9/11 Testemony summary

[Eiru]

Ignoring the partisan rhetoric for now, can anyone who watched the testemony confirm that this is a pretty accurate summary of what happened? Ailia?

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10160

[Allison]

I haven't watched all the hearings, or gone through all the transcipts yet. So I don't know how good a judge I am of that Tom Paine report. And honestly, I'm too brain dead atm to read it. :) But, I'll get around to it and comment when I know more.

Also, if you didn't know already, all the public transcripts and staff reports are available on the commission's website. http://www.9-11commission.gov/ The staff statements give a good summary of the preliminary findings of the commision.

[Hammer]

It sounds like left wing BS Eiru. No mention of Clarke stating under oath that the 2002 breifing he gave was true. In that breifing it was repeated several times that THERE WAS NO PLAN. Only a strategy and some possible options that had been under discussion since 1998. All current operations under Clinton were kept in force and the strategy was changed from one of "Roll-back" to one of elimination in March. It left out the part about the CIA under Clinton not thinking it had the authority to kill OBL, while the administration said that it was clear. This article makes it sound like the Cole bombing happend right before Bush took office and that Clarke had a great plan for taking it to the terrorist

He advocated going on the offensive with quick and decisive action, based on the recent attack upon the American naval destroyer Cole.

That happened in 1998, what exactly were Clarke and Boyz waiting for? Perhaps a new administration more willing to tackle the problem?

Oh and that powerpoint presentation that no one seems to be able to produce? Powell said if they had a plan laid out in a PP presentation why wasn't it being carried out? That was in the testimony too, but didn't make this nice little summary.

Then there was the fact that Clinton took this so seriously that he met TWICE with the Directory of the CIA. Not in the month following the Cole bombing, EVER. Seems he met in private more with an intern than with the CIA chief;)

[Allison]

OK, I've read the article, but the 9-11 commision's website is down, so I don't have access to the transcripts at the moment to verify things I'd like to verify before commenting fully. Namely, I'm not clear of the author's sources in some parts. For example, in paragraph 5, he attributes Clarke's book. How much the author is taking from Clarke's books and how much is from actual testimony isn't readily apparant.

But of course, I'm fully prepared to respond to some of Hammer's comments. :D

No mention of Clarke stating under oath that the 2002 breifing he gave was true. In that breifing it was repeated several times that THERE WAS NO PLAN. Only a strategy and some possible options that had been under discussion since 1998.Plan schman. Strategy schmategy. (Lol... I got a million of 'em!)

I don't see anywhere in the Salon article that claims a plan was handed over from one administration to the next. What it says is that Clarke had a plan that he had advocated in 1998 that he then passed on to Rice in the form of a memorandum, shortly after innaguration. This does not conflict with what Clarke said in that 1998 background briefing.

This article makes it sound like the Cole bombing happend right before Bush took office and that Clarke had a great plan for taking it to the terrorists. That happened in 1998, what exactly were Clarke and Boyz waiting for? The article is fuzzy on the timeline of this point. He advocated going on the offensive with quick and decisive action, based on the recent attack upon the American naval destroyer Cole. Clarke gave the same briefing to Vice President Richard Cheney, incoming Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rice deputy Stephen Hadley.
What it should have said was, "He advocated [in 1988] going on the offensive ...," which he did. As for that second sentence, I'm not sure if the White House has disputed that or not.

Then there was the fact that Clinton took this so seriously that he met TWICE with the Directory of the CIA. Not in the month following the Cole bombing, EVER. It's a well-known fact that Clinton preferred his daily briefings from the CIA Director in writing. It doesn't mean he wasn't informed. :p

[Rooster]

So when that manila confidential envelope was slipped under the door it didn't disturb his rim-job.

GG focused on your duties.

[Allison]

I still haven't read every word of the testimony given, but I have been able to fact-check most of the article itself. There are a few overstated points, and some incorrect dates, but for the most part, it's factual enough, though a bit slanted here and there.

Having said that, the article shouldn't be interpreted as being a comprehensive representation of either the committee's findings thus far, or of the testimony that's been given. It's not.

I would suggest reading the staff statements of the commision for a fairer and more complete accounting.

[Allison]

Oh, and I wanted to respond to a couple of things:

First, Rooster ... pahleeeze. Clinton got blowjobs in the oval office. Bush probably picks his nose there. Neither says anything about how informed or involved a president is.

Hammer, about that Powerpoint presentation: The article at Salon is accurate in its representation of Berger's testimony regarding that. He said, "There was a detailed, specific, factual slide show briefing that she was given along with others, and that was conducted by Mr. Clarke." I can't find any denials of this from the Bush administration, although, my inability to find them doesn't mean they aren't out there. But, I did find a recent Newsweek article that says it was shown the presentation recently by a Sr. administration official.

[Boom]

"So when that manila confidential envelope was slipped under the door it didn't disturb his rim-job.

GG focused on your duties."

No, just having a president who knows how to read means that other government officials can inform him through memos and not have to actually travel to the white house every time they want to tell him something. I don't think we are better off with a president who doesn't know how to read and has to rely on other people to read everything and interpret it for for him. I shoulda waited one more day to nerf that GWB quote I had in my sig about him not reading the news himself and getting the info from "people who are probably read the news themselves." People who are probably read?!?!?

See, unfair ridiculous attacks can be made on both presidents. What does the fact that Clinton was briefed through memos have to do with his adultery problem? And you say liberals go out of their way to make personal attacks on GWB whenever possible and for no reason?

If you want, we can reduce every political discussion to you screaming "LYING SEX FIEND!!!!" and me screaming "LYING ILLITERATE DRUNK COKEHEAD DRAFTDODGER OIL-INDUSTRY-CRONY!!!"

Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blowjob, just like 90% of all male politicians have at one time or another. Yes it was wrong. It didn't effect everything he did for 8 years in the whitehouse, while the economy was actually good and we had a government surplus. Now we have a huuuuuuge deficit. Even without the fight on terrorism we would have a huge deficit because of bush's policies. I can understand and even support the addition to the deficit caused by the war on terrorism, but dammit you don't run something by spending more money then you take in.

For now on, every time I see an uncalled for Clinton bashing, I will post a moronic GWB quote. Here are a few to get caught up.

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I agree, it are appalling.

"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't you mentor a child how to read?"—St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 5, 2004

Why don't we mentor him how to speak?

"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say."—Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

That one is probably my favorite.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."—Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003

Yeah! Go get those damn Iraqis who want peace and bring them to justice!

"[W]hether they be Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu, people have heard the universal call to love a neighbor just like they'd like to be called themselves."—Washington, Oct. 8, 2003

sigh....

"I'm so pleased to be able to say hello to Bill Scranton. He's one of the great Pennsylvania political families."—Drexel Hill, Penn., Sept. 15, 2003

Ummm....

"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."—Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

Yeah, Security is always getting in the way.

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America."—Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

Because of their steadfast? Does he know what that word means? And aside from the steadfast thing, am I the only one who reads this quote and drops his jaw.

"My answer is bring them on."—On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

Yes, kill more of our troops.

"You've also got to measure in order to begin to effect change that's just more—when there's more than talk, there's just actual—a paradigm shift."—Washington, D.C., July 1, 2003

Uh oh, starting to fumble here, I better say something that sounds good. Paradigm!!! That's a big word! Do I sound like I know what I'm talking about now?

"Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon."—Washington, D.C., June 18, 2003

GWB would be dangerous if he HAD a brain.

"We are making steadfast progress."—Washington, D.C., June 9, 2003

An oxymoron from the moron, how ironic? Someone want to help him out with "steadfast?" That word keeps causing him trouble.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

Really? That's a great quality for the most powerful man in the world, doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about why he does things.

"Oftentimes, we live in a processed world—you know, people focus on the process and not results."—Washington, D.C., May 29, 2003

I like processed dairy products. Now I got a whole processed world. Thanks GWB!

"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure."—Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003

The American people AND our own people! Woot! A two for one deal! Hey, wait a minute...

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."—Washington, D.C., May 19, 2003

Shocking! Is he sure about that?

"We've had a great weekend here in the Land of the Enchanted."—Albuquerque, N.M., May 12, 2003 (New Mexico's state nickname is "Land of Enchantment.")

Welcome to the land of dumbass!

"I think war is a dangerous place."—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003

He thinks war is a place?!?!?! It's not a place. I'm not a political expert, but I am relatively sure that war is not a place.

"I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will."—Speaking about Saddam Hussein, Manchester, N.H., Oct. 5, 2002

I bet that scared Saddam. It scares the hell out of me.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

We wont get fooled again!!!! blawwww bah bah da da!!! Meet the new boss, bah bah da da, same as the old boss. blawww bah bah da da!!!!!!!!

I have tons more, but I'm the only one left at the office and I could be playing videogames right now. :p

[Hammer]

Does getting a daily memo equate to being informed? Do you get more from reading a memo from an expert or a conversation with one?

[Hammer]

Oh, forgot to respond to boom. Thank god every word i've spoken for the last 3 years hasn't been recorded;)

[Boom]

Apparently getting a daily memo equates to being rimjobbed.

And you get more information by reading memos then having someone read them for you (I mean have someone are read them for you) and give you a watered down summary.

[Boom]

I bet if every word you said for the last 3 years was recorded, I would not be able to compile a list that long of such obviously dumb statements. Sure we all mispeak from time to time, but I seriously doubt you have made that many dumb statements in public in the last 3 years (while sober).

And the sad thing is, that list represents a tiny fraction of the dumb GWB quotes I have at my disposal. The majority of those quotes are all within a few months of 2003.

And even if you were as dumb as GWB (which you clearly are not), that would be ok because you are an average Joe American just like me. You aren't assuming the responsibility of the most powerful office in the world. I would hope that anyone who would take that office would have an above average intellect, and mastery of the language.

So if your point is that most people say dumb things, and if we recorded my, or your, statements from the last 3 years, that we could easily compile a few funny quotes, then yes, I agree with that. But I don't think that most people are qualified to be president. I expect more from someone who says he is qualified for that most high of offices. I expect him to not be an average idiot. And this guy regularly sounds like a significantly sub-average idiot.

[]LoL[Harm]

Thats the problem with popular elections, they tend to ignore the actual qualifications one might have to hold that office they are being elected in to and instead decide to focus on intangibles or even worse off, someones personal past. It's one of the reasons I have a hard time deciding on who to vote for.