home

9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

UPDATE: Meeting was independently reported in a 2002 Time article, H/T commenter Croatoan, see extended update below.

Now Secretary of State and then National Security Advisor Condi Rice can't believe how incompetent she is and was:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she cannot recall then-CIA chief George Tenet warning her of an impending al-Qaida attack in the United States, as a new book claims he did two months before the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. "What I am quite certain of is that 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 said.

It is incomprehensible. And sadly, completely believable. Remember the title of the August 6, 2001 PDB?

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US

Condi ignored that too. More on the flip.

And what did Rice say about the August 6, 2001 PDB?

RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the Al Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States . . . . It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

Incomprehensible incompetence.

UPDATE - From Croatoan's link:

Berger had left the room by the time Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble-Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen-would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime. The Taliban had come to power in 1996, bringing a sort of order to a nation that had been riven by bloody feuds between ethnic warlords since the Soviets had pulled out. Clarke supported a substantial increase in American support for the Northern Alliance, the last remaining resistance to the Taliban. That way, terrorists graduating from the training camps would have been forced to stay in Afghanistan, fighting (and dying) for the Taliban on the front lines. At the same time, the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan. The plan was estimated to cost "several hundreds of millions of dollars." In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

And that's the point. The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11-that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer, many of those in the know-the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries-were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.

. . . From the start of the Clinton Administration, the job of thwarting terror had fallen to Clarke. A bureaucratic survivor who now leads the Bush Administration's office on cyberterrorism, he has served four Presidents from both parties-staff members joke that the framed photos in his office have two sides, one for a Republican President to admire, the other for a Democrat. Aggressive and legendarily abrasive, Clarke was desperate to persuade skeptics to take the terror threat as seriously as he did. "Clarke is unbelievably determined, high-energy, focused and imaginative," says a senior Clinton Administration official. "But he's totally insensitive to rolling over others who are in his way." By the end of 2000, Clarke didn't need to roll over his boss; Berger was just as sure of the danger.

. . . As the new Administration took office, Rice kept Clarke in his job as counterterrorism czar. In early February, he repeated to Vice President Dick Cheney the briefing he had given to Rice and Hadley. There are differing opinions on how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's wwarnings. Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. "It was clear," says one, "that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us."

. . . In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn't rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President's dog "knew" an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.

Condi never remembers anything.

< Tony Snow: "Simply Naughty E-Mails" | 2006 Midterm Election Guide >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    "Who could have imagined..." The woman is a liar.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    But I don't remember the Al Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
    I've always found this statement of the then National Security Adviser most remarkable. The President of the United States and the National Security adviser didn't take any action because intelligence subordinates didn't tell them what to do! I can't imagine any president of the 20th century reacting in that manner.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    I notice she didn't deny it ... probably waiting to see what further proof exists she's a liar.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    The woman is a liar.
    An incompetant liar.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    Denying it would be her keeping the focus on her and on the... agenda... not incompetence. Bush is a puppet, but Condi, and the rest of them, are not incompetent. They're very good at what they do. She won't deny it. She's hoping that attention will fade from her. That the spotlight will move on.
    It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.


    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    Time magazine, August 2002: In mid-July [2001], Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart ("They always have wall charts") with dozens of threats.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    Now rice is trying to deny the July 10 meeting took place:
    Rice said her staff is now going back to check if there even was a meeting on July 10, 2001
    Yet the WH & rice already admitted the meeting took place:
    The previously undisclosed meeting was not mentioned to members of the Sept. 11 commission, who did an exhaustive investigation of the events leading up to the deadliest terrorist attack in the nation's history. The White House acknowledges that the meeting occurred but disputes the book's depiction of it.
    "I spoke to [Secretary Rice] this morning," Bartlett said. "She believes that this is a very grossly misaccurate characterization of the meeting they had."


    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    Leads one to believe, maybe they wanted an attack to happen.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    Thanks, Sailor. I was wrong about her. I didn't think she would even try, but I guess she's cornered.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#12)
    by ding7777 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    Condi is parsing the word attack. IMO, terror analysts suspected a highjacking of a commerical jet (the "threat assesment" that made Ashcroft start flying non-commericial) or a another building bombing but no one suspected that the said jet highjacking would result in an attack

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    Croatoan: Excellent find. Will Update.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#9)
    by mjvpi on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    I still remember the Pres and the VP insisting on testifying together and refusing to do it under oath. Sec. Rice is at best a firewall.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    sorry, i just never thought ms. rice was all that damn brilliant to begin with. i was never that impressed with her, and this does nothing to dispell that impression. i've read, seen and heard descriptions of her as this wonderfully insightful, intellectual, driven personality. as near as i can tell, the only thing she's driven by is puffing up her own reputation. i find her thematically dull and morally bankrupt. which, if you think about it, makes her a perfect fit for this administration.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    Big Tent - Tempest in a teapot, and of no consquence beyond the Left wanting, desperately, to find something to complain about. Let us again go back to what Rice told FNC: Link
    (Rice says) At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    So Rice had met with Tenet. She had warned the agencies. So, a month before the PDB everyone was put on notice. Again. Nothing but complaints.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:59:40 PM EST
    She speaks fluent Russian and is an accomplished piano player. For those two things, she'd be an expert to consult. For anything else, I wouldn't come near her advice or opinion.

    Jim skips a step, warned the agencies? Actually, if you read the 9/11 Commission Report there is no record that Rice did anything. See in particular Roemer's questioning of her in the link I provide. You assume facts that not only are not in evidence Jim, but that have been proven false. Condi Rice was and is a complete incompetent. Time for you to face the music.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:54:01 AM EST
    Posted by walter66 October 2, 2006 04:08 PM but...but....but...what about the July 5 meeting?
    And ppj still tries to use it again! BTW, anyone ever seen that 'notice' that all the agencies got? Did she follow up? She's a proven serial liar, (which means she wouldn't even make a good consultant), why would anyone take her word for anything? Especially on faux news! she said she couldn't remember the meeting on july 10, that it would be 'incomprehensible' she would ignore it, yet:
    Officials now agree that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so alarmed about an impending Al Qaeda attack that they demanded an emergency meeting at the White House with Ms. Rice and her National Security Council staff.
    BTW, BigTent, Time for you to face the music., good luck with that.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:36:44 AM EST
    Big Tenet - If you want to claim that Rice was lying during the FNC interview, please feel free to do so. But, according to the interview, she warned them quite explicitly. Perhaps instead of paying attention to claims, you can find someone who was supposed to have been at the 7/5 meeting and have them say it never happened. Say someone from:
    the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future.That had been had been George Tenet's language.
    Anon - Please read my comment to Big Tent. ding7777 - The 8/6 PDB contains historical information only except for the last two paragraphs, which note that the FBI has seen suspicious activity and has 70 investigations on going. 8/6 PDB BTW - It is in PDF, which you can down load for free if you don't have it.

    Anons don't get to tell people to face the music.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    Look Tenet, I don't have time for your or Clinton's Osama fixation. Now if you'll excuse me I need to get my hair done. --Condi

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    Big Tent, as you know the comments are screwed up, I had no idea it put me as anonymous, especially since I could see my handle at the top of the comment box just above my blog address. Just like now. Love, Sailor p.s. "Anons don't get to tell people to face the music." I was quoting you saying it to ppj and pointing out he will never 'face the music.'

    Sailor: Well, my apologies for missing that. Thought it was sht at me, and I do think anons don;t have that privilege. Trackable PSeudos, of course. The Scoop site is going to be great. We'll be throwing each other's pronouncements in our respective faces. Accountability, a great thing.

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    OT reply to Big Tent: There was a site, I don't remember where, that if you posted anonymously listed your handle as 'anonymous coward' , I always kinda liked that;-)

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    et al - In the meantime, no proof is provided....

    Re: 9/11 Coverup: Incomprehensible Incompetence (none / 0) (#27)
    by Aaron on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:44:31 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ Come off it man, we all know you're not interested in evidence Jim, you're only interest is in supporting those who support your agenda. It doesn't matter to you if they lie, cheat, steal and murder, as long as it coincides with your view of the world, that little construct inside of your head, you'll find a way to rationalize and justify their actions no matter what they do. Don't pretend for one minute you're interested in the truth, or evidence, everyone here who reads your drivel knows better. You need to wake up my brother, wake up and smell the coffee, before it gets dumped in your lap and fries your balls.