I heard the first couple of minutes of her prepared opening statement on the radio. Nothing surprising about the veribage, but the thing that struck me is how nervous she sounded reading it. I can't recall ever hearing any official at her level sound that nervous while reading a prepared statement.

Now, in fairness, if I was called into the spotlight like that I'd be nervous too.* But I'm not a pro. She is, and is sounding unprofessionally flustered. Maybe she'll settle down as the hearing goes on.

*And with the recent developments in Iraq, you can bet it's not exactly smooth sailing in the situation room at the White House. I doubt she's had much time to relax over the past week.

I listened to about 45 minutes of it on the radio and noticed the same thing: nervous and flustered. Not what I expected from her at all. Maybe it was better on tv?

I have not watched even one minute of Condi Rice’s testimony. Although I can hear it in the living room while I type out these comments. She sounds good---and that’s all Rice has to accomplish. A modest presentation helps the administration. But what if Ms. Rice hits a home run? In that case, the Democrats will really wish they had left her alone.

There is something that I just don’t get: why were the Democrat partisans so anxious to have Ms. Rice testify? What was the logic behind this attitude? The woman only needs to hit a bunt single to blow them away. Why were these folks setting themselves for embarrassment? Did they think that Rice is a stupid woman who would easily make a fool of herself? Am I missing something?

As a former professional broadcaster, let me say tha most people's reading... even a lot of profesionals... is somewhat stilted sounding. I'm not sure I'd place to much weight in how the prepared statement is read.

When I have heard Ms. Rice speak before, I have always heard a "nervous" tone in her voice. Don't know that'd I'd make much of that.

If someone asks a nasty question, and she's able to blow it away with a pithy remark, that's all that will make the evening news. If she says something directly nasty about Clarke, that will aslos make the news.

if she's just rational, the news will just have to concentrate on the Iraq stuff.

As a former professional broadcaster, let me say tha most people's reading... even a lot of profesionals... is somewhat stilted sounding.

As another former professional broadcaster, I agree - even the pros can sound stilted when reading prepared script.

But I didn't say she sounded stilted, I said she sounded nervous. Too bad you didn't spend any time as a professional reader.

One mark of a pro is that you never sound nervous. Professional broadcaster, professional policitian, profesional actor, professional liar, it doesn't matter. You're not supposed to let 'em see [hear] you sweat.

On the positive side, it appears that Condi has mastered the advice of he handlers about smiling all the time. I don't think we'll get any of those nasty petulent scowls today that Ms. Rice has been sporting of late.

“But I didn't say she sounded stilted, I said she sounded nervous.”

Is Condi Rice at least hitting a bunt single? This is the only real question a Democrat partisan should be considering. Once again, why were they so anxious to get her to testify? Ms. Rice only has to give a half way decent performance to damage the Democrats.

She doesn't even have to hit a single. Anything short of a Dean-like scream and the people who want to believe her will declare victory.

Stuart Benjamin basically nails the response:

http://volokh.com/2004_04_04_volokh_archive.html#108138093166469910

“She doesn't even have to hit a single. Anything short of a Dean-like scream and the people who want to believe her will declare victory.”

The hell with the partisans. What will be the response of the middle of the road voter who could go either way on the day of the election? I strongly contend that Condi Rice merely needs to hit a bunt single to satisfy them.

What will be the response of the middle of the road voter who could go either way on the day of the election?

"Who's Condelizza Rice?"

I'm just happy to finally see someone stop toeing the line on the Millenium plot. I noticed none of the commissioners pressed her on it so maybe they are doing a better job privately than I initially thought.

As far as being nervous, I couldn't really tell. She's always had a very measured, stilted pattern of speech. She did have frequent small pauses where most throw in the obligatory "uh", "umm", etc. but nothing so different from her usual style to stand out.

There is something that I just don’t get: why were the Democrat partisans so anxious to have Ms. Rice testify? What was the logic behind this attitude? The woman only needs to hit a bunt single to blow them away. Why were these folks setting themselves for embarrassment? Did they think that Rice is a stupid woman who would easily make a fool of herself? Am I missing something?

You're missing the fact that there are people in the world who aren't mindless hacks like yourself, and who occasionally ask questions because they're interested in finding out the answers.

Describe the Contrast Game

Title of August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing -

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S"

George Bush statement March 23 -

"Had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September the 11th, we would have acted."

( ) Flip Flop
( ) Nuanced answer
( ) Completely consistent
( ) Lie
( ) Dodge
( ) Nonresponsive
( ) Beside the Point
( ) Specific vs General
( ) Geography error - PDB didn't say New York
( ) Date Error - PDB didn't say 9/11

“You're missing the fact that there are people in the world who aren't mindless hacks like yourself, and who occasionally ask questions because they're interested in finding out the answers.”

Aren’t you the same person who argued that the New York Times overreacted by firing Jason Blair? :

“I vaguely point out that the crimes which set off this whole episode of breast-beating would most likely not even have warranted an internal reprimand here in the Greatest Newspaper Market On Earth [tm]. You read about far worse lifting and quote-polishing in Private Eye every couple of weeks (Robert Fisk detractors, buy the current issue; it's got an absolute pearl in it).

I try not to conclude from Sulzberger's disgusting grovelling that the American public has got exactly the self-righteous, prissy, cowardly press it wants, but it gets harder every day. Why doesn't somebody prevail on Rupert Murdoch to give you folks a proper newspaper?
Posted by: dsquared on May 15, 2003 08:10 AM”

What in hell would you know about “occasionally ask(ing) questions because they're interested in finding out the answers.”

Interesting observation in the USA Today coverage:

"She [Rice] also offered no criticism of Richard Clarke..."

So for all the attacks on Clarke's character on just about every TV show that would have her, when it comes time to testify under penalty of perjury she has absolutely nothing to say about it.

I guess we can file the ad-homonim attacks on Clark under the "unsubstantiated bluster" tab.

Do you really want to know why the United States was unprepared on 9/11? It is a real easy question to answer: the radical Muslims were “people of color” and the politically correct liberal establishment would never allow us to take serious precautions. It took an actual attack to force us to our senses. Sadly, few Islamic terrorists are blue eyed and blond.

I am one of the very few who accurately predicted (knock on wood) that we would not have another major terrorist attack on our shores. Why was I so confident? That’s because I knew we would be taking a second look at anyone who looked Arab. Do I shock you? Heck, I’m just telling the truth.

It's not Condi who should be talking, but Clinton. I wanna know why he didn't do his job and protect us from terrorists. Terrorists had been bombing and killing Americans for years. Clinton was too busy tooking for nookie. He is a failed presiident. Only now do we know how much he failed.

Clem:

Interesting observation in the USA Today coverage:

"She [Rice] also offered no criticism of Richard Clarke..."

So for all the attacks on Clarke's character on just about every TV show that would have her, when it comes time to testify under penalty of perjury she has absolutely nothing to say about it.

Perhaps you and I are not reading the same coverage, or the same transcripts.

AP:

Her appearance, televised nationally, also contained a series of implicit and explicit rebuttals to a series of politically damaging charges made two weeks ago by former terrorism aide Richard Clarke.

I guess we can file your "victory dance" post in the "unsubstantiated bluster" tab.

Ricky,

They are talking to Clinton. Gore too, as well as a dozen or so other members of the Clinton administration.

Please try to have some idea what you're talking about next time, mmmK? While you are entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Clem:

I don't know that I draw the same conclusion that you do from the failure to complain about Clarke's charges. First, none of the Commissioners asked her about Clarke, or much about his charges. (Condi did challenge some of Clarke's charges -- such as the narrow focus on Iraq.) Second, when we get right down to it, the firefight on Clarke amounts to his tone on 60 minutes, and his willingness to spin facts in various directions, depending on his audience. Third, I think a "lay off Clarke" memo has gone around the admin. Notice youy haven't heard much about him this week?

The 9/11 Commission is a partisan charade. Its hearings are partisan charades. It has no meaning save for partisans whose minds are already made up, and it will have no material effect save to waste the time of a few people who might otherwise have done something useful.

Appalled Moderate:

Actually, I think you provide a better explanation than the "afraid to attack him under oath" theory. Occams razor and all that.

Attacking Clarke at this point would be a political loser - it would just give him more attention and make Rice look mean. The smart thing to do is to try tone things down.

But sometimes it's hard to resist taking a cheap shot.

Rice Rocks

Rice vs. Clarke

I was amazed at Reuters' leading headline around 1:30PM: "Bush Aides Said to Take Aim at Iraq After 9/11". This headline, apparently, is in reference to Rice testifying that aides "discussed" the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the days following 9/11. Rice definitely didn't characterize Bush aides as "taking aim" at Iraq. And nowhere in the Reuters headline does the story mention Rice's oft-repeated, and now under-oath quote, "it was a map of Afghanistan that was rolled out" when the Bush team went to Camp David the weekend after 9/11.

Thankfully, the rest of the major news outlets had already agreed on more objective headlines (unlike their initial response).

Dr. Rice held her ground quite well. She didn't let any of the political grandstanding do unanswered. Which I think was important, since the Democratic commissioners (excluding the co-chair) really were trying to score their own political points rather than get to the bottom of the putative issue the commissionn is supposed to be answering: Why did 9/11 happen and how can future 9/11s be prevented.

One piece of new information to come out of Rice's testimony today is the title of the President Daily Briefing (PDB) from August 6th:

"Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States."

Rice said it did not warn of attacks inside the United States. Huh? Is the reason we couldn't have prevented 9/11 a lack of ability to read plain English?

Anyway it looks like this memo is going to be dragged kicking and screaming out into the light of day - Sean McCormack is saying "We have every intention to declassify it at this time" - so maybe we'll get the chance to judge for ourselves.

But this is a long way from the "nobody could have possibly foreseen" spin we've been asked to buy for the past two years.

"Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States."

Rice said it did not warn of attacks inside the United States. Huh? Is the reason we couldn't have prevented 9/11 a lack of ability to read plain English?”

So what? We already knew that Bin Lan was “determined to attack inside United States." Why not “dogs are determined to chase cats?” Where are the specifics which would have unambiguously allowed us to know how the attack was to be carried out?

The same Democrats who are yelling today would have been the first to charge the Bush administration with racial profiling previous to 9/11. Why did the FBI and CIA hesitate to do more? That is a very easy question to answer: they shied away from being charged with bigotry against brown colored Muslims.

David Thompson wrote:

"Sadly, few Islamic terrorists are blue eyed and blond."

Although he wasn't Islamic, the previous terrorist du jour was Tim McVeigh. Arresting every Al Qaeda person in the world will not be the end of terrorism on US soil.

Clem,

"But sometimes it's hard to resist taking a cheap shot."

Too bad you don't take your own advice.

No David. That's what Clem and "his people" on the left are saying about Bush and the CIA after 9-11. Anything like that before 9-11 would have ended in impeachment of Bush.

“Although he wasn't Islamic, the previous terrorist du jour was Tim McVeigh. Arresting every Al Qaeda person in the world will not be the end of terrorism on US soil.”

Agreed. The same holds true for the terrorists who murdered the abortion providers. Still, the CIA and FBI are both organizations fearful of being charged with racism. Political correctness runs rampant in both agencies. Investigating brown colored Muslims was strongly frowned upon. It indeed took a disaster like 9/11 to encourage us to wake up to reality.

Since Clinton chose not to respond to the USS Cole bombing, I found it curious that the PHs on the commission were asking Rice why the Bush administration did not respond to the Cole--four months after the fact. Why not ask Rice why Bush did not respond to the Mexican attack on the Alamo?

I watched some of Condi on CSPAN, and then I read the transcript -- and then I watched some excerpts on Lehrer.

She was much, much more effective on video than the audio might suggest. Her body language was superb! She repeatedly gathered herself and rose up to counter the silliness of Ben v. I thought she was terrific! Remember, an attractive woman who doesn't lose her temper, who effectively squelches an angy male antagonist ALWAYS WINS (the best at this are Peggy Noonan and Phlyllis Shaffly).

And in the transcipts, she wins handily.

By contrast, Clarke was better on audio -- he LOOKED smarmy on video, and he was blown away in the transctips (Q: If the Bush administration had done everything you recommended, would it have prevented 9/11? A: No)

For those thinking the Aug. 6 memo title was startling google "Abdul Hakim Murad". From 1996 on we knew terrorists wanted to use planes to attack targets inside the U.S.(namely, CIA HQ in Langley) and that Murad had used flight schools in the U.S. to train.

Clem, Ricky V. wants to hear Clinton. This we will not be able to do, since he testified in closed session. Right?

Rice was extremely good on video, as Norman R., notes, worse via audio, since the face to face interplay could not be seen. Playing politics and grandstanding honors went to the dems, who complained about Rice's desire to be heard from, after demanding she go public in order to be heard, to say nothing of them eating up their own time with long statements, then complaining that their time was eaten up.

Then the two chairmen admit that Rice added nothing substantive to the hearings beyond what she had already in closed session, yet hold that it was historic and very important that she had testified in public. I don't quite get this yet. It was obvious from before the testimony that there were no smoking guns to see, since all commission members had reccommended her public showing.
The dems got to set up their next big hunt, the declassification of the Aug. 6 memorandum, which will reveal nothing, since they already have it. too.
Rice showed me she is capable of running the country.

Dr. Rice carried herself very well during the testimony. She does have a slight quaver in her voice, but it wasn't something I noticed when watching video of the testimony.

I was very impressed by how carefully and thoroughly she answered every question. I think it was very foolish of the Democrats to insist she testify. I knew she was competent and well-educated in the matters under discussion but I didn't realize she was so persistant and quick on her feet. She politely and firmly took care of BenVeniste, who was an utter waste of time. She did stumble once when arguing with Kerrey, but she won two other exchanges with him so overwhelmingly that he looked ridiculous.

The press that wants to spin it badly is having a tough time. With careful cutting of one exchange with Ben-Veniste, they can make it seem like Rice is argumentative (see David Sanger's montage in the NYTimes for an example of attempting to pluck the slightest negatives out of the testimony), but if you listen to any amount of time on either side of a given clip it is clear that BV is the obstructionist. A few places have tried to make a big deal out of the title of the Aug. 6th memo, but as Rice repeated multiple times, the body of the piece is about historic evidence not recently gathered data.

It was nice that some of the Republican questioners (and some of the quieter Democratic questioners) were actually interested in getting information out of her on what was learned from the events on 9/11. That's the whole point of this anyways. She was very informative.

Joe Peden - I'd vote Rice 2008 based on her testimony today.

Clem, Ricky V. wants to hear Clinton. This we will not be able to do, since he testified in closed session. Right?

I have no idea what Ricky wants. I didn't get the impression that he knew that Clinton was even testifying. Or the difference between his posterior and Saddam's spider hole for that matter.

Yes, Clinton's session was closed. I don't know if that was at the request of Clinton, the Comisssion or the Bush administration (yes, they have a say in the matter, and rightfully so) Anybody know the straight dope on this one?

My take is that all the testimony should be public, including Bush's. Especially Bush's. But I don't make the rules. If you're concerned about divulging secrets, put it on a tape delay - we've waited two and a half years, what's another hour or two?

And while I have no doubts that Clinton could hold his own with the comission, it's painfully obvious that Bush wouldn't stand a chance. Hence the hiding behind national security and Uncle Dick.

THe BenV moment when he asked Rice to name the title of the PDB of Aug 6 really pissed me off. All he was shooting for was a Perry Mason shocker scene with lots of ooh and ahhs and a gotcha! He is supposed to be interested in the TRUTH and his attempt to stop Rice from answering in full proves that he's not interested in that at all.

David Thompson writes: "So what? We already knew that Bin Lan was “determined to attack inside United States." "

So why make that the title?

The CIA wouldn't have used that as the title if it was just rehashing the obvious. The phrasing of the title is clearly meant as a warning of current threats.

I'm with john jay - Condi vs. Hilary in '08 would be one hell of a fun ride. And doesn't Dick C. have a little bit of heart trouble, so as to make for a nice face-saving exit to allow her as VP and boost her shot at '08?

I watched the testimony today as well, listened to the 4 widows who pushed so much to get this commission started on HArdball and I have a few mixed decisions on this. Yes Condi did well but that is to me like saying I performed well in a routine job activity. She had already talked to the commission so I am sure she was well aware as to the questions they would ask. This is her job she had better stand up to the stress of being questioned.

The things I felt interesting was how often times she repeated herself in answer to different questions. She did run long on her answers but the REp and Dems both did a bit of grandstanding on stating their questions as well. She talked about all of these systeminc and structural problems that she admitted have been known for years and she made it sound as if that was a high priority was to change them. Why then were all these changes implemented immediately after 9/11? Why not before? The thing that concerned me as well was that although she started out saying their was no silver bullet that could have prevented this attack she seemed to think that their was a lot of flaws in the system. One would think that if some or most of the flaws were fixed the attack may have been prevented, if not then why fix the system?

The other thing that jumped out at me was how she stated much of the evidence, chatter and estimates regarding the terrorist threat were vague, non actionable and not easily verified; yet the administration used old, and in many cases unverified facts for building the case for WMD and the IRaq war. Why the difference? I am sure that last question will get me nailed by some people but I think it is an important one.

If Condi repeated herself it was because she was being asked essentially the same question (albeit in slightly different forms) again and again. Each of the Democratic Inquisitors, hoping for their soundbite on the evening news and not at all interested in actually listening to her answers (as opposed to having their own little Perry Mason moment in the spotlight), had to ask their prepared and snidely insinuating questions about the August PDB. That they wasted so much time trying for this little gotcha (on the thinnest of evidence) demonstrates the absolute uselessness of the 9-11 Commission. What struck me is the extent to which any possible constructive findings they could make have already been addressed by measures taken by the Bush Administration since 9-11 amidst howls of alarm from the Democrats(Homeland Security, the Patriotic Act, etc.).

"I try not to conclude from Sulzberger's disgusting grovelling that the American public has got exactly the self-righteous, prissy, cowardly press it wants, but it gets harder every day. Why doesn't somebody prevail on Rupert Murdoch to give you folks a proper newspaper?
Posted by: dsquared on May 15, 2003 08:10 AM”

What in hell would you know about “occasionally ask(ing) questions because they're interested in finding out the answers.”

What does Jayson Blair have to do with finding out what happened before 9/11? It reminds me of the old honour among thieves ethics that defines the Bush Administration. If they are all looting the country then it would be dishonorable for them to rat on each other.

This seems to be a new level though, Honor among Idiots. You seem to be claiming that because he said something dumb once (if he even did) then he is honor bound not to point out your absurdities.

I wasn't too thrilled with some of the Democrats questions, I found Gorlick to be one of the better questioners today however. She seemed to address things that hadn't come up yet.

I am waiting to see what the Commission's final analysis will be. Admittedly, no one really thought that something like 9/11 would ever happen so there is plenty of reasons why we missed certain things. The most important thing to me is that in moving forward we fix the problems internally, not just by attacking other nations, but by making our system for collecting, analyzing and working on data better.

actually I should add to my last comment...Tom Clancy had thought something like 9/11 could happen, maybe we should bring fiction writers like him into the governmnt. Perhaps that is what the CIA and other organizations need, a creative boost in their planning.

I can't remember where or when but I do remember a news account of the government doing exactly that. And I'm pretty sure Clancy was involved in it. Maybe Clancy himself talked about it on CSPAN-2's "in depth". I'm not sure.

See proof that they knew planes could be used as missiles. If Clancy told them they have no excuse!!! (hehe)

THe scariest thing was that I had just finished reading " Executive Orders" by Clancy one or two days before 9/11 and the book was next to my bed when my brother called to tell me about the attack. That was a very odd feeling, something in reality matching a fiction book that closely.

Grace and toughness under the most blatant, politically motivated, questioning by certain of the Commissioners. The manner in which she described Dick Clarke was both honest and, I think, highly effective, because she acknowledged the man's capabilities (without the bitchiness that characterized a lot of Clarke's testimony), but parted company with him on facts and circumstances.

I just hope we never forget what happened and that permanent syetmic changes are made to better protect the US against future attacks.

Because there will be future attacks.

David Thompson writes: "So what? We already knew that Bin Lan was “determined to attack inside United States." "

So why make that the title?

The CIA wouldn't have used that as the title if it was just rehashing the obvious.

Using typical leftist logic, if the document held the info you claim, THe WH would not be working to declassify and release it, now, would they?

Rice revealed an amazingly passive NSC. Information in the right hand never met up with information in the left hand; there were memos and signs and portents of a huge terorist attack in the offing, there were known AQ cells active in the US...and, BTW, it turns out, even intelligence agencies in other countries knew a huge terrorist attack was in the offing, and tried to warn the White House!

But the way Rice talks, putting all that info together and following up on it wasn't her responsiblity. It's like there's this mysterious, unknown presence in the White House who's responsible for collating intellgence, thinking creatively and critically about intelligence, and following up on it by targeting more intelligence gathering operations.

If that isn't the National Security Advisor's job, then whose job is it?

If that isn't the National Security Advisor's job, then what *is* the National Security Advisor's job?

"I can't remember where or when but I do remember a news account of the government doing exactly that. And I'm pretty sure Clancy was involved in it. Maybe Clancy himself talked about it on CSPAN-2's "in depth". I'm not sure."

Gee whiz, is this the same Tom Clancy who wrote "The Sum of All Fears?" The movie version removed all references to the radical Islamic terrorists. I am utterly convinced that unless we were absolutely sure of a specific attack on 9/11---nothing would have been done to further screen the airport passengers. Our society simply was not willing to focus on people with brown skin! Our politically correct inhibitions are the main reason why the horror of 9/11 occurred. Isn’t it amazing that this is rarely talked about?

Ciel;
But the way Rice talks, putting all that info together and following up on it wasn't her responsiblity

If I recall, there was in fact laws in place to prevent her from doing exactly that. The Patriot act was written to cover that exposure.

And David, you're quite correct. Don't be too quick to assume that problem's been dealt with, now, however.

“If I recall, there was in fact laws in place to prevent her from doing exactly that. The Patriot act was written to cover that exposure.”

Jonah Goldberg is discussing this very point on the Corner:

“One of the most amazing and amazingly unremarked upon aspects of these 9/11 commission hearings is the unanimity about the benefits of the Patriot Act. They don't often say it outright and the Democrats especially talk about how important "increased cooperation" between the CIA and FBI is. But the reality is that all of these "needed fixes" everyone keeps talking about are the Patriot Act. All of the "institutional barriers" that prevented us from "shaking the tree," all of the obvious things that should have been "checked out" etc are what the Patriot Act was designed to fix. It may not be perfect but I think it's hilarious that this seems to be the one bit of policy consensus from these hearings but few are willing to admit it.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_04_04_corner-archive.asp#029642

How many people are even aware of the Church Committee? This group of naive fools virtually eviscerated the CIA. Please notice that the Democrats never refer to this disaster. I wonder why?

“And David, you're quite correct. Don't be too quick to assume that problem's been dealt with, now, however.”

Yes indeed. Norm Mineta, after all, still has his job.

I thought Condi did a great job. In fact, to me, the big news should be how Ben-Veniste attempted to deceive the American public.

While reading the following exchange, remember that Ben-Veniste had access to the August 6th PDB. He knew exactly what the document contained. He also knows that Condi can't go into specifics about the document because it is classified. What does he do? He asks a rhetorical question (one he clearly does not want Rice to answer) followed by his "real" question. Why did he do this? Clearly, it was to deceive the American public into thinking that the document contained explicit warnings to upcoming attacks.

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."

Now, the...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that -- you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. 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.

Note that Ben-Veniste did not challenge Rice's assertion that the PDB did NOT warn of coming attacks. Nor did any other commissioner. Surely if Rice's assertion was false, Ben-Veniste would have hammered her.

Ben-Veniste should be kicked off the commission, period. Outright deception by the commissioners should not be tolerated.

"Note that Ben-Veniste did not challenge Rice's assertion that the PDB did NOT warn of coming attacks."

The title was a warning.

Condi was for some reason defining a warning as extremely specific information, because she was unwilling to make any effort to find out the unknowns. She wanted to be spoonfed.

That's not good enough for national defense. Bush isn't taking such a willfully ignorant, passive stance on missile defense. He's not waiting until we get warning that an ICBM is going to be launched at a certain time, on a certain date, at a certain target, from a certain location, before taking steps to defend the country from that threat. Instead, he's spending billions on missile defense systems to handle attacks that don't come with conveniently packaged warnings.

And his stance on missile defense predates 9/11, so it's not a case of "everything changed".

Jon,

The PDB was prepared because the President requested it so that his administration could use the information to revamp the terrorism policy inherited from previous administrations.

Yes, the title is a warning, but it is a warning about something we knew since 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing. Since the document contains historical information and no new information on threats, how can anyone reasonable expect the document to spur "crises management" action. By August 6 only two things could have prevented 9-11:

1) Luck

2) Shutting down all flights until airport security was beefed up

Yes, shutting down all flights would have been necessary; otherwise, bureaucratic hangling would have stalled any security improvements for years. Obviously, before 9-11, such drastic action could never have happened.

As the 9-11 commission hearings have made clear, the fundamental flaw was structural. The FBI had information that -- if available to the CIA -- could have been used to connect the dots. But a 1974 law passed by Congress made it illegal for the FBI and CIA to freely share information.

Nice try, but no biscuit.

I'm not talking about the FBI and the CIA not being able to communicate *with each other.*

I'm talking about Condi Rice apparently not being able to communicate with *herself*; not being capable of putting together the information that she did get; not being capable thinking critically and creatively about the information; not being capable of making a rational judgment that "Gee, maybe we should followup on this" about.

BTW: Even the excuses about non-communication gets blown out of the water by the fact that meetings under Clinton and Bush the First had FBI and CIA representatives in the same room at the same time.

And as for operational contraints: gosh, how *did* the Clinton Admin roll up the planned AQ Millenial Plot attacks in Boston, Baltimore and even Jordan, with all those contraints? Do you think it might have had something to do with having competent adults in charge, who know what to do with the intelligence they get?

Mark writes: "By August 6 only two things could have prevented 9-11"

You leave out "widely disseminate information about the two known Al Qaeda members in the US, including mugshots if possible" looking for tips on their whereabouts.

Freaking put them on Americas Most Wanted.

Simple, low-tech law enforcement. Get them, and you might be able to roll up the bunch, or at least force the rest underground for a while.

OK, looking at this thread, we can safely evaluate that Condi made no new friends and made no new enemies. She did nothing that would change anyone's mind.

Ben-Veniste showed himself to be a partisan hack in an inappropriate setting for same.

I'm talking about Condi Rice apparently not being able to communicate with *herself*; not being capable of putting together the information that she did get; not being capable thinking critically and creatively about the information; not being capable of making a rational judgment that "Gee, maybe we should followup on this" about.

The fact is the info she was given was nothing new, and even hen, was nothing solid.

BTW: Even the excuses about non-communication gets blown out of the water by the fact that meetings under Clinton and Bush the First had FBI and CIA representatives in the same room at the same time.

So why are we not asking why Clinton hadn't followed up on it? ecause, it doesn't make as many political points against the Republicans, perhaps?

Eh? Why didn't *Clinton* follow-up on the Summer of Threat 2001?

Maybe because he wasn't in office anymore...?

Oh, and that "nothing new, nothing solid" defense looks shakier all the time.

Bush and Rice and their enablers keep saying "Oh, if only there was intelligence that an attack on New York and Washington DC using airplanes was planned to take place in September 2001! We would have done everything we could to stop it! Alas, alas!"

For chrissakes! If the intelligence had been that specific, any idiot off the street could have said "Oh, we're gonna get hit. Better do something!"

People who are *National Security Advisors* and *Presidents* and *Vice Presidents* are supposed to be *smarter* than any idiot off the street. They're supposed to be *experts* at figuring stuff out. They're not supposed to need it all laid out for them like a freakin' Dick & Jane reader.

The fact is, they came to office with a predetermined agenda and mindset, and ignored or dismissed as unimportant any information that didn't fit their preconceived agenda.

Ceil,

You wrote:

And as for operational contraints: gosh, how *did* the Clinton Admin roll up the planned AQ Millenial Plot attacks in Boston, Baltimore and even Jordan, with all those contraints? Do you think it might have had something to do with having competent adults in charge, who know what to do with the intelligence they get?

Because we got specific actionable leads. In such cases they can ask the FBI for related information and work together. The structual flaw is that FBI and CIA data is not generally available to the other organization so that their analyst can "mine" the data for leads.

Shorter David Thompson: "Republicans always good. Democrats always bad."

Good boy!

Shorter David Thompson: "Republicans always good. Democrats always bad."

This unfair accusation is easily disproved by merely looking at my previous posts on this very blog. I have on numerous occasions taken to task President Bush and the Republican Party. The same holds true for Dan Drezner, Instapundit, Jane Galt, Roger L. Simon, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, and countless other people likely to vote for the current White House occupant. We are among his harshest critics.

*The same Democrats who are yelling today would have been the first to charge the Bush administration with racial profiling previous to 9/11. Why did the FBI and CIA hesitate to do more? That is a very easy question to answer: they shied away from being charged with bigotry against brown colored Muslims.*

I don't think anyone was suggesting pre-9/11 racial profiling or civil rights abuses. Instead, I hear Clarke & company saying we should simply have put all the intelligence and security chiefs together to compare data and notes on a regular basis.

I don't think Condi hit a single, but she didn't get hit by a pitch either. Probably enuff for a win. This administration continues to enjoy the high advantage of low expectations.

The nation is so divided that even this event didn't change anything. The indy's are too few to matter.

People are losing sight of:

bin Laden was connected to Ramzi Yousef/1993 WTC
Clinton knew
Bush knew

Murad was in Yousef's cohort
Clinton knew
Bush knew

Both Yousef and Murad were fascinated with planes and U.S. targets
Clinton knew
Bush knew

Murad wanted to crash a plane into CIA HQ and told us
Clinton knew
Bush knew

Murad trained in U.S. flight schools and told us
Clinton knew
Bush knew

Nothing was done to tighten our border by
Clinton
Bush

Nothing was done to scrutinize the visa program by
Clinton
Bush

Nothing was done to strengthen airline security by
Clinton
Bush

Nothing was done to make cockpits inaccessible by
Clinton
Bush

Nothing was done to monitor flight schools by
Clinton
Bush

FISA wasn't changed to lower walls between FBI and CIA by
Clinton
Bush

All this focus on the 8/6 memo is meaningless. It's just a case of "my guy wasn't as bad as your guy". Political point scoring and nothing more.

Jon H wrote:

"Note that Ben-Veniste did not challenge Rice's assertion that the PDB did NOT warn of coming attacks."

The title was a warning."

Yeah, and Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' warns us about about the destructive ideologies of leftists.

Let's see here now:

1) Why didn't we simply put all the intelligence and security chiefs together to compare data and notes on a regular basis?

How about because that was illegal pre 9/11.
Also, if this seemed to be such a good idea then why isn't Clinton being roasted over the "minor" fact that he never talked to his CIA chief?

2) The millenium plot was uncovered by ONE border agent who thought she was dealing with a drug dealer. To further damage Clarke's claim about it Rice noted that the border patrol wasn't even on a hightened state of alert at the time.

Folks, hindsight is 20/20. NO ONE expected fully loaded passenger planes to be used as missiles. Hijacking policy was always "Appease them and get on the ground."

The very fact that the fourth plane never made it to it's destination shows that the attack ONLY worked because it went against standard norms and the minute it was known the passengers rose up and put a stop to them.

*How about because that was illegal pre 9/11.*

Only sharing data on criminal investigations was illegal. General intelligence sharing was not.

*why isn't Clinton being roasted over the "minor" fact that he never talked to his CIA chief?*

I understand Clinton is being criticised. Don't know how this exonerates Rice.

*The millenium plot was uncovered by ONE border agent who thought she was dealing with a drug dealer.*

The border agent uncovered the LAX bombing plot. The concept of a "millenium plot" was well known to our intelligence experts.

*hindsight is 20/20. NO ONE expected fully loaded passenger planes to be used as missiles.*

Foresight is rarely 20/20, but the discussion is over whether our security experts could have improved their foresight pre-9/11. They certainly DID consider that passenger planes could be used as missles.

*The very fact that the fourth plane never made it to it's destination shows that the attack ONLY worked because it went against standard norms...*

But isn't it one of the jobs of these experts to imagine unusual and inventive scenarios?

Eh? Why didn't *Clinton* follow-up on the Summer of Threat 2001?

Maybe because he wasn't in office anymore...?

So, no attacks took place before this?

Joe Peden wrote:

Then the two chairmen admit that Rice added nothing substantive to the hearings beyond what she had already in closed session, yet hold that it was historic and very important that she had testified in public. I don't quite get this yet. It was obvious from before the testimony that there were no smoking guns to see, since all commission members had reccommended her public showing.

I agree that there nothing of any substantive value to be had from the public hearings that could not have been had from releasing the transcripts from a closed session. Perhaps there would have been less grandstanding for the audience (both live and broadcast) if this had been a closed session.

As far as the “smoking gun,” IMNHO the goal seemed to be to get Dr. Rice to give the title of the PDB while purposefully cutting her off before she could fully explain her context so that they could generate a sound bite for the “Bush knew” crowd. They will of course make as much political hay as they can about the title of the PDB and when the contents are declassified, it will probably be, as Dr. Rice said, “historical information” that “did not warn of an attack” but by then the media will have moved on to the next story.

“They will of course make as much political hay as they can about the title of the PDB and when the contents are declassified, it will probably be, as Dr. Rice said, “historical information” that “did not warn of an attack” but by then the media will have moved on to the next story.”

You are right to be very cynical towards the major media. Anything which hurts the Bush administration gets front page coverage. The latter clarification will likely be buried on page 32A.

Anyone who brings up the August 6th PDB as any sort of evidence that Bush should of known about the 9/11 terror attacks instantly brands themselves as ignorant or partisan hacks. Al Qaeda first attacked the WTC in 1993. The Millennium plot was foiled in 1999. Everybody knew in 2001 that "Bin Laden Determined to
Attack Inside the United States." Hell, Bin Laden declared war against the US in 1998. The title of that PDB is not any sort of epiphany to anyone. So the question is was there anything specific in that memo that gave a contemporary warning? The best source I can find for what was actually in the memo is from Bob Graham, who is on the Senate intellegence committe and is not a fan of President Bush. Graham says: "As to the particular report that was in the President’s Daily Briefing for that day was about three years old. It was not a contemporary piece of information.” So according to Graham that PDB was citing intelligence from 1998. Was Bush supposed to go out and foil 9/11 plot based on that?

(Ironically that quote is availble on Daschle's PAC site http://www.dashpac.com/home/agenda/speeches.cfm?SpeechID=12 - along with some spin of course)

David Thompson writes: "So what? We already knew that Bin Lan was “determined to attack inside United States." "

So why make that the title?

That seems like a question properly raised towards the person(s) who wrote it. Especially with the fact that the contents of the document is still unknown to the general public.

"Note that Ben-Veniste did not challenge Rice's assertion that the PDB did NOT warn of coming attacks."

The title was a warning.

Kind of like the way our "pink" "yellow" "red" color terror alert system warns us about terrorist attacks as well I guess.

Supposedly had Moussoui been captured before 9/11, that could've prevented it. Anyone know more about this?

Moussaoui was captured before 9/11. Not sure of the exact date but it was sometime in August.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any discussion of FBI Agent John O'Neil (head of New York Office), his premonition of a US strike, and the roadblocks thrown in his way --plus his resignation in June 2001 due to vicious backstabbing and his death in the World Trade Center attack on Sept 11.

PBS did an excellent documentary --titled "The Man Who Knew " --on this over a year ago -- see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ ,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/tapes.html , and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/script.html

I thought the New York Times article yesterday re how the Sept 11 plot was almost discovered during the Cole investigation was especially hypocritical -- and told them so in the following letter:
-------------------
To: Letters@nytimes.com

Re "Inquiry Into Attack on the Cole in 2000 Missed 9/11 Clues" (April 11),
FBI Agent
John O'Neil was frantically searching for Al Qaeda plans in 2001, but his
investigation of the Cole attack in Yemen was sabotaged by Ambassador
Barbara Bodine. And the reason agents in the FBI's New York Office weren't
shown Khallad's photo in June 2001 is probably that Deputy Director Tom
Pickard was stabbing John O'Neil in the back around that time --with the New
York Times' help. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/script.html
John O'Neill resigned from the FBI in August 2001, knowing that Al Qaeda was
about to attack but unable to move Washington to let him do anything to
prevent it. He died in the Sept 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Ambassador Bodine was given a high-level metal by Colin Powell in October
2001, but was relieved of command of Baghad after three weeks work in the
summer of 2003. Tom Pickard, who acting Director of the FBI on Sept 11,
resigned from the FBI in October 2001.

Don Williams
----------