This just in from AP:
WASHINGTON - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified Thursday "there was no silver bullet that could have prevented" the worst terror strike in the nation's history, adding that the United States "simply was not on a war footing" at the time of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Rice told the commission delving into the attacks that killed more than 3,000, destroyed the twin World Trade Center towers in New York and blasted a hole in the Pentagon.In widely anticipated testimony, Rice offered no apology for the failure to prevent the attacks - as did former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke two weeks ago. Instead, she said, "as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt."
Rice's testimony, under oath and on live national television, came after weeks of White House resistance. President Bush yielded in response to repeated public requests from members of the commission - as well as quiet proddings of Republicans in Congress - that an on-the-record rebuttal was needed in response to Clarke's explosive charges.
The former White House aide testified last month that the Bush administration gave a lower priority to combatting terrorism than had former President Clinton, and that the decision to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror. In addition to raising questions about administration attention to the threat of terrorism, his remarks implicitly challenged a key underpinning of Bush's campaign for re-election.
In her prepared testimony, Rice neither criticized Clarke nor offered a point by point rebuttal of his appearance.
She said she made the unusual decision to retain him when the new administration came into office, saying, he was an "expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager."
She said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida."
Bush, she said, "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she said.
"He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies'," Rice told the commission.
Rice slid into the witness chair before an audience that included relatives of victims of the attacks, in which terrorists flew hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A fourth plane - presumably on course for the Capitol or another high-profile target in Washington - crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers engaged in a struggle with the hijackers.
Commission chairman Thomas Kean extended a welcome to Rice, and the panel's co-chairman, former Indiana Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, promised "some searching and some difficult questions."
With that, Rice stood and swore to tell the truth as Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor, commenced the hearing.
She sat alone at a witness table draped in red cloth, an American flag pin on the lapel of her gray jacket. In front of her sat the members of the commission. Behind her, in the front rows of the cavernous hearing room, sat relatives of some of the victims of the attacks. Bush was at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and aides declined to say in advance whether he intended to watch an event with so much meaning for his political future.
Quite apart from her formidable intelligence and poise under pressure, Ms. Rice offers a potent symbol of all that is right in America and its political system, viz., the future of the most powerful man on Earth (privileged; wealthy; expensively educated; white) rests, to a significant degree, in the hands of a black woman who rose to her current position strictly on merit despite adversity (southern; modest background; an accomplished academic by profession, but not Ivy League). Quite remarkable- exemplary.
The fact is, Condi Rice failed in her job as National Security Advisor. She failed on the face of it, given that 9/11 happened. Res ipsa loquitir.
She came into office steeped in Cold War history with no idea how to deal with terrorism. The proof is in the pudding. She failed.
Now we are mired in Iraq, our boys are dying, and there's no apparent way out. Al Qaeda has morphed all over the place.
This Administration is dangerous, and a disgrace. The "war on terror" is a failure.
CD:
"The fact is, Condi Rice failed in her job as National Security Advisor. She failed on the face of it, given that 9/11 happened. Res ipsa loquitir."
No, the thing does not speak for itself. Richard Clarke failed- after eight years as Clinton's terrorism "expert", he completely missed WTC1, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Somalia, US immigration protocols for Saudi nationals. His ex post facto rationalization for his lack of effectiveness in preventing 9/11, the faux mea culpa, merely identifies the Clinton Administration's utter lack of preparedness against Islamist terror.
If there was any failure on Ms. Rice's part, it was in (inexplicably) retaining Clarke's services when she arrived at the NSA.
Ms. Rice and W got stuck holding this bag. Her testimony today is that by moving expeditiously, a counter-terror plan was drawn up by September 4, 2001. Is she being truthful? My understanding of her character, from what I have read, is that she would be incapable of providing false testimony.
As for Al Quaeda "morphing" vis-a-vis your Iraq reference, this is a non sequitur. Al Quaeda is a highly decentralized, amorphous entity, evolving irrespecitve of events in Iraq. Your conjoining Iraq and Al Quaeda in this regard is merely a red herring.
The failures of security administration fall at the feet of the Clinton administration who either ignored the growing threat or merely slapped at it. If Al Quaeda was known to the Clinton administration to be the threat to world peace and security that it truly is then they dropped the ball long before Bush and Rice came on the scene. The fact is that the Clinton administration did not take Al Quaeda that seriously. They had eight years to study the problem and the Bush administration had only eight months. We should be thankful that we have a President that is resolute in fighting Al Quaeda any place it appears.
"No, the thing does not speak for itself. Richard Clarke failed- after eight years as Clinton's terrorism "expert", he completely missed WTC1, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Somalia, US immigration protocols for Saudi nationals. His ex post facto rationalization for his lack of effectiveness in preventing 9/11, the faux mea culpa, merely identifies the Clinton Administration's utter lack of preparedness against Islamist terror."
"The failures of security administration fall at the feet of the Clinton administration who either ignored the growing threat or merely slapped at it. If Al Quaeda was known to the Clinton administration to be the threat to world peace and security that it truly is then they dropped the ball long before Bush and Rice came on the scene. The fact is that the Clinton administration did not take Al Quaeda that seriously. They had eight years to study the problem and the Bush administration had only eight months. We should be thankful that we have a President that is resolute in fighting Al Quaeda any place it appears"
I agree 100%. If Clinton would have done his job, maybe 9-11 would not have happened!
Earl wrote;
..."The fact is that the Clinton administration did not take Al Quaeda that seriously. They had eight years to study the problem and the Bush administration had only eight months. We should be thankful that we have a President that is resolute in fighting Al Quaeda any place it appears."
Did you listen to Ms. Rice's testimony at all? The Clinton administration had military and political plans in place and handed them to the Bush administration in the form of Dick Clark's and CIA director Tenet's intelligence reports.
Err, actually, I did not.
Over to you for reply, Steve.
Roger,
Clinton's plan was not to upset the Arabs too much by confronting Al Quaeda militarilly. Clinton only bombed one Al Quaeda training camp and then only when he was sure that no one was in it. Clinton was so afraid of war he merely slapped at Al Quaeda. This encouraged Al Quaeda to go after bigger targets. If the Bush administration followed the Clinton plan handed to them, as you say, then we would have never defeated Al Quaeda at all and the threat to the world of international terrorism would not be checked in any positive way.
our actions will speaks the truth (inshallah).....lol..& ur time is compted crusaders....!!
There was no plan handed over to the Bush administration rather a hodge podge of recommendations. Those were reviewed and the majority implemented. These were the same recommendations that sat without action by the previous administration since 1998. What did happen was an increase in spending on intelligence and the development of a true coherent plan. Unfortunately it was not ready until September.
C Dub you neglected to mention that the Clinton administration failed to stop terrrorism after the first attack on the WTC. Trying to blame the Bush administration is like trying to blame the police for not doing anything to prevent your house being burglarized after the fact. Clinton should have gone into Afghanistan and stopped Bin Laden instead of going into the oral office and getting a Lewinsky.
TO: crush "ur time is compted crusaders" ??? What does that translate into??? LOL! Let me give you some advice, moron: "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Your ignorance is abundantly evident to all. I hope you fools do increase your attacks on us. Then we will wake up and demand the government nuke mecca and medina, and wipe all trace of your filthy false religion off the face of the earth.
For the first time I actually heard a politician, Bob Kerry, come out and say the name of the enemy, "Radical Islam," and that this is not a "war on terrorism," but is a religious war against "Radical Islam.
My heart skipped a beat.
But, without skpping a beat himself, he then began to describe how our policies were fueling "Radical Islam." He inferred that stopping our "policies," ie appeasement, the terror would stop.
The man, and his chronies, have no idea who or what we are fighting.
He also has no idea who our former allies, the Europeans, are now, dhimmis or soon to be dhimmis. The man can't see beyond the end of his nose.
For some reason these mind-warped people remain oblivious. How can they be so blind? Is this election-year-itis, or plain stupidity?
The Bush administration needed to formulate a strategic plan to address the ever growing threats that were coming our way. The Clinton administration never formulated any kind of stategic plan to deal with the numerous terrorist attacks on America from the first twin towers attack to the USS Cole attack. Their answer was always a "tit for tat" approach that continued to embolden the likes of Osama Bin Laden and the other 30 some Islamic terrorist groups recognized by the State department operating around the world. The Bush Administration simply did what the Clinton Administration had failed to do. Over the years the liberal democrats along with oragnizations like the ACLU have worked hard to block the abilities of the FBI, and the CIA to do a thorough job. Bringing all these organizations together under the umbrella of homeland security and sharing their intelligence gathering along with tools such as the Patriot Act are the changes that where desparatly needed to help protect this country from from enemies within and abroad. I will never forget When the President; in his "State of the Union Address" said that the patriot act was nearing an expiration date and before he could finish his sentence ,the left wing democrats applauded. They just don`t get it! They continue to stick their collective heads in the sand. There political desires are more important than the security of the nation.
Yo, Hal! Please don't laught at Crushie--he's worked all day to learn how to spell "Zionist." He must be very tired.
Oops--actually, I do know how to spell "laugh." Just seeing if you'd notice. . .