Article

2005-01-25 Home Front: Politix

Nine hours of bitching and whining over Rice

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-01-25 11:16:21 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Who says he's an EX- Klansman?

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-01-25 12:00:59 PM|| 2005-01-25 12:00:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 DB, good point.

(1)If the point of this is to bitch about the war, why don't Byrd/Boxer go the straightforward route and introduce a resolution requiring the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

(2) I had heard about Boxer, but it wasn't until I saw her asking Condi questions that I understood just how stupid Boxer is. I've seen shrubbery with a higher IQ.

Posted by Matt 2005-01-25 1:15:51 PM|| 2005-01-25 1:15:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan."

Talk about a flip flopper - I was for the clan before I was against it.

All above from the nationmaster.com online Encyclopedia

Posted by tex 2005-01-25 1:30:39 PM|| 2005-01-25 1:30:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Here's a good quick summary of Robert Byrd and the Klan:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp

Excerpt: "The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'"

Posted by Tom 2005-01-25 1:58:07 PM|| 2005-01-25 1:58:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Condoleezza Rice is the worst National Security Advisor ever and rather than fire her, she is being promoted to cover up her failures. She will be a good Secretary of State but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.

Posted by Denver 2005-01-25 2:09:29 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:09:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 "she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US."

Denver - you wouldnt be talking about 9/11 would you ?

Posted by tex 2005-01-25 2:14:21 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:14:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, 9/11. The biggest national security failure EVER and the president's National Security Advisor should have been held responsible.

Posted by Denver 2005-01-25 2:25:46 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:25:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Here is a follow-up article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2098499

Like I posted - she will make a VERY good Secretary of State but she was put in a job that she had no idea what she was supposed to be doing. She thought that her job was to be a cheerleader for the president. Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.

Posted by Denver 2005-01-25 2:35:04 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:35:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 ..but she should have been held responsible for the biggest national security failure in the US.

Tony Lake wasn't held responsible for the first WTC, so what makes this any different? Just because more people died and two buildings were brought down?

Get real.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:37:04 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:37:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Denver, did it ever occur to you that the planning and set-up for 9/11 was well underway before Bush even took office? Do you recall the first World Trade Center bombing and the other similar attacks during the Clinton anministration? Why should Rice have been held responsible?

Posted by Tom 2005-01-25 2:37:54 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:37:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Pros and Cons on that statement Denver.
It was a failure of the entire National Security System. From every president, senator, congress-man, or woman, FBI and CIA director, Advisor, and so on and so on ... since terrorism was first analyzed after the 1972 Olympics. Our entire government let the American people down. To pin 9/11 on her shoulders is ridiculous.

Posted by tex 2005-01-25 2:41:37 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:41:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Terrorism was something that before 9/11, I believe, she took very lightly.

Before 9/11/2001, everybody took terrorism lightly. The difference is, the person occupying the White House at that time actually did something of substance in response.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-25 2:44:23 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:44:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Re #8, I quit reading Slate last year when I realized that it was sounding more and more like a Sunday magazine for the New York Times.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-25 2:50:55 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:50:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 From the 9/11 commision findings:

In his book, testimony, and several TV interviews, Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries. Knowing they'd have to come back and tell the president what they were doing to prevent an attack, these officials went back to their departments and "shook the trees" for information. When Bush came to power, Rice retained Clarke and his counterterrorism crew, but she demoted their standing; terrorism was now discussed (and, even then, rarely) at meetings of deputy secretaries, who lacked the same clout and didn't feel the same pressure.

Rice's central point this morning, especially in her opening statement, was that nobody could have stopped the 9/11 attacks. The problem, she argued, was cultural (a democratic aversion to domestic intelligence gathering) and structural (the bureaucratic schisms between the FBI and the CIA, among others). But this is the analysis of a political scientist, not a policymaker. Culture and bureaucracies form the backdrop against which officials perceive threats, devise options, and make choices. It is good that Rice, a political scientist by training, recognized that this backdrop can place blinders and constraints on decision-makers. But her job as a high-ranking decision-maker is to strip away the blinders and maneuver around the constraints. This is especially so given that she is the one decision-maker who is supposed to coordinate the views of the various agencies and present them as a coherent picture to the president of the United States. Her testimony today provides disturbing evidence that she failed at this taskâfailed even to understand that it was part of her job description.

Posted by Denver 2005-01-25 2:51:00 PM|| 2005-01-25 2:51:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Pretty words Denver, and like I said, I can see some of your views. But the problems ran much deeper and for much longer. She made some mistakes
no doubt. Maybe if Clinton would have taken out Osama when he had a chance it could have been stopped. To many if's and's and butts.
Hard lesson to learn.

Posted by tex 2005-01-25 3:08:59 PM|| 2005-01-25 3:08:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 "Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium" Pure BULLSHIT! There was NO border patrol alert and NO directions from "Shit for Brains" Clarke. And the only "shaking" going on was in Billy Bob's pants. Denver please reread the comiision report and Dr. Rice's OPEN testimony and you will conclude two things: One Clarke is the BIGGEST asshole ever appointed and that Clinton/Albright/Gore/Clarke/Clark were ALL asleep and oblivous to the Islamists therat.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-01-25 4:14:14 PM|| 2005-01-25 4:14:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Sounds like Democratic foreplay--nine hours of bitching and whining.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-25 6:15:29 PM|| 2005-01-25 6:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed at several meetings of Cabinet secretaries.

The next time something really good happens because it was discussed in a meeting will be the first. Face it, LAX was a lucky shot based on an agent's intuition. She did a great job... but do you think she ever saw so much as a TPS report from a Cabinet Secretary?

Posted by eLarson 2005-01-25 6:48:38 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2005-01-25 6:48:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Clarke is a self aggrandizer and liar. He personally took credit in the apprehension of the terrorist on the Washington border when in fact it was the border guard herself who should have been credited. She has stated that there were no warnings or alerts issued beforehand, contrary to Clarke's sworn testimony.

Clarke also placed blame on others (FBI) for letting the Bin Laden family members fly away when other aircraft were grounded during his 911 testimony. Then, with the cameras off during Senate testimony three months later, he admitted being the one who had in fact authorized the Bin Laden flight.

But what really iced it for Clarke was on the morning of the Rice testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clarke was interviewed by one of the MSM morning shows at the location of his choice. Interestingly, he selected a location within viewing range of Ground Zero.

Why this guy has not been put in cuffs is a mystery to me. Why people give him any credence is even more puzzling.

Rice kept him on because she knew the country needed continuity during the transition from Clinton to Bush administrations.

Posted by Mrs. Mark Dayton 2005-01-25 9:46:14 PM|| 2005-01-25 9:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#20
Re #19 (Denver): Clarke has argued that the Clinton administration thwarted al-Qaida's plot to set off bombs at Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium because intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack were discussed

I have never believed that story about the border guard perceiving that the driver seemed nervous as he drove through the border control. I have always thought that our government knew about the plans and the operation and was waiting for him when he approached the border. There we had a legal right to search his car, and we did and we found the evidence we were looking for. The yarn we tell about the alert border guard is a cover for some other intelligence means and methods.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-25 9:55:32 PM|| 2005-01-25 9:55:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 riiigghhttt MS.

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-25 10:13:40 PM|| 2005-01-25 10:13:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Your right mike. Clarke had been tipped off by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus......

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-01-25 10:26:06 PM|| 2005-01-25 10:26:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#23
#22 (CrazyFool): Clarke had been tipped off by the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus

I think he was tipped off by the National Security Agency.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-25 10:36:51 PM|| 2005-01-25 10:36:51 PM|| Front Page Top

10:57 nostradamus
10:47 nostradamus
23:58 trailing wife
23:57 trailing wife
23:53 Alaska Paul
23:53 3dc
23:50 Alaska Paul
23:44 Alaska Paul
23:44 smn
23:34 Jame Retief
23:30 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:27 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:24 Sike Mylwester
23:24 Zhang Fei
23:22 Zhang Fei
23:18 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:18 Sobieky
23:17 Sobieky
23:16 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:09 badanov
22:57 Sobieky
22:53 Cat D12
22:49 Mike Sylwester
22:46 Mike Sylwester