From: firstname.lastname@example.org (C L Bailey)
Subject: Re: No regrets from Condi Rice
Date: 16 Apr 2004 10:08:50 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:08:51 +0000 (UTC)
Of course she has no regrets, her master has not told her to have any!
Besides she has not paid any price for her lies & deceptions. Perhaps
if she had a son or daughter in combat she would not be so aloof and
detached about the meat grinder in Iraq. Of course I do not expect an
IDIOT like you to understand any of this at all.
"pedro martori" wrote in message news:...
> Nation & World
> By Gloria Borger
> No regrets from Condi Rice
> When Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 commission, the hearing
> became a stage for his own private drama: his apology on behalf of the
> federal government, his hugs with the 9/11 families, his personal
> bureaucratic journey into darkness. Not so with National Security
> Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Just talk of "structural and legal
> impediments" and of the "bureaucratic impediments" that stood in the way
> of predicting 9/11. No apologies, no emotional unburdening. "We simply
> had to take some time," said Rice, "to get this [war against terrorism]
> Browse through an archive of columns by Gloria Borger.
> An emotionally unsatisfying response, to say the least. But what are we
> looking for, anyway? To be able to say that the Bush administration
> should have known about the attacks--or, even worse, did know about the
> attacks--and did nothing to stop them? Or perhaps that Bill Clinton
> didn't go after Osama bin Laden hard enough because he was embroiled in
> the Monica Lewinsky mess? Or maybe we would just like to blame the
> government, a vast bureaucracy in which the little guys in the field
> offices couldn't communicate about the real threats out there with the
> top guns--who, in turn, didn't talk to each other anyway.
> Too many clues. In a perfect world, here's what we would really want: We
> want the bad guy who didn't get bin Laden and who was casual about the
> terrorist threat. Maybe we want to believe that someone--somewhere in
> the bowels of government or in the lofty reaches of the West Wing--had
> the specific threat that predicted 9/11, could have prevented it, and so
> could prevent it again. The smoking gun, if you will. One small problem:
> "There are a million smoking guns," a former top Democratic national
> security official told me. "If al Qaeda had blown up a nuclear power
> plant, I could have gone back and found the data that would have said
> they were thinking about it. The terrorists were thinking about
> Alas, we were not. So, in the end, what can we reasonably hope to hear
> from the folks in charge? How about someone admitting that things might
> have been done differently? This doesn't require a presumptuous
> Clarke-like apology to 9/11 survivors on behalf of the U.S. government.
> Nor does it require a mea culpa asking for the mercy of the commission.
> Rather, it requires a simple admission--like the one honestly offered by
> Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in his testimony. ". . . Even
> though you're on the right track, you can get run over if you're not
> going fast enough," he said, "and I think it is the case . . . in
> hindsight, [that] we weren't going fast enough." End of story.
> We never even got close with Condi Rice. When asked about a
> still-to-be-declassified Aug. 6, 2001, "presidential daily briefing"
> memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,"
> which reported "patterns of suspicious activity [in] the United States
> consistent with preparations for hijacking," Rice said that it was
> checked out, that it was vague, and that steps were taken to warn of
> hijackings. She then went on to argue that "structural" problems kept
> the FBI and the CIA from communicating about real threats. Not one word
> about how, in hindsight, maybe we should have addressed those structural
> problems a tad faster.
> Instead, Rice, in testimony full of extenuating circumstances, couldn't
> bring herself to get there: "You obviously don't want to use the `M'
> word [as in mistake] in here," former Sen. Bob Kerrey said. In fact, the
> closest Rice ever got to personal retrospective analysis was in an
> exchange with former Democratic Rep. Tim Roemer.
> Roemer: "Doesn't that beg that there should have been more
> Rice: "By definition, we didn't have enough information, we didn't have
> enough protection, because the attack happened--by definition. And I
> think we've all asked ourselves, what more could have been done?. . . .
> If we had known that an attack was coming against the United States . .
> . against New York and Washington . . . we would have moved heaven and
> earth to stop it."
> Who could possibly think otherwise? Indeed, Rice told the commission,
> the "extremely tragic fact is that sometimes until there is a
> catastrophic event that forces people to think differently . . . you
> don't get that kind of change [in the bureaucracy]." That's as much
> hindsight as we were allowed.
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004