Reply With Quote
ROFL, what? Bushs whole 04 campaign was run on 9-11
Cheney sought Rice's role at National Security Council, Vanity Fair to report
Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday May 2, 2006
Bush apparently gave Cheney power to preside over National Security Council meetings
Shortly after taking office, Vice President Cheney fought to take over one of the national security adviser's key duties, claims an unnamed ex-official in the June issue of Vanity Fair.
"At one point early in this Bush administration, a former official tells me, Cheney wanted to chair meetings of the National Security Council "principals"— the secretaries of state and defense, the C.I.A. director, and so on—in Bush’s absence, co-opting the usual role of the national security adviser, then Condoleezza Rice," writes Vanity Fair national editor Todd Purdum in an advance copy provided by the magazine to RAW STORY.
"He lost," Purdum adds within parenthesis.
Although Cheney's alleged desire to chair principals meetings has been reported before, the results of a RAW STORY investigation suggest that the Vice President may have gotten what he wanted.
Practically unnoticed, a National Security Presidential Directive issued Feb.13, 2001, and signed by President George W. Bush, formally gave the vice president that duty, albeit at the President's discretion.
"When I am absent from a meeting of the NSC, at my direction the Vice President may preside," Bush wrote.
But before the do ent was officially released, an article in the New York Times published in February, 2001 claimed that "officials who read the directive today and who were familiar with its development" said that it "rejected suggestions that Vice President Cheney head important meetings of the National Security Council."
"Given Mr. Cheney's broad powers and his past posts as defense secretary in the first Bush administration and chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford, there were expectations at the White House that he would assume a more prominent role in the security council," the Times' Jane Perlez wrote.
"But the directive today affirmed Ms. Rice's primacy," Perlez claimed. "The directive means that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld will sit "deferentially" beside Ms. Rice at the meetings."
The directive was formally approved for release by the National Security Council staff on Mar. 13, 2001, but the vice president's new role went unnoticed.
A Washington Post article from February, 2001 noted that Bush's directive was issued later than usual, which may have been related to Cheney's jockeying for more power.
"Bush still has not issued the traditional presidential directive formally spelling out his national security structure -- a do ent his two immediate predecessors signed their first day in office," wrote Karen DeYoung and Steven Mufson for the Post.
In his book, Against All Enemies, Richard A. Clarke, former special advisor to the National Security Council, mentioned Cheney's attendance at the principals meetings.
"In the first weeks of the Administration, however, Cheney had heard me loud and clear about al-Qaida," Clarke wrote. "Now that he was attending the NSC Principals meetings chaired by Condi Rice (something no Vice President had ever done), I hoped he would speak up about the urgency of the problem, put it on a short list for immediate action. He didn't."
( the Clinton people warned the shrubbies about al Qaida, but on principle and ideology, the Repugs think anything coming from the Dems is by definition to be useless and ingnorable )
Clarke was taken off the principals committee by Rice in Bush's first year before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
In April 2004, a U.S. News & World Report article claimed that the vice president's unprecedented role on the N.S.C. caused it to become "dysfunctional."
"This is the most dysfunctional NSC that ever existed," an unnamed senior U.S. official told the magazine. "But it's not Condi's fault. The person that's made it so dysfunctional is Cheney."
"For the first time, a vice president is sitting in on meetings with other NSC principals and is constantly involved in the policymaking," wrote Kenneth T. Walsh for U.S. News. "A copy of every NSC memo goes to the vice president's staff, so that Cheney can play an active role on issues that interest him."
( apparently, National Security and al Qaida didn't interest head between Jan - Sep 2001 )
ROFL, what? Bushs whole 04 campaign was run on 9-11
September 10, 2006
Rice Says U.S. Not Entirely Safe From Attack
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:43 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is safer now than it was before the Sept. 11 attacks, but must not relent in fighting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday. ''I think it's clear that we are safe -- safer -- but not really yet safe,'' Rice said.
( there she goes again, parroting the party line that Iraq = terrorism )
''We've done a lot. In terms of homeland, we're more secure. Our ports are more secure. Our airports are more secure. We have a much stronger intelligence sharing operation,'' said Rice, who was President Bush's national security adviser when al-Qaida masterminded the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
( see the following article about US not cooperating with European allies on intelligence )
Rice defended the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of President Saddam Hussein despite persistent questions about any evidence of a link to the attacks.
( yawn )
She said ''Iraq is going through very difficult times'' but said the U.S. must help create an environment there that does not allow extremism to flourish.
''It's hard to imagine that different kind of environment with Saddam Hussein in power and Iraq at the center of a nexus between terrorism and conflict,'' Rice said on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the attacks.
( what bull . There was no conflict in Iraq with Saddam in power, he was not at all on terms with or support al Quaida. What's difficult to imagine is how much better position the US military would be vs Iran, Afghanistan, and the REAL war real on real terrorists with the US hadn't invaded Iraq. )
A Senate report released Friday disclosed for the first time that a CIA assessment in October 2005 said Saddam's government ''did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward'' al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
( but Condi parrots the opposite )
Rice said Sunday she does not remember seeing that particular report.
She maintained ''there were ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. Are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more.''
( oh yeah? where's all this learning going, hidden in your bra or dichhead's underwear )
Republican John Lehman, a former member of the Sept. 11 commission, said the U.S. has taken important steps to stem terrorism by capturing many of those responsible for planning the Sept. 11 attacks.
( ... who weren't in Iraq )
''We have gotten rid of most if not all theater commanders of al-Qaida, but we have not addressed as a nation the root cause ... this jihadist ideology that is being preached around the world, basically funded with Persian Gulf money.''
( the root cause is oil and Israel )
Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste, also a commission member, said the war in Iraq ''has been a recruiting poster for jihadists throughout the Muslim world, and there are far more terrorists now than there were on 9/11. The Iraq invasion and occupation had nothing to do with terrorism. It had nothing to do with 9-11.''
( ... the precise position of the majority of Americans, and very probably the US mlitary on the ground, inspite of the vast right-wing media conspiracy to spin the opposite )
Rice appeared on ''Fox News Sunday.'' Lehman and Ben-Veniste were on ABC's ''This Week.''
===================
So Condi, as NSA head in Jan - Sep 2001, WTF were you doing?
Did you also forget to read the FBI, NSA, CIA reports about "planes into buldings", etc, in the summer of 2001?
Did you forget, or ever know, how to mobilize the national security apparatus in that period?
Really, really, really, WTF were you doing?
Share Data -- and Protect Rights
By Sophie in't Veld
Saturday, September 9, 2006; A17
In his op-ed of Aug. 29, "A Tool We Need to Stop the Next Airliner Plot," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed that the fight against terrorism is being hampered by European privacy concerns about the U.S. government's use of data collected on airline passengers. This is a very serious allegation that calls for a reaction and some qualification.
( the Repugs are at the most de able best when blaming everybody else for the Repugs' legendary incompetence )
Europeans are no less concerned about the threat of terrorism than our American friends, not least since several attacks have occurred on our own continent since Sept. 11, 2001 (Madrid, London, the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Holland) and many more have been prevented. But we are also very aware that one aim of terrorists is to undermine our democracy, the rule of law and our human rights. We should never grant them the pleasure of achieving that goal.
Many Europeans have only recently acquired freedom and democracy, having lived for decades under authoritarian regimes. Therefore we are extremely aware of how precious democracy is. Due democratic process -- holding the executive to account, maintaining proportionality, transparency, the possibility of judicial review and respect for the rule of law, including international agreements -- is of the essence.
But the first question that must be answered about any anti-terrorism measure is this: Does it help make our world safer?
( hey, no fair!! don't ask this question about the phony Iraq war )Since Sept. 11 a host of measures have been taken in the fight against terrorism, often in a rush and in a climate of fear. It is high time for an in-depth evaluation of the results: Are the measures effective in terms of increased security? How many bad guys did we catch? How many plots were prevented? How many innocent citizens were held by mistake? Do we need further measures, or can some of them be revoked or adapted?
Asking critical questions, and insisting on proper safeguards and proportionality, are vital parts of the democratic process. Arguing that democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties get in the way of the fight against terrorism is nonsense. On the contrary, they are our best defense against those who want to destroy our society.
No one will deny that data collection and information sharing are necessary in the fight against terrorism. But such measures should not go beyond what's needed to achieve that purpose, and any restriction on the freedom and privacy of citizens must be accompanied by safeguards against mistakes and abuse, and by provision for proper means of redress.
In the case of the European Union-United States Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement, neither condition has been met. The United States requires 34 items of data from travelers to the United States. E.U. citizens are not covered by American privacy laws, as U.S. citizens are, so they have little protection in this regard. The United States was not willing to make any promises to provide such protection but agreed only to "undertakings" in this area. It's hardly surprising that the European Parliament was not reassured.
It can be done differently, as shown by the PNR agreement between the European Union and Canada. Canada requires only 25 data items, and the protection of personal data that applies to Canadian citizens has been extended to cover E.U. citizens traveling to Canada.
In general, for the purpose of identifying certain individuals, the so-called APIS data (name, passport number, etc.) are sufficient. In practice, the carriers do not provide all 34 items requested by the United States but only the eight to 10 available to them. The need for further data has not been convincingly demonstrated. There may be a case for it, but as I understand democracy, it is up to the authorities to prove they need personal data, not to parliaments or individual citizens to prove that they don't.
A very critical report by the privacy officer of the Department of Homeland Security and an evaluation of the implementation of the E.U.-U.S. agreement show that implementation by the United States has been slow and inadequate. At the time of the evaluation, passengers did not receive any information about the PNR program and their rights.
Contrary to what was agreed to, the United States has so far failed to switch from the so-called PULL system (whereby the United States has direct access to the computer systems of the European carriers) to the PUSH system (whereby the carriers forward the data). There are serious questions regarding the use of data for purposes other than the ones agreed on and over the forwarding of data to third parties.
Secretary Chertoff states that the United States does not do ethnic profiling. To my knowledge no Western nation has admitted to ethnic profiling as an official policy, but we all know it happens in practice. So-called "trusted traveler" programs are essentially that. What chance has, say, a 25-year-old man with a beard, wearing a turban or having a Muslim appearance (whatever that may be) of being a "trusted traveler"?
Europeans are eager to work with their American friends and allies to eliminate the scourge of terrorism. But friends and allies work together on the basis of mutual respect, trust and shared values. Issues such as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, illegal rendition flights and secret detention camps, the SWIFT spying scandal and the unsatisfactory implementation of the PNR agreement have done much harm to the traditional trust between the transatlantic partners. If we want to beat the terrorists, it is essential that trust be restored. That will not be achieved by tough language between the parties but through respect and willingness to seek compromises.
I am convinced that together we can find ways to protect our democracy and freedom while preserving our hard-won civil rights. Only in that scenario do the terrorists lose.
The writer is a Dutch member of the European Parliament and its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
==============
The Repugs would rather stew in their own incompetence, as has been clear to everybody, and policy-free, non-governing politics rather than work with the Dems or allies.
I haven't heard one person complain about Afghanistan or going after ObL, the real supporters and perpetrators of 9/11, other than we're doing them both half assed or not at all.
Cheney Defends Hardline White House Role
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 10, 2006
Filed at 4:04 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Cheney on Sunday defended his lightning-rod role as a leading advocate for invading Iraq, for a warrantless surveillance program and for harsh treatment of suspected terrorists.
''Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us,'' Cheney told NBC's ''Meet the Press'' when asked about his ''dark side.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Cheney.html
================
So, darth head, what were you thinking that was unthinkable from Jan - Sep 2001?
Cancelling all taxes?
Outlawing all political parties except the Repug party?
Cancelling all TV licenses except Fox News?
Disbanding the US Govt?
Cancelling US democracy?
Well, I can tell you this: There is a LOT you don't know...all of you. Even myself. I will tell you this also: There is a race going on right now; for the stopping of suitcase bombs going off in ten large cities around the united states. Russia has sold these unknowingly to Terrorists, Actual DIRTY bombs, and told them how to work them. there is a LOT that the American public does not know; you are nowhere NEAR as safe as you would like to think.
The prisons Bush was talking of, the Clinto Admin. had MANY of them all over the place, using ANY methods possible to retrieve info with them, Killing, torture, anything.
AND OBL could have been captured, BUT, he was using kids and such as human shields, and Clinton could not pull the trigger, had he, this would be MANY years in.
There will come a day when the U.S. public will have to dig it's heads from the sand and realize that the RADICALS do NOT want peace, and NO we can NOT all get along.
If they wanted peace so badly, then why did they ram 2 planes into skyscrapers and then REJOICE it?????????????(!)
How could Russia sell dirty bombs to terrorists unknowingly? Is there a legit market for suitcase bombs?
eBay?
Not to mention that the batteries that start of the reaction in these supposed 'suit-case bombs' are long expired and they are protected by unbreakable encryption codes. What you don't know can hurt you.
"Russia has sold these unknowingly to Terrorists, Actual DIRTY bombs"
I really doubt that since Russia has a huge problem with an exploding and violent Muslim population, eg Chechens, all along its southern border. How could Russia sell suitcase bombs to terrorists and be assured that wouldn't be used by Chechens hitting Moscow?
Are you that moronic?
There's a black market for anything, what's to say that dirty bombs aren't one of those items?
And whose to say that the Russian govt is so organized as to track every transaction made from one of their rogue military personell?
That would be selling them knowingly, bag.There's a black market for anything, what's to say that dirty bombs aren't one of those items?That would mean Russia did not sell them, bag.And whose to say that the Russian govt is so organized as to track every transaction made from one of their rogue military personell?
Nice to know you didn't even question the source, bag.
I didn't say i believe the source did i,..moron.
So on the other hand, did russia knowingly\unknowingly sold bombs to terrorist,
Or they knowlingly sold bombs to terrorist?
Yeah, because the Israelis have done *that* so successfully.
Jeez, when they did that to the Palestinians, they just stopped complaining and all got along to live happily ever after.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
