It was quite amusing..and no less expectd to see Sec. of Condi Rice's picture on the cover of one of the NYC tabloids......coving to the defense of her "boss" Mr. Bush......yet again was it Bush's defense or her own? So once again I looked betwen the pages of the "9/11 Commission Report" and yet once again revisionist history sets in by jumping out at me on the pages of the "report". (pp. 198-199) to summarize, and reiterated in Richard Clarke's account in his own book.....Clarke and fellow hold-over from the Clinton yrs....George Tenet...had wrote a comprehensive counterterrorism plan against al Qaeda...and pressed both Steven Hadley and Rice to get the Principals together to discuss the options.............this was on January 25, 2001....they met briefly in the spring......and not again until Sept. 4, 2001........seven days before the attacks. Seems like not being all to concerned about dealing with Bin Laden or al Qaeda to me! Like the saying goes..."The proof in the pudding".......something about that August 6 PDB comes to mind....hmmmmm....! Condi, Condi Condi..........! You can only paint a rosey picture to a point..........at some point the template becomes a useless transparency

From Rawstory:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_mem...ments_0926.html


Condi is full of crap.

In contrast the 'liberal media' is content to let her get away with lying like a republican (which is worse than lying like a dog or a rug, or a dog on a rug)



blah blah blah, more BS here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/26/ric...nton/index.html

Thanks for the links!..........
Below is to further solidify the Rice B.S......excerpts from the '9/11 Commission Report" itself[Chapter "FROM THREAT TO THREAT", pg. 201; subtitle Early Decisions::

"Within the first few days after Bush's inaugaration, Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her--and the new President--to give terrorism very high priority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the precious administration. After Rice requested that all senior staff identify desirable major policy reviews or iniatives, Clarke submitted and elaborate memorandum on January 25, 2001. he attached to it his 1998 Delenda plan and the December 2000 strategy paper. 'we URGENTLY need....a Principlas level reviewon th al Qida network," Clarke wrote.

"He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was "a first order threat" or a more modest worry overblown by 'chicken little"alarmists. Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda "is not some narrow, little terrorist issue that needs to be included in a broader regional policy". Two key decisions that had been deferred, he noted, concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring, and covert aide to the Uzbeks. Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan, on possible new money for CIA operations, and on "when and how...to respond to the attack on the USS Cole."

Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies"......also makes it very clear that he did in no uncertain terms briefed Condi..............[pgs224-235]

Condi is stating that there was no given her to deal with alQaeda. That is her main assertion. That statement has been shot full of holes by the memo that you have linked here. The last four lines of text of the memo read:
It must be assumed that since both attachments dealt with "al-Qida", binLaden must have been included in whatever strategy was alluded to. This information is in the public domain and is included in Richard Clark's book. There is such a dearth of fact checking among our fine "investigative" journalists that it makes me sick!

She is the poorest substitute for Colin!