Jan 25th 2001

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 11, 2005, 1:06 pm

On January 25th, 2001 Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke sent a memo to the National Security Council's head, Condoleeza Rice regarding the danger posed by the Al Qida Network, and proposed a list of discussion points regarding current and future initiatives (ex. how to respond to the USS Cole, which the CIA and FBI had only concluded in January was definitely caused by AQ.

Rice denied this memo ever existed

The National Security Archive wrote:Rice stated in a March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

This was an op-ed that was ment to effect public opinion while the administration was trying to keep her from testifying to the 9/11 Commission (which happened on April 8, 2004.)

She was lieing in that Washington Post piece, and the evidence was released today:

Memo from Clarke to Rice 1/25/01 wrote:MEMORANDUM FOR CONDOLEEZA RICE

FROM: RICHARD A. cLARKE

SUBJECT: Presidential Policy Initiative/Review -- The Al-Qida Network

<strike>Steve</strike> Condi, asked today that we propose major Presidential policy reviews or initiatives. We urgently need such a Principals level review on the al Qida network.

That Principals level (ie Sec of Defense, Pres, VP, etc) meeting was not held until 9/04/01.

The administrtion has continued to cover up and obscure from the public that they were completely ignoring any terrorist threat to the United States. This further corroborates the assertions in Clarke's book, as well as the findings of the 9/11 Commission that the Bush Administration was completely asleep at the switch.

Basically, this should come as a surprise to no one. Rice has lied repeatedly to the press regarding matters of national import.

No surprise, but the document was released today. Not sure why it was released today and not during her hearings, but whatever.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 11, 2005, 1:10 pm

But she's not just there because she's a black woman. She's qualified!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 11, 2005, 1:11 pm

/shrug

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » February 11, 2005, 1:16 pm

More evidence the administration has lied when it suited their purpose, and all you can do is /shrug? You mindless drone.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 11, 2005, 1:21 pm

Kerry lost. Get over it already. Sore losers!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 11, 2005, 1:24 pm

responding to post below instead of being a smartass.

lieing to the public and getting promoted.

That is the "era of accountability" that the Republicans were ushering in after the 2000 election I assume?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 11, 2005, 1:25 pm

Kaldaur wrote:More evidence the administration has lied when it suited their purpose, and all you can do is /shrug? You mindless drone.

Dude. Are you really shocked to hear the government lies? Wake up bro.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 11, 2005, 1:25 pm

But these lies cost thousands of lies.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 11, 2005, 1:37 pm

fucking liberal media

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 11, 2005, 1:47 pm

She didn't lie. Let's look at that quote from her Op-Ed in context:

During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.

She was specifically responding to whether the Clinton Administration handed over a plan regarding Al Qaeda. They didn't, which Sandy Berger even said in his testimony before the comission. I don't see that paragraph in anyway suggesting that Richard Clarke never sent her his ideas regarding Al Qaeda. Furthermore, people in the Bush administration have said Clarke did have a plan to "roll back" Al Qaeda.

I agree that both administrations should have done more regarding Al Qaeda, hardly ANYONE took them as seriously as they should have.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 11, 2005, 2:08 pm

The 'Out-of-Context' Commando's strike again!

They must be bored rehashing old stuff to try to get a rise out of people, so they had to find something new.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » February 11, 2005, 2:17 pm

only thing rehashed in this thread is republican shadiness and your tired ass replies to above.
but i still appriciate you.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 11, 2005, 2:27 pm

its fair to say that my quote of Rice is potentially out of context.

I have read the broader quote supplied by Brotha a few times, and I guess it boils down to the question of what exactly constitutes a "plan".

He did propose about 4 time sensitive decisions for a principle level discussion (things like responding to the Cole, funding for Northern ALliance, CIA operation in Uzbekistan, etc).

So the administration did not view that as particularly time sensitive ( 9 month delay in holding the meeting). And the larger climate was that the Hart-Rudman commission released their findings in February discussing serious threats to the US from terrorism.

etc etc etc.

I just find her characterizations of things difficult to believe. The August 5th PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" as a "historical document", even though those who have read it on the 9/11 commission think that characterization is a joke.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » February 11, 2005, 4:22 pm

Clinton tried many diffrent times to do something, yet the Rep ran sen. and house rejected each bill. Sure he could have lied, and suddenly attacked randomly.But the only thing I recall clinton misleading people is getting his cock sucked.

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Backg1.htm

Read it and learn something for once you stupid fucks.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » February 11, 2005, 4:52 pm

masteen wrote:But she's not just there because she's a black woman. She's qualified!

Im still convinced she got that color for having her tongue stuck up in Bush's ass more or less permanently.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 11, 2005, 5:12 pm

Hesten wrote:
masteen wrote:But she's not just there because she's a black woman. She's qualified!

Im still convinced she got that color for having her tongue stuck up in Bush's ass more

This comment Sounds racist to me.

Rivera Bladestrike · February 11, 2005, 5:12 pm

I think its excessive Tiki Tan.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 11, 2005, 8:47 pm

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong in this but the first thought I had was why can't she lie to the press? She wasn't under oath to Post or Tribune or the Enquirer. I guess it is an important thing but for some reason I don't care that she lied to the press. For me it is tough to view the press in a favorable light so I just don't care. So lump me into the ignorant masses.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 11, 2005, 9:23 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong in this but the first thought I had was why can't she lie to the press? She wasn't under oath to Post or Tribune or the Enquirer. I guess it is an important thing but for some reason I don't care that she lied to the press. For me it is tough to view the press in a favorable light so I just don't care. So lump me into the ignorant masses.

That would be because a free press is a vital part of real democratic freedom. When she lies to the press she lies to you, she lies to the people. It's sad that many of the people are so lazy that they'd rather be lied to than be forced to do something.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 11, 2005, 10:02 pm

I don't think we need to be told everything, because if we know, then everyone knows, good bad or indifferent. There are things that need to be kept secret.

I'd sure like to know the truth about Area51, but I sure as shit don't expect them to tell me. If I accept that it's ok for them to lie to me in that instance, it opens up the ability to accept others.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » February 12, 2005, 11:00 am

She doesn't have to tell the press everything. However, intentionally lying is also bad. She should have kept her mouth shut instead of trying to make herself and the administration look good and the Clinton administration look bad. She attempted to shift some blame, and got caught red-handed.

That said, I think Rice is an incompetent bitch.