Center for American Progress
Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission
Thu Apr 8, 2004 15:14
63.228.145.202

Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44767

This page will be updated as information is released by the Center for American Progress.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has her work cut out for herself Thursday morning when she testifies to the 9/11 Commission. In the sorry history of the Bush administration's attempts to derail the Commission, her testimony will be a defining moment. Rice has quite a job to do in explaining:

• Her initial refusal to testify;
• The contradictions between her recent statements about 9/11 and previous sworn testimony, including that of Richard Clarke;
• The administration's reluctance to take responsibility in any way for the events of 9/11; and, most importantly
• The administration's lack of urgency in focusing on the threat of terrorism and al-Qaida before 9/11.

Today's Coverage:

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission, April 8, 2004
CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport."

Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement, April 8, 2004
CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network." FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States."

Pre-testimony Coverage:

9/11 Testimony of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice Viewers' Guide, April 7, 2004
With National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice set to testify before the independent 9/11 Commission Thursday, American Progress asks the tough questions.

Important Questions Condoleezza Rice Won't Be Asked, April 7, 2004
Why was it in our national interests for the administration to facilitate the evacuation of Bin Laden family members and other prominent Saudis from the United States in the days immediately following 9/11?

9/11 Commission: Opposition and Obfuscation, April 7, 2004
As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice prepares to testify before the 9/11 Commission, the Center for American Progress presents the facts about the Bush administration's record on the commission.

America Is Asking About... The 9/11 Commission, April 6, 2004
After initially forbidding National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice from testifying before the 9/11 Commission, last week the Bush administration made a complete reversal on that decision.

Timeline of Administration Statements on National Security, April 5, 2004
The Center for American Progress has compiled an exhaustive, day-by-day overview of the Bush administration's public statements on national security, defense and international issues from Jan. 20 to Sept. 10, 2001.

Fact Check: Condoleezza Rice's '60 Minutes' Interview, March 28, 2004
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes" in an effort to quell growing questions surrounding the administration's inconsistent claims about its pre-9/11 actions.

-----------------------

Condoleezza Rice Testifies, Says Bin Laden Memo Was 'Not A Warning'
04.08.2004 12:41 PM EDT
http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1486253

The government's investigation into the events surrounding the 9-11 attacks saw its most important — and perhaps its most dramatic — day of testimony on Thursday as Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, appeared before a congressional commission to address what the Bush administration knew prior to the attacks and how the tragedy might have been averted.

Rice defended the actions of the administration, and told the commission that "no silver bullet" could have prevented the tragedy.

"In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9-11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States — something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies," Rice said. "I just don't buy the argument that we weren't shaking the trees enough."

Rice testified under oath to the commission, which was created almost two years ago to prepare a report on the events that led to the 9-11 attacks. The White House had initially opposed the formation of the commission, arguing that it would pose a threat to national security secrets and demand time of officials busy fighting the war on terror. The Bush administration relented in September of 2002, clearing the way for the creation of the commission.

The national security adviser's appearance comes in the wake of damning testimony from Richard Clarke, who advised both President Bush and former President Bill Clinton on counterterrorism. Clarke told the commission that the Bush administration did not take action following his warnings about an increasing terrorist threat prior to 9-11.

Rice said Thursday that while the Bush administration had received general warnings about attacks on American interests, it had not received any specifics about when, where or how those attacks might occur. She also said that the administration did not receive word of any planned attacks against targets on U.S. soil. "It was frustratingly vague," Rice said of the information the government had received.

However, during an impassioned exchange with commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, Rice acknowledged that the president had received a classified memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States" one month before the 9-11 attacks. Rice stated that the memo, despite its title, was based on historical information and offered no new information or specifics; it was "not a warning," she said.

Clarke had also said that he warned the Bush administration about terrorist al Qaeda cells inside the U.S., but Rice countered that she was not told that the cells were something that "we needed to do something about," she said.

Clarke had also testified that the Bush administration was more interested in attacking Iraq than in dealing with al Qaeda. Rice countered that it made sense for the U.S. to investigate the possible involvement of Iraq given our combative history with that nation, and that nobody "twist[ed] the facts" to justify military action in Iraq.

Rice began her testimony at 9 a.m. and was grilled by commission members for three hours, with each question and answer broadcast live by all major news outlets.

The Bush administration had initially argued that Rice should not be called to testify publicly, noting that such testimony would violate the executive privilege needed to protect national security. The White House eventually relented, saying that it was important for Americans to hear the testimony.

For more political news, insight into the 2004 presidential election and information on registering to vote, check out Choose or Lose.

—Robert Mancini
-----------------------

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Rice Confirms Aug 6 Report in Testimony
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:39:20 -0400
From: MPWright9@aol.com
To: APFN@apfn.org

In her sworn testimony today, Rice confirmed what she had earlier said about the contents of the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001. She said:

...a terrorist might attempt to hijack a U.S.
aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the government
into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had participated
in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

This briefing item was not prompted by any specific
threat information. And it did not raise the possibility
that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040408/ap_on_go_pr_wh/sept__11_commission_text

This keeps alive my argument that David Boren, George Tenet, and David Edger schemed to let the 9/11 hijackings go forward, because they were planning a sting operation, in anticipation of being able to attack the hijackers when they landed the aircraft for the expected negotiation.

Michael Wright
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html