'01 Memo to Rice Warned of Qaeda and Offered Plan

February 12, 2005 11:08 AM

'01 Memo to Rice Warned of Qaeda and Offered Plan The Right and the Left are busy (see link beneath) attacking or defending Eason Jordan or Jeff Gannon, and meanwhile we learn that our clever, learned, trustworthy new Sec. of State had been given warnings about what might well take place and did nothing, allowing 9/11 to occur. A strategy document outlining proposals for eliminating the threat from Al Qaeda, given to Condoleezza Rice as she assumed the post of national security adviser in January 2001, warned that the terror network had cells in the United States and 40 other countries and sought unconventional weapons, according to a declassified version of the document" "
posted by Postroad (34 comments total)

So how does this information help us nail Churchill, Jordan, et al. to a cross, again?
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:15 AM on February 12, 2005

they all should be investigated and impeached/removed from office--there's definitely enough evidence by now. of course, that won't happen (unless we take back the senate in 06)
posted by amberglow at 11:19 AM on February 12, 2005

What is especially disappointing is how the Democrats voted Rice into a higher position of power without much of a fight, even knowing most of these critical failures of judgement.

I'd expect the right to vote for her without much thought, but I was hoping for more of a public discussion of her failures as a security advisor from those who were in a position to ask these questions.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:45 AM on February 12, 2005

Jeff Gannon is not in any way equivalent to Eason Jordan other than in being a subject of conversation.
posted by inksyndicate at 12:03 PM on February 12, 2005

See also: Cheney told on February 9, 2001 that the CIA had definitively concluded that Al Qaeda was responsible for the USS Cole bombing.
posted by MLIS at 12:05 PM on February 12, 2005

Didn't we have this conversation two days ago, again via Postroad, again via NYT?

Has anyone changed their opinion since then?
posted by dhoyt at 12:08 PM on February 12, 2005

Yet again, another memo that was suppressed by the administration during the election, and further suppressed until after Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearing and the inauguration. I wonder if any of the senator's would have changed their minds had they known this. Kudo's to Rove for releasing this on the weekend, too.
posted by rzklkng at 12:15 PM on February 12, 2005

Obligatory.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:27 PM on February 12, 2005

Now watch this drive.
posted by Mr_Zero at 12:34 PM on February 12, 2005

That cartoon is offensive. There is plenty of evidence that Rice has been a disaster as a National Security Adviser - why people feel the need to create (or link to) racist garbage like that I do not understand.
posted by MLIS at 12:35 PM on February 12, 2005

MLIS How is it racist? (That's a question, not an argument)
posted by BarryP at 12:45 PM on February 12, 2005

"How is it racist?"

Oh my God. If you can't see the blatant racism simmering beneath the image of a black woman holding an octopus, you are blind sir. An OCTOPUS!
*slaps BarryP with a herring*
posted by 2sheets at 12:51 PM on February 12, 2005

Clearly, the facts are racist.
posted by trondant at 12:54 PM on February 12, 2005

I believe it is racist because of the history of African-Americans being depicted in cartoons with exaggerated buck teeth (The "coon caricature" that was common in cartoons during Slavery in the US).
posted by MLIS at 12:59 PM on February 12, 2005

Why is that racist? Am I missing something? Condi does in fact have a huge gap in her teeth- how is this any more racist than drawing David Letterman the same way?

Anyway, don't let MLIS derail this thread with some silly faux-argument. Fact is, Condi, et al is an evil motherfucker, who deserves to be rotting in some Pinochet- or Saddam- esque "doggy rape room" for all she has done. And she will never even get a slap on the wrist, because all Americans people are evil, evil, evil. There is zero hope for humanity, only a parade of our worst hits on every scale.
posted by hincandenza at 1:13 PM on February 12, 2005

RACIST WHITEHOUSE
posted by 2sheets at 1:18 PM on February 12, 2005

I believe it is racist

Chinese Laundry Owner Blasted For Reinforcing Negative Ethnic Stereotypes
SAN FRANCISCO—Second-generation Chinese-American laundry owner Raymond Chen is under heavy fire this week from Bay Area activists who call him "an insulting caricature that perpetuates... etc. etc. etc.
via the Onion.

BushCo inept, stupid, etc.
But that's the problem innit?

The show just goes on & on. The beautiful part of the "post 9/11" thing is that it sort of (loosely) marks where we completely lost our hand in politics because there is no clear differentiation - between what is said and what is done (accountability? Ahoy?) or even the candidates.

I keep hearing "Good thing Bush was president" during 9/11 - the implication being of course Al Gore would have done nothing or done it ineptly or whatever.
(Similar to getting into a major car crash and saying good thing Bush was driving)

But I don't see exactly how anything different would have happened.
Is Gore somehow more a man of his word? BushCo pretty much blew off everything he said he would do when he was running. But Gore had a similar message - would he have stuck to it?
(Kerry would have arrived in the thick of things already so not a good comparison - but again - differentiation? Issues? Accountability?)

I presume Gore would have carried on with Clinton's "kick the hell out of Al Qaeda" plans - but that is only a presumption.
(They were both oil men, etc, etc.)

Presumably 9/11 wouldn't have then happened on Gore's watch, but again - not the issue.

It DID happen on BushCo's watch. Why the hell he isn't being held accountable I don't know. Were there fines for people? Why did he oppose an investigation? Why was kissinger appointed at first then... etc. etc. etc.

Plenty of questions. Plenty of pissed off survivors (one of whom gets yelled at by Bill O'Reily) looking for answers.

Someone's ass should have been in a sling. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Nope.
Well, Bush won. Get over it. This is what we now get. Until enough people get turned into cat food, I doubt there will be much uproar. Since, y'know, it's not on t.v.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:56 PM on February 12, 2005

Thank you Smedleyman.
posted by Balisong at 2:31 PM on February 12, 2005

Hindsight 20/20. Get life.
posted by Photar at 3:03 PM on February 12, 2005

Who cares?

Seriously - who cares? We have a Republican-led Supreme Court, a Justice Department now owned by the guy Bush used to guarantee he could do what he wanted to his enemies, a Republican-led Congress that guaranteed he could do what he wanted to his friends, and a polarized but apparently Republican-led public that gave him a 51% "mandate."

We know Condi lied. So what? There's no one in authority that's willing to do anything about it. Heck, these are the same folks that continue to turn a blind eye to torture, who signed the USA PATRIOT Act without reading it, and who willingly went to war over the flimsiest of rationales, then shrugged their shoulders when they found it that they were deceived.
posted by FormlessOne at 3:21 PM on February 12, 2005

What did Condi lie about?
posted by drscroogemcduck at 4:21 PM on February 12, 2005

What did Condi lie about?

"No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."

It may be suggested that she was not entirely truthful.
posted by SPrintF at 6:11 PM on February 12, 2005

This seems to be pretty much a smoking gun. Was Condi under oath when she said this? If so, she should be charged and we should make some serious noise about it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:06 PM on February 12, 2005

I popped the quote into google to try and find where she said it. But the first news site that is popped back is CNN which has a very similar quote.

"No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration."

Did she say both of these, or did someone stuff up the transcript on one?
posted by drscroogemcduck at 9:49 PM on February 12, 2005

Oh yes, Condoleezza Rice lied.

As XQUZYPHYR said:

Right-wingers can accuse the Left of as much partisanship all they want, but pointing out that Rice is a liar is as much an act of partisanship as reporting that your favorite sports team lost. It's not an issue of attacking; it's a matter of fact.
The media has an obligation to stop pretending like there's a lower level of debate here. We've gone past the argument over whether or not Rice is a liar. She is. The current debate is, and should be, over whether or not she committed perjury during her Senate testimony.

Following that, the debate will be over the number of winged monkeys that will spring forth from my butt before Rice actually faces punishment for her incompetence.

posted by Vidiot at 10:01 PM on February 12, 2005

As much as I dislike the Bush administration and its numerous shady dealers, I find it hard to believe that they knew 9/11 was going to happen and "did nothing to stop it". Terrorists generate many warnings, and if the secretary of state had to personally deal with each and every one, it would be a sad state of affairs. Do you honestly belive they wanted planes to smash into the WTC / White House / Pentagon?

There had been warnings of a terrorist attack on the US from many sides, and knowledgable sources told us we werent doing enough to combat terrorism before 9/11. You have to go pretty far back into the history books to find the last time the US was attacked in the lower 48, and while the politicians may have been negligent, they were undoubtedly resting comfortably in the warm cocoon of invulverablity they thought surrounded them. Hindsight, like Photar said, is 20/20.
posted by sophist at 10:16 PM on February 12, 2005

If you had been in a position of power, and had many voices whispering in your ear..

Which one would give you the most glory and fame?
posted by Balisong at 10:26 PM on February 12, 2005

sophist: You have to go pretty far back into the history books to find the last time the US was attacked in the lower 48, and while the politicians may have been negligent, they were undoubtedly resting comfortably in the warm cocoon of invulverablity they thought surrounded them. Hindsight, like Photar said, is 20/20.

Ahmed Rassam was stopped because of a combination of competent border staff and timely warnings from intelligence. Or as Richard Clark might put it, Clinton got it right, and Bush got it wrong.

Any talk of terrorist warnings during the spring and summer of 2001 has to be framed in the context of warnings from the same period the previous year. That is something that is rarely done by the media, and it is a major failing. However, I think the conclusion of such a comparison would be that Rice was negligent (Bush too...).
posted by Chuckles at 1:46 AM on February 13, 2005

Balisong: Do you honestly belive they wanted planes to smash into the WTC / White House / Pentagon?

To play devil's advocate, that is not the issue here. The issue is that Condi lied under oath to Congress. She said that she had received no warning and this document proves she did have warning.

We spent years listening to a shitstorm about how Clinton lieing about the blow job under oath was a major lapse in character and something that was worthy of impeachment. Surely this is at least as big a deal as that. It is the whole integrity thing, you know?
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:08 AM on February 13, 2005

You have to go pretty far back into the history books to find the last time the US was attacked in the lower 48

Yup, all the way back to February 26, 1993.

Condi lied, but will anything come of it? No. With GOP control at all levels of the national government there is no one with both the power and the desire to make anything of this. When history looks back many years from now Bush will likely be seen as the asleep-at-the-switch president, but that is about the worst of it for the Bushies.
posted by caddis at 3:21 AM on February 13, 2005

I find it hard to believe that they knew 9/11 was going to happen and "did nothing to stop it".
It's certainly possible for someone to not 'know' something, even if they've been told repeatedly. Ask my chemistry teacher. If I were given her job, though, I would certainly be expected to know at least basic chemistry. Rice had a job that demanded she 'know' that these terrorism warnings were important. She obviously didn't. She thought other things were more important, and it's fair to give her some of the blame for 9-11.

You have to go pretty far back into the history books to find the last time the US was attacked in the lower 48 . . .

All the way back to 1993.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:27 AM on February 13, 2005

MLIS
I believe it is racist because of the history of African-Americans being depicted in cartoons with exaggerated buck teeth (The "coon caricature" that was common in cartoons during Slavery in the US).

But the cartoon does not depict Condoleeza Rice with buck teeth, at least not that I can see. Buck teeth stick out forwards.

Jeebus, some see evidence of some kind of "-ism" everywhere. Give me a break.
posted by kcds at 5:23 AM on February 13, 2005

MLIS

What in Gods name is offensive about that cartoon? Oh hell..look...she's too black!! You know, back in slavery days it was common to depict blacks as black in cartoons. Give me a break. They could have but a big set of lips on her while holding a watermelon, now that would be racist. But here we go again with some douche getting offended just because their hero is the subject of a (bad) cartoon.
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:34 AM on February 13, 2005

Hey Joey Michaels...

You were quoting Sophist, not me..

I agree with you...not so much him...
posted by Balisong at 4:47 PM on February 14, 2005