Monday, October 02, 2006

Non-Denials of "Denial"

When I read the following comments from the Secretary of State for the current Bush administration, my head shook really hard and made one of those old Tex Avery cartoon noises. My eyes likely shot out of my head and rolled under the table, again as in Tex Avery land.

Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" refers to a meeting held July 10, 2001 where then-CIA Director George Tenet and his top counter-terrorism aide Cofe Black informed Condoleezza Rice of their fears of an impending attack on the U.S. was likely. The book claims Rice brushed aside their concerns.

In a report from Rueters, Rice made several comments in response to the book, which are deeply contradictory.

"
Rice said she had no specific recollection of the meeting, stressed that the threat reporting at the time was about potential attacks abroad rather than at home, and denied she was given a warning of a possible strike on the United States.

"I don't know that this meeting took place ... what I am quite certain of is that (it) was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond," Rice told reporters as she flew to the Middle East.

"I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States. And the idea that I would somehow have ignored that, I find, incomprehensible," Rice added."

So, she has no memory of the meeting, but she remembers she did not hear any warning from Tenet at that meeting."

Incomprehensible, indeed.

The report also includes a denial from Rice that she urged for the removal of Rumsfeld, but that she did express the idea of replacing the "entire national security team" -- which she then explains as meaning only herself.

15 comments:

  1. This, I take it, is the same George Tenet, Clinton appointee he, that said that finding WMDs in Iraq was "a slam dunk!".

    Maybe better to be contradictory than clueless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe better to be contradictory than clueless.

    Is that then the political philosophy of the Bush administration?

    The sad truth is this administration excells at both attributes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OXYMORON10:43 PM

    Loved that "slam dunk" when it got GW off the hook, didn't ya?
    Now suddenly Woodward is channeling Michael Moore's talking point. Wonderful vapors you inhale, jennntonic.
    Go back to your Tanqueray.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unlike the opinions typically espoused here which are about as balanced as, say, Michael Moore's bathroom scale, I freely admit the Iraq war was a terrible blunder. The administration was warned about that from West leaning Middle Eastern leaders such as Hosni Mubarek. However, prior to 2003, tell me one Congressman or celeb - including John Kerry and his E streeet suckling Bruce Springsteen - who didn't thump their chest before the cameras and declare that "the real threat to this world is Saddam Hussein!!".

    Sure, I will give you a week to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can see that Condi is becoming as big a bag a wind as her bossman.

    I'm sure they're all hoping that everything will blow on by, since the Dems have such a fear of rocking the damned boat.

    And when Rove pulls up Bin Laden-on-ice & puts a couple of bullet holes in his dead ass.. everyone will once again shout, 'Praise be! Dubyah is our hero..'

    The whole thing just sickens me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jenn -
    this blog is for my opinion and thought - you want "balance" perhaps a front-end alignment will serve your needs better. the point of this post was about the ignored warnings of terrorist attacks in 2001.

    but since you mentioned Hussein ...
    who thumped their chests about Hussein's evil?
    would that be the Reagan/Bush administration which ignored in 1988 the mass killings of tens of thousands of Kurds with chemical warheads - just some of the very charges Hussein is now on trial for?

    calling the current war a "blunder" is cold comfort for the thousands of American families who have sacrificed their own.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And, Joe, my point is that time after time after time again, administrations from Reagan through Bush II ignored terrorist threats - and blood was shed. It was also a horrific blunder for President Clinton to ignore the attacks on the Trade Center in '93; the Khobar Center in '96; the US Embassy in Nairobi in '98 and the Cole in '00. Undoubtedly, this ignorance led to the widespread belief that all acts of terrorism would go unresponded - and did until the current administration. However, when we are official apologists such admonitions are, as one wag put it, "all linky and no thinky".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jenn, your Karl Rove/FOX News inspired talking points info has been often repeated and is simply not factual.

    Here are some facts from a PBS Frontline special of May, 2001 -
    "Since the August 7, 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people and injured over 5,000, the United States government has attempted to arrest and bring to trial those responsible. The U.S. has issued a series of indictments against Osama bin Laden, the man they believe controls the international terrorist organization responsible for the bombings. As of May 2001, seventeen defendants have been charged in relation to the bombings. Of the seventeen, eight are still at large. Five have been arrested and are in custody in the United States or Great Britain.
    The eight remaining defendants, including bin Laden himself, are still at large. Many are believed to be hiding in Afghanistan. The United States is actively pursuing all of them. They are: Osama bin Laden, Muhammed Atef, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed (Haroun Fazul), Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam, and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan."

    Now, as for the WTC attacks in 1993, in October 1995 (that means during Clinton's presidency, Jenn), the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years.

    The attack on the Cole occured in mid-October of 2000. Bush had little use for anti-terror chief Richard Clarke, whose book "Against All Enemies" you really should read if you earnestly want some facts, It took two years into the Bush presidency to respond - he responded by allowing the CIA on November 3, 2002, to fire a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil.

    Four years into the Bush presidency, on September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at an undisclosed location. Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.

    Six years into the Bush presidency, many of those suspected escaped custody -- On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. This number included 13 who were convicted of the USS Cole bombings and the bombing of the French tanker Limburg in 2002.

    I know these facts do not fit into your rage against Clinton, Jenn.

    And when Clinton attempted to state this info in the lame character smear crafted by Chris Wallace, then it gave neo-cons who ignore history at the nation's peril yet another chance of shifting blame for the current world political situation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OXYMORON11:28 PM

    "administrations from Reagan through Bush II ignored terrorist threats - and blood was shed. It was also a horrific blunder for President Clinton to ignore the attacks on the Trade Center in '93; the Khobar Center in '96; the US Embassy in Nairobi in '98 and the Cole in '00. Undoubtedly, this ignorance led to the widespread belief that all acts of terrorism would go unresponded - and did until the current administration."

    Above is the most ridiculous statement ever posted on a blog outside Instapundit, David Horowitz, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

    "Ignored"? Are you just simply stupid or what.?

    Inability to stop 9/11 did not mean any Republican or Democratic adminstration "ignored" terrorist threats. Mismanaged them perhaps.
    But I "know" no administratioin "ignored" them. I don't even think Dubyas administration "ignored" terrorist threats. I think they in their own idiotic way thought an attack was immenent and told themselves (puffing out their chests like Barney Fife) that they would show these people a thing or two. And they ignored the lessons of history at the cost of others than themselves.

    Jennntonics musings a good assembelage of faux analysis and I emphasize Anal. But the fact is, is 9/11 was brought about by the combination of the hijackers brillance and the Bush's Adminstration's distractions while they busied themselves with deciding how they would divide up the loot and congratulating themselves on their Florida Powerplay.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "immenent"
    "assembelage"
    "administratioin"

    Please use spellcheck when you are blathering and raving. No matter how biased and illogical you may be, it lends a scrap of credibility - especially where it is sorely needed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OXYMORON1:05 PM

    I can spell Potato...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can spell Gin and Tonic...

    ReplyDelete
  13. And, Joe, as you can see from your rebuttal, President Clinton treated these attacks as a "police matter" - that isn't a criticism, it is simply a fact. President Bush sees it as a "military matter". I am sure both thought this was the appropriate response, but this new violence seems both and neither. Who is to say that had we not gone to Iraq that this enemy would not have turned Kabol into Baghdad. You need not reference any book touted by Clinton or Hugo Chavez to "connect those points".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don't you love how Gin and Tonic (because that IS how it's spelled) categorically dismisses a book because Clinton touts it?
    Forget actually reading it.

    Don't you love how Gin and Tonic magically and mysteriously connects Clinton and Hugo Chavez?

    So, if I use Gin and Tonic's bias way of looking at the world to look at Gin and Tonic, then... Gin and Tonic and Adolf Hilter are turds with the power to compute. Amazing! All those years of higher education out the window! I can just call someone a buttmunch and it becomes true and meaningful because I think as much.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OXYMORON10:15 AM

    GnT's last post pretty much self-satirizes his crippled reasoning powers.

    I can spell Kabul at least.

    ReplyDelete