also you'd think the purchasing of a missle + technology would be a lot easier to monitor and eliminate fast then the airplane scheme, cause I mean hey, Bush knew that "Saddam bought uranium from Africa" right?

Actually, he said he bought it from Africa. He never mentioned an individual country.

 

The problem with terrorism is that WE DON'T KNOW how they'll attack. Heck, Spain barely averted ANOTHER train bomb this week. Who would have guessed that they'd try the SAME tactic twice (especially after the electorate did what they wanted and replaced the gov't?). We have to keep open to ALL possibilities --- and when new ones arise (such as kamikaze missions in airplanes), include those in our considerations.

 

But, this whole 9/11 Commission keeps missing one key thing: If Bush knew everything --- including the date of the attacks --- there is nothing he could have done to stop them. There is a truism I've heard attributed to the Secret Service:

 

If somebody is willing to kill themselves in order to kill the President (i.e bombs, plowing a plane into the WH, etc.), there is not much we can do about that.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Hmm --- so Bush SHOULD have foreseen them flying places into buildings, but the possibility of them getting missiles is too ridiculous to consider?

-=Mike

Maybe you should ask our intelligence agencies. The fact of the matter is, there is no big history of terrorist organizations using some massive technological artillery to launch at another country. Hell Iraq didn't even have the capabilities to hit America, but somehow magically Al Qaeda would get it overnight? Of course we should be on the lookout for all possibilities, but really, for a bunch of cavemen, what is more likely a scenario?

Osama is a caveman? I thought he was damned wealthy, actually.

-=Mike

of course he is wealthy, but obtaining missles and the technology to launch them, let alone launch them all the way to America is a lot more complex then, "here is some cash, gimme gimme gimme" I am just trying to look at what is more realistic of a situation for a terrorist group to do. Not even "planes, we should have known it would be planes" but just ideas in that vein. To me it would see more logical for something more subtle in methods of attack from Al Qaeda then launching a missle. Also you'd think the purchasing of a missle + technology would be a lot easier to monitor and eliminate fast then the airplane scheme, cause I mean hey, Bush knew that "Saddam bought uranium from Africa" right?

Actually, he said he bought it from Africa. He never mentioned an individual country.

 

The problem with terrorism is that WE DON'T KNOW how they'll attack. Heck, Spain barely averted ANOTHER train bomb this week. Who would have guessed that they'd try the SAME tactic twice (especially after the electorate did what they wanted and replaced the gov't?). We have to keep open to ALL possibilities --- and when new ones arise (such as kamikaze missions in airplanes), include those in our considerations.

 

But, this whole 9/11 Commission keeps missing one key thing: If Bush knew everything --- including the date of the attacks --- there is nothing he could have done to stop them. There is a truism I've heard attributed to the Secret Service:

 

If somebody is willing to kill themselves in order to kill the President (i.e bombs, plowing a plane into the WH, etc.), there is not much we can do about that.

-=Mike

Well yeah, I am not trying to say Bush didn't do anything about it, or that he knew and didn't care or that he had the writing on the wall and ignored it, but I'd still say there was more info there related to the matter then anyone in the whitehouse wants to admit to.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well yeah, I am not trying to say Bush didn't do anything about it, or that he knew and didn't care or that he had the writing on the wall and ignored it, but I'd still say there was more info there related to the matter then anyone in the whitehouse wants to admit to.

Mike, do you have any idea how many pieces of intel our gov't gets every day? Any idea of how many MILLIONS of pieces they get? Any idea of how many of them are irrelevant and go nowhere?

 

You can find individual pieces to say he ignored every thing known to man. It doesn't make it the case. He and his people have to decide which intel should be followed up and which does not.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Well yeah, I am not trying to say Bush didn't do anything about it, or that he knew and didn't care or that he had the writing on the wall and ignored it, but I'd still say there was more info there related to the matter then anyone in the whitehouse wants to admit to.

Mike, do you have any idea how many pieces of intel our gov't gets every day? Any idea of how many MILLIONS of pieces they get? Any idea of how many of them are irrelevant and go nowhere?

 

You can find individual pieces to say he ignored every thing known to man. It doesn't make it the case. He and his people have to decide which intel should be followed up and which does not.

-=Mike

ok, so what are you trying to tell me then, that Bush and his people aren't very good judges at what documents to believe?

[Guest MikeSC]

Well yeah, I am not trying to say Bush didn't do anything about it, or that he knew and didn't care or that he had the writing on the wall and ignored it, but I'd still say there was more info there related to the matter then anyone in the whitehouse wants to admit to.

Mike, do you have any idea how many pieces of intel our gov't gets every day? Any idea of how many MILLIONS of pieces they get? Any idea of how many of them are irrelevant and go nowhere?

 

You can find individual pieces to say he ignored every thing known to man. It doesn't make it the case. He and his people have to decide which intel should be followed up and which does not.

-=Mike

ok, so what are you trying to tell me then, that Bush and his people aren't very good judges at what documents to believe?

No --- that her piece didn't have too much corroboration, apparently.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Mrs. Rice

Dr Rice is not married.

[NoCalMike 0]

Mrs. Rice

Dr Rice is not married.

oops, my bad. I wasn't sure.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The problem with terrorism is that WE DON'T KNOW how they'll attack. Heck, Spain barely averted ANOTHER train bomb this week. Who would have guessed that they'd try the SAME tactic twice (especially after the electorate did what they wanted and replaced the gov't?). We have to keep open to ALL possibilities --- and when new ones arise (such as kamikaze missions in airplanes), include those in our considerations.

This reminds me of my comment about how terrorism isn't the kind of war enemy that can ever be defeated, even if you bush up the world's sleaziest anti-west/semetic/US organizations.

 

The answer, I believe, has always been "So what, we don't try?"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Mrs. Rice

Dr Rice is not married.

Wow, she's smarter than I thought...