|
Another fact is confirmed from sources: Bush talked to Condoleeza Rice on the telephone in the school building.
The telephone had been secured by Secret Service agents hours prior to the president's appearance. The telephone was
located in a room close to the second grade classroom where President Bush was to listen to children practice reading.
Check it out for yourselves in FIGHTING BACK, author tags Bush as Dawdler-in-Chief for remaining sitting amidst second
graders after Bush learns from Card that second plane had hit World Trade Towers and says, "America is under attack."
So if Bush knew planes could be hijacked - August 6, 2001 memo
If Bush discussed with Rice on the morning of September 11, 2001 after the first plane crash, that one plane or more
had been hijacked, then why on earth, when learning of the second plane crash, didn't George W. Bush arise out of his seat
and excuse himself from the children? He didn't have to jump up all excited. He didn't have to tell anybody why
he had to leave.
He could have gone into the next room, adjacent to the second grade classroom, and made some phone calls to find out
what was happening to his country and his people.
In the documentary History Channel WTC Rise and Fall of an American Icon, 9/11 Commissioner Kean makes the statement
concerning transponders were turned off, when a transponder is off, you lose radar.
Further on in the documentary, during description of the hijacking of Flight 11, the speaker says the transponder was
turned off, but the center was still able to track the flight because of radar.
Pre-9/11 FBI Missteps Detailed.except _for_ the_ redactions Jun 10, 05
Neither the title or the content tell us that over a hundred pages were inked out, redacted, by the government,
and thus the government report released to the media and public cannot possibly be detailed. So it is up to bloggers
across the United States of America to set the record straight. Fox News this morning noted the redactions! An
earlier report of interest: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p01s01-uspo.htmlConnected Coast to Coast with Ron Reagon and Monica Crowly hosts is featuring a segment on the discussion
of the "details" of the government's report, and the reports on the report. Transcript details on the msnbc site. While
others are talking about what the publicly released document reveals, citizens such as myself are wondering what is being
hidden from the public, and why? On a related situation developing today the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is
not up for "renewal," only 17 provisions in the Patriot Act are up for reauthorization. Congress alone has the power
to stop this Orwellian legislation and repeal the Patriot Act. But Congress is made up unfortunately for citizens of
the United States of a bunch of weak-willed kingfish. We citizens are told, you have nothing to worry about;
we are not after you, we are not after you, little lady, or you law-abiding citizen. We are after the "terrorists." The
supporters of the Patriot Act want us to believe that the the FBI and CIA didn't communicate prior to September 11, 2001 on
intelligence sharing. They want us to believe that the agencies were legally denied the option of the sharing of intelligence,
by some archaic ill-fitting law. Mr. Gonzales was interviewed on Fox News this morning. Watch throughout the
day for clips of his interview. Maybe it will sink in - we are not after you. We just want these agencies
to be able to share their intelligence. That's all. The number one provision Gonzales thinks should be reauthorized
in the Patriot Act is you guessed it - law that allows FBI and CIA and (by implication) other agencies to share intelligence. Mr.
Bill Gavin was interviewed on Fox News. Very doubtful there will be numerous clips shown throughout the day in my opinion
because if Mr. Gavin makes a certain specific statement again, there may be somebody who will email the hosts with the correct
information and Mr. Gavin will look ill-informed. Bill Gavin, by the way, was former assistant director of the FBI,
now founder of the Gavin Group. Mr. Gavin during the interview said that prior to September 11, 2001, the
FBI and the CIA and (implication) other agencies were prevented from sharing intelligence, by law. That's right.
That is what Mr. Gavin said. But the September 11 Commission, repeatedly during the course of its public hearings,
said nothing prevented the agencies from sharing intelligence. No law existed that prevented intelligence sharing among
agencies. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htmSo, where is the Commission now to set the record straight, to prevent misinformation but being spread around as fact? They
are only interested in forming a private group to weild some sort of power to urge Congress to implement each and every one
of their recommendations. The group didn't even ask the President when he was informed the morning of September
11, 2001 that one or more airplanes had been hijacked. Was he informed before approximately 9:07 a.m. when Andrew Card
whispered in his ear as Bush was seated in a second grade classroom (listening to second graders read) that a second plane
had hit the WTC and America was under attack? Or was President Bush informed that plane/s were hijacked after he left
the second grade classroom at approximately 9:13 a.m. to go to an adjacent classroom? The empty adjacent classroom had
been secured by the FBI Secret Service with a secure phone line, according to Bill Sammon in his book, FIGHTING BACK.
The Commission didn't bother to ask President George W. Bush what was duscussed in his Presidential Daily Briefing
that morning.
911 investigation Apr 05, 04 Reports and news and citizen watch focus
Condoleeza
Rice will testify before US and the 911 Commission on Thursday this week at 9 a.m. ET for 2 and one-half hours.
Washington
Times reportedly did story consisting of 15 or so questions that should be asked of Rice.
Recall, 9/11 Family Steering
Committee compiled dozens of questions long before the appearance of Richard Clarke before the Commission.
One member
of the FSC had been making numerous appearances on talk shows - find transcripts for Chris Matthews Hardball - MSNBC
CNN
Sunday Late Edition for April 4, 04 informative and provocative program with Wolfe Blitzer asking a few dynamite questions...
get transcript.
Same day 4/4/04 Meet the Press get it now... excellent
ABC This Week 4/4/04 One guest
made statement it was illegal for FBI and CIA to "talk to each other" prior to 9/11. Find the facts.
Rice to testify Mar 31, 04
Many commentators are saying the reason President Bush ok'd Rice to testify under oath and in public before the 9/11
Commission is because of pressure, mostly from Republican Party people. I think overall that is the case. We can
all scream all we want, the public, no matter what our party affiliation, even if we're of the same party, but these public
servants don't do anything until it looks like they don't have the support of high-placed people. That's on both party
sides. At least the Commission itself unanimously agreed that Rice should testify under oath and in public.
The
TODAY SHOW program reportedly had an interview with 9/11 family members this morning. Get that transcript.
CNN
TRANSCRIPTS
MSNBC
Fox News unfortunately doesn't have transcripts online. Their loss, can't cite what
we can't document.
C-Span had an interview with Hoefstra.
During a few of the segments on these programs,
hosts were asking Commission members what kind of questions would they ask.
Nobody said, since they don't want the
testifier to have advance knowledge of questions, duh.
Last evening, every news outfit broke the news. I heard
it first on CNN, Chris Matthews broke in on I think the 360 program. Get transcript. Then I switched to MSNBC,
heard it there, then Fox News.
E-MAIL TO CNN American Morning:
CNN AM QUESTION SHOULD RICE TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND IN
PUBLIC
Answer 9/11 Commission 350 times = John Fudging Kerry tax hike votes
Rice should answer as many questions
in public and under oath as many times as presidential candidate John (Fudging) Kerry voted to raise taxes during his Senate
term.
Rice must settle the disparities between these 3 items:
her public comments as published in her March
22, 2004 editorial in the Washington Post (9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21).
her public comments "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,
a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002"
her retraction
of May 16, 2002 public statement during her private meeting with the 9/11 Commission in 2004.
Before the 9/11 Commission
in private session, Rice claims she "misspoke." Yet, in her Washington Post commentary, Rice dismisses charges that
she was aware airplanes could be used as missiles, writing, "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence
that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles..."
Which is it?
Rice would
not be testifying before Congress. The 9/11 Commission was created by Congress, and the legislation creating it was
signed by President George W. Bush. The panel is Independent of both the White House and Congress, and in fact (check
them again) has independent subpoena power.
Rice would be testifying before the Independent 9/11 Commission, before
the public, before us.
Resources:
1. Washington Post 9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice
Monday, March 22, 2004; Page A21
Excerpt
.."Before Sept. 11, we closely monitored threats to our nation. President
Bush revived the practice of meeting with the director of the CIA every day -- meetings that I attended. And I personally
met with George Tenet regularly and frequently reviewed aspects of the counterterror effort.
Through the summer increasing
intelligence "chatter" focused almost exclusively on potential attacks overseas. Nonetheless, we asked for any indication
of domestic threats and directed our counterterrorism team to coordinate with domestic agencies to adopt protective measures.
The FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration alerted airlines, airports and local authorities, warning of potential attacks
on Americans.
Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack
the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to
free U.S.-held terrorists. The FAA even issued a warning to airlines and aviation security personnel that "the potential for
a terrorist operation, such as an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States, remains a concern."
End excerpt.
A dozen questions could be asked about those 3 paragraphs alone.
2. The Washington
Post reports of the disclosure by Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste last week ... "that Rice had asked, in
her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that 'I don't think anybody could have predicted
that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an
airplane as a missile.' Rice told the commission that she misspoke..."
3. 9/11 Family Steering Committee Forwarded
Questions for National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to answer. The Family Steering Committee(FSC) firmly insists
that Ms. Rice testify under oath, and at some point testify in public with regard to her role as National Security Advisor
for the Bush Administration.
Among the questions posed: Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community
provide the NSC with any information regarding the possibility that al-Qaida members would use airplanes as weapons or hijack
airplanes in the United States? What did the NSC do in response to this information?"
4. "I don't think anybody
could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half
page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include
the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using
airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
FOR READERS OF THIS BLOG Many more resources
went into the crafting of the above e-mail. I searched using Google for information about Rice's public statement "I
don't think anybody could have predicted that..." still attempting to find primary source (May 2002 press conference) where
and when Rice made the comment. A CNN Transcript for May 16, 2002 has a videoclip transcript which include some of Rice's
statements, however, that exact quote isn't apparently made therein. The following are the most recent results: Much
thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message Board by poster
Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004) http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/cgi-bin/mt_2004/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=541 includes many well-written posts - keep it up, we value the documentation. One poster gives this credit ... The Center
for American Progress has compiled an excellent list of Rice's contradicted claims. Here are some excerpts:
* RICE CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked
airplane as a missile." National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
* FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally
"received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and
that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists
had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
Similarly, much thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message
Board So Condi's at bat?
Posted By Squinty Vernier on 3/28/2004 at 1:15 PM
http://www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=355344&ThreadID=35121&IsResponse=True
Finally, much thanks to the documented post at this public!! Message Board by the poster
March 26, 2004 World Magazine Blog http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/002403.html
Washington Post
 9/11: For The Record By Condoleezza Rice Monday, March 22,
2004; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13881-2004Mar21
More follow-up to search for specific statement by Rice...
Unfortunate that partisanship enters
into many of these message board discussions, the following LeftCoaster at least does point to resources used to support
contentions made. 9/11 and the Evolution of Lies Posted by CA Pol Junkie Monday :: Jul 14, 2003
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000420.html We know from where the Dubya Report is coming, but I have to say, this is very well-documented. Keep it
up, please - gives credibility to your opinions! What a Difference a Day Makes Updated June
20, 2002 http://www.thedubyareport.com/terrorisanship.html
Thank you so much, details, quotations, with links ... 13 DAYS, 13 DECEPTIONS: DAY 2, LIE 2 "NO WARNINGS ABOUT 'PLANES
AS MISSILES'" by John Buchanan January 16 http://thomasmc.com/0116jb.htm don't miss out
More...
NEWSWEEK
May 20, 2002 issue
The FBI has insisted it had no advance warning about the 9-11 attacks. But internal documents suggest
there were more concerns inside the bureau's field offices than Washington has acknowledged.
One FBI memo, written by a Phoenix agent in July 2001, warned about suspicious activities by Middle Eastern
men at an Arizona flight school. Last week, in little-noticed testimony before a Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller
referred to another internal document that may prove more explosive: notes by a Minneapolis agent worrying that French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui might be planning to "fly something into the World Trade Center."...
thanks for the reference Unheeded Warnings
http://www.drugwar.com/punheeded911.shtm will check out
Go Public or Go Home Mar 29, 04 Reposted
Condi
should GO PUBLIC OR GO HOME.
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as
a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.
Rice
is backing off her public statement, claiming she "misspoke."
The entire reason for the 9/11 Commission is to find
"truth."
Rice misspoke, she claims, in private.
Tell us that publicly. She can't testify, there is a
long-standing principle that sitting National Security Advisors do not testify before Congress.
A principle?
We as a nation have asked our youth to die for not only a principle, but for each of us, for our freedoms to remain, our rights
to remain, inseparable from us. We've asked our youth to die in Afghanistan, in retaliation for the tragedy of September
11, 2001.
Nobody is asking Rice to die for a principle or for us. The Commission is requesting, on the behalf
of the public, for Rice to testify in public before them... before us.
The 9/11 Commission was created to be an Independent
Commission. Technically, Rice would not be testifying before "Congress."
FoxNews keeps repeating that there
is no precedence for Rice to testify in public. Let's hold you accountable. Have you listened to any of the proceedings
of the 9/11 Commission?
One member, Richard Ben-Veniste said there was precedence - he was quite adamant during the
appearance of Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage. Discussion publicly ongoing suggests President Jimmy Carter's
national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, did. The Commission unanimously wants Rice to testify in public.
September 11 families want her to do so.
There should be no compromise on those requests.
Rice is a public
servant - to us.
Resources:
9/11 Family Steering Committee Forwarded Questions for National Security Advisor
Condoleeza Rice to answer. The Family Steering Committee(FSC) firmly insists that Ms. Rice testify under oath, and at
some point testify in public with regard to her role as National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration.
Among
the questions posed: Prior to September 11, did the Intelligence Community provide the NSC with any information regarding
the possibility that al-Qaida members would use airplanes as weapons or hijack airplanes in the United States? What did the
NSC do in response to this information?
More reason for Rice to publicly testify is the following: According
to Washington Post "Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private
meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that 'I don't think anybody could have predicted that
those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane
as a missile.' Rice told the commission that she misspoke..."
sandra day o'connor council foreign relations
|
