Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Condi speech on 9/11 - never delivered

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Condi speech on 9/11 - never delivered

    Again, I am not sure why it's so huge that before 9/11, we weren't paying close enough attention to terrorists; Bush should focus on post 9/11. But since they are contesting Richard Clarke's pronouncements, this sure doesn't help.

    ***
    Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism
    Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense
    By Robin Wright
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A01

    On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

    The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

    The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

    The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

    "We need to worry about the suitcase bomb, the car bomb and the vial of sarin released in the subway," according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post. "[But] why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?"


    The text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, broadly reflects Bush administration foreign policy pronouncements during the eight months leading to the attacks, according to a review of speeches, news conferences and media appearances. Although the administration did address terrorism, it devoted far more attention to pushing missile defense, a controversial idea both at home and abroad, the review shows.

    Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism rated lower on the list of priorities, as outlined by officials in their own public statements on policy.

    The question of whether the administration was properly focused on the terrorist threat before Sept. 11 is central to a building political storm in Washington, as a commission investigating the attacks prepares to take public testimony from Rice. Last week, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke, accused the administration of failing to take seriously enough the danger from al Qaeda -- a charge the White House strenuously disputes.

    ***
    The rest
    Dude. Can. Fly.

  • #2
    Why is this a story?

    Insane.

    Comment


    • #3
      What do you want from her, dvy? I mean, no one could have predicted they were use planes as weapons, so better roll up the windows and buy a mace.
      2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Honestly, I'd be amazed to hear that ANYONE in government in the past 25 years ever seriously considered someday someone would fly a plane into the WTC.

        Some enterprising journalist, if one could take time out from all the stupid shit that's going on now, ought to go back to the first eight months of 2001 and find out if anyone AT THE TIME was on record as saying the administration wasn't taking AQ or terrorism seriously enough. I suspect that would be a long search.

        It's all very clear in hindsight, isn't it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Apr 1 2004, 11:47 AM
          Why is this a story?

          Insane.
          Because they are trying to contend that they did focus on terrorism pre 9/11.

          Everyone was asleep at the wheel but they can't bring themselves to admit that, though it's obvious.

          That's why this is a story.
          Dude. Can. Fly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Apr 1 2004, 11:53 AM
            Honestly, I'd be amazed to hear that ANYONE in government in the past 25 years ever seriously considered someday someone would fly a plane into the WTC.

            Some enterprising journalist, if one could take time out from all the stupid shit that's going on now, ought to go back to the first eight months of 2001 and find out if anyone AT THE TIME was on record as saying the administration wasn't taking AQ or terrorism seriously enough. I suspect that would be a long search.

            It's all very clear in hindsight, isn't it?
            Reg, see my prior post.

            It's that the Bushies are denying they were asleep at the wheel. Or that they did a worse job than Clinton.

            Again, I didn't think that's an issue, but they made it one by denying it.
            Dude. Can. Fly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Everyone was asleep at the wheel but they can't bring themselves to admit that, though it's obvious.
              In the context in which it's presently being presented, EVERYONE since Eisenhower was asleep at the wheel. Even dickwad Clarke said 9/11 couldn't have been prevented.

              This part of the bullshit is a total non-starter with me, and yes, I'm willing to grant Clinton as much leeway as I'm granting Bush.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Apr 1 2004, 11:57 AM
                Everyone was asleep at the wheel but they can't bring themselves to admit that, though it's obvious.
                In the context in which it's presently being presented, EVERYONE since Eisenhower was asleep at the wheel. Even dickwad Clarke said 9/11 couldn't have been prevented.

                This part of the bullshit is a total non-starter with me, and yes, I'm willing to grant Clinton as much leeway as I'm granting Bush.
                I agree, but the administration doesn't. They are fighting this characterization tooth and nail.
                Dude. Can. Fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, they have to. Clarke knocked all the beer off the table in an election year. But they seem to have done a pretty good job of neutralizing him. Whatever decent points he did have are being severely compromised by all his baggage.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ReggieCleveland@Apr 1 2004, 12:02 PM
                    Well, they have to. Clarke knocked all the beer off the table in an election year. But they seem to have done a pretty good job of neutralizing him. Whatever decent points he did have are being severely compromised by all his baggage.
                    The issue I would love to see debated is Clarke's contention about post 9/11 and going after Iraq.

                    I know how everyone here feels, but I'd love to see the big names go at it.
                    Dude. Can. Fly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      DVYYYYY=
                      Official Sponsor of Jim Edmonds & John Smoltz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        How the hell did you know I loved biking?

                        TOO WEIRD!
                        Dude. Can. Fly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          dvy...good find. Out of curiosity, I would like to see the actual text, as this is just opinion.

                          Funny thing, Missile defense and the distaste for nation building are two factors (along with tax cuts) that almost persuaded me to vote for GWB in 2000.

                          I too felt that Ballistic missiles were the "immediate" (or imminent, or more immediate or... ) threat. I also did not particularly like policing the world.


                          I felt that a strong missile defense system would be the best defense. It would allow us to withdraw many forward based troops and provide what I thought was the best solution for security. Both economical and political.




                          Today, it is one aspect that worries me. I still feel there is a threat on the horizon from ballistic missiles; I still am a supporter of a missile defense system.

                          With all the wrangling and debate over funding the war on terror, I am not sure how we will procure funds to address future threats.
                          Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lazydaze@Apr 1 2004, 12:08 PM
                            dvy...good find. Out of curiosity, I would like to see the actual text, as this is just opinion.

                            Funny thing, Missile defense and the distaste for nation building are two factors (along with tax cuts) that almost persuaded me to vote for GWB in 2000.

                            I too felt that Ballistic missiles were the "immediate" (or imminent, or more immediate or... ) threat. I also did not particularly like policing the world.


                            I felt that a strong missile defense system would be the best defense. It would allow us to withdraw many forward based troops and provide what I thought was the best solution for security. Both economical and political.




                            Today, it is one aspect that worries me. I still feel there is a threat on the horizon from ballistic missiles; I still am a supporter of a missile defense system.

                            With all the wrangling and debate over funding the war on terror, I am not sure how we will procure funds to address future threats.
                            lazy, one thing I argued before the war - even if a missle comes our way, there will be hell to pay. No sane leader that wants to stay in power would consider it. We'd tear 'em apart.

                            That said, yes, better safe than sorry. If it's doable, fine. I'd put a little money into it but not overwhelmingly so.
                            Dude. Can. Fly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As early as 1999, government agencies were warning specifically that terrorists were considering using planes as weapons.
                              2005 Mandatory Loyalty Oath: I love America, our troops, baseball, Moms, and certain pies. I want no harm to come to any of those institutions, nor do I take any glee in their demise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X