Andrew Sullivan’s Quote for the Day:
“When a newly revitalized al-Qaeda carries out a 9/11-scale attack, you will own that one,” - Senator Kit Bond, yesterday, to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
|
|
1 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 1:44 am CESTGotta give it to those Republicans- they really have a way with words- so glad they are the party of personal responsibility who treat terrorism like it is their personal football. Anytime a Democrat suggests pulling back our forces in Iraq or a timetable, they figure they just scored a touchdown. This kind of remark is just a warmup for ‘08-how low can they go???
2 mvdg
April 28, 2007 @ 2:29 am CESTQuite a bit lower I am afraid
3 Interested
April 28, 2007 @ 2:34 am CESTand here’s the kicker.
If the Dem’s continue to increase politically - and another 9/11 does happen.
a no-brainer on that one.
4 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 3:30 am CESTI disagree. Another 9/11 might or might not happen no matter who is in power. Accounts I’ve read say that no policy can totally prevent another attack. But that reasoning is why I’m not voting Republican in ‘08.
5 Interested
April 28, 2007 @ 4:32 am CESTAccounts you read won’t matter in public opinion, for you can sure bet that if an attack occurred on the Repub watch, the vote would swing to the Dems - widely.
6 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 1:33 pm CESTSo, does that mean Republicans own 9/11? That occurred on their watch after Condi ignored warnings from the CIA.
7 C Stanley
April 28, 2007 @ 3:02 pm CESTOh, come on now Kim, what did Condi ignore? Surely you haven’t bought into the nonsense about the PDB? That was a report that was COMMISSIONED by the administration. They asked the intel community to prepare a brief about the threat of a domestic attack. What they got back was that report with the title saying that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on our soil, but the report gave NO actionable intelligence. What exactly is it that you think Condi should have done?
8 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 3:56 pm CESTCS-
The meeting with George Tenet on July 5th 2001, the one Woodward referred to in State of Denial. This is an article from the MSNBC site written after the book came out. I think Tenet makes the same claim in his new book, coming out Monday. Its that amazing memory lapse again! Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“Woodward wrote that the meeting among Tenet, Rice and Black stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the “starkest warning they had given the White House” on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his network.
Tenet asked for the meeting after receiving a disturbing briefing from Black, according to the book.
A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Sept. 11 Commission and an earlier joint congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks were both informed of Tenet’s and Black’s meeting with Rice, when Tenet warned Rice that a significant attack was coming.”
9 in2thefray
April 28, 2007 @ 7:43 pm CEST“A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity,…”These words drive me nuts since it destroys credibility.An issue of national importance but I’m staying on the sly. The truth is both sides of the aisle have 9/11 blood on them. The next 9/11 ? If it happens will occur like any terrorist action. It will be on the schedule set by the terrorists . The only difference is when you look at the ‘08 field. Who will respond ? Who will best prevent ? I would say a hawk is better than an appeaser, the “army” response is better than a police response and a domestic agenda of security without the isolation of those that could help the most. You pick the best candidate.
10 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 8:49 pm CESTI prefer the police response- an army response is failing us in Iraq, unless our new identity is to be an occupying power whi is universally despised in the ME. Imo, you are setting up a strawman by using the right wing talking points about appeasement. There are many positions between the two extremes. The current policies certainly haven’t made us any safer.
Anyway, Tenet is not an anonymous source, and that’s what he claims also.
11 Interested
April 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm CESTdon’t forget the different standards depending what party you afiliate with CS.
12 C Stanley
April 29, 2007 @ 2:56 am CESTAre there different standards Interested? I hadn’t noticed
Kim,
Did Tenet tell Rice anything actionable at that meeting? If so, I haven’t heard it. Again, the point is, the administration knew that the threat was looming and they were ASKING the CIA to find something they could act on, but they didn’t get anything. Of course we now know of some of the internal problems that prevented various information from getting into the right hands, but none of that pointed to the White House ignoring information that it was given.
13 kritter
April 29, 2007 @ 3:02 am CEST. “Again, the point is, the administration knew that the threat was looming and they were ASKING the CIA to find something they could act on, but they didn’t get anything. ”
How do we know that, CS?
I’m not sure exactly what Tenet’s warning was- but Monday his book is coming out-so that might reveal more. I’m not saying that I find him totally credible, but the administration’s version is no longer credible either.
14 C Stanley
April 29, 2007 @ 3:05 am CESTWell, that was my understanding of the 9/11 commission report; I agree, it will be interesting to see if Tenet’s book sheds any more light on it. But then again, if he had said something specific and actionable that was ignored, why would he not have told that to the commission? And if he’s now claiming that he did, I’m not sure I can put much stock in it given that it might be something he’s embellished in order to sell his book.
15 Mikef
April 29, 2007 @ 6:07 pm CESTHad the president pursued and destroyed al Qaeda instead of getting distracted in Iraq, they’d never have the chance to carry out another 9/11 scale attack.
16 kritter
April 29, 2007 @ 9:29 pm CESTAll in all it seems just as irresponsible to claim that if there’s another attack that the Democrats will own it, as to say that the Republicans own the first 9/11 attack. I do believe that Condi did little to respond to warnings from the CIA which she is now pretending not to remember. If not why not come out and say there was not specific enough information to act on?Tenet’s book skewers her and Cheney- but lets Bush off the hook. I believe he is still close to him which engenders loyalty.
And there is a lot of information out there claiming that Rudy himself made poor decisions between the first WTC attack and 9/11. He chose to put the first responder command ctr on the 24th floor, and did not make sure that communications between police and firefighters would be smooth if there was another attack. After 9/11 he showed leadership, but he’s not very popular in NYC for what he did before and during the tragedy.
17 yonason
April 29, 2007 @ 10:27 pm CESTMost of the discussion above is rumor/speculation- as opposed to fact-based, not to mention poorly reasoned. I’ve seen enough valid info that suggests no one knew anything more than that we had been attacked before, and would probably be attacked again.
Coming to conclusions and deciding on a courses of action based on speculation isn’t the right way to go on anything, let alone something so important.
“Another 9/11 might or might not happen no matter who is in power. Accounts I’ve read say that no policy can totally prevent another attack. But that reasoning [what “reasoning?”] is why I’m not voting Republican in ‘08.” — kritter
(see what I mean?)
Vote instead for the party that wants decreased surveilance of known or suspected terrorists (not ordinary Americans), decreased border security at home, and to run away from our enemies abroad. Clever, …NOT!
Sure, the Reps aren’t guaranteed success at stoping the next attack, but I can guarantee you the Dems will increase it’s likelyhood.
18 yonason
April 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm CEST“2 mvdg
Quite a bit lower I am afraid”
And they’ll have to in order to catch up with the Dems. In fact, even if they were in free-fall, it would take them a while.
19 C Stanley
April 30, 2007 @ 4:50 am CESTKim said:
That’s exactly what she did say, Kim. That was her overall testimony about the threat reports to the 9/11 commission as well as her response when questioned about the meeting where Tenet claims that he left feeling that she wasn’t taking him seriously. Her recollection of that seems to be that she knew the threat was serious but that there was still little that anyone could do without specific information about al Qaeda plans to attack on US soil.