So Condi says the meeting did not occur, the NYT provides evidence showing that it did occur.

The logical conclusion would be that Condi is a liar. WAIT!! This is bushbot land! The obvious conclusion in bushbot land is that Tenet and Woodward are liars!

Makes sense to me...

i'd say condi has some explaining to do. of course, fortunate for her, this pertinent little "item" may get buried in the avalanche of foleygate in the next 48 hours...

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10″ that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again…

oops

source: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/15662785.htm

Wow Orange... what a smoking gun you presented...

a meeting about an attack going to happen somewhere, sometime, someplace... Condi should have been able prevent 9/11 with that info.

How come George Tenet didn't tell ANYONE about the terrorists taking flight training... OH SNAP.

You're such a lemming to the sea... if it's a Republican, you will make 1000 leaps of faith to get to a conspiracy and evil.

But I bet a democrat caught on tape smoking crack should be relected mayor. or a democrat with thousands of dollars in his freezer.. and you're "innocent until proven guilty."

Bottomline: Your clear slant colors your statements and until you have the SAME DAMN STANDARDS for both political parties and people in general, you'll be discounted by EVERYONE who has access to a quarter of a brain and Google.

not going to fall for it will - jefferson should be tossed-out and convicted as should any congressman who commits any act of fraud or bribery. and why in the hell would i throw my support behind a democrat smoking crack on tape? marion barry? please. throw him under the bus while you're at it.

i make no leap of faith in my judgement that condi has been quite deliberate in her actions to conceal and subvert. she says she does not recall - that it never happened - and then "SNAP" turns out it did.

i may be a lemming for calling this out, but it "ain't" me who's headed off a cliff.

it's amazing how you lefties are completely ignoring and twisting the facts. Condi never denied there was meeting, she only said she was not warned on an imminent attack. I would say it's clear from the Times story that when Tenet spoke about the meeting to the 9/11 commission, he never claimed to have warned about a specific attack either...

ok so W was advised UBL was going to attack...& FDR was advised the Japanese had intentions of war.

from that we're to conclude that W "knew" about 9/11 (before it happened)...just as FDR "knew" about Pearl Harbor.

come again...

SteveGA and OrangeAlert are blatant racists for attacking an African American woman like Condi Rice.

(this is what the Dems would say if any conservative attacked an African American on the left)

So there was a meeting...did Condi Rice deny there was a meeting?

No

She said they weren't warned of an imminent attack.

And this begs another question, if there was a warning then why didn't the Clinton Administration deal with that warning time and time and time and time again?

Why did the head of the Bin Laden CIA unit call Berger, Clinton and Albright absolute liars over the weekend? Hmmmmm

Let's see who to believe...who to believe. Clinton, a known pathological liar for several decades (ah yes, the Dems suck up his words like Monica does protein).

Here's a great video from a GOLD STAR MOTHER

Why did the head of the Bin Laden CIA unit call Berger, Clinton and Albright absolute liars over the weekend? Hmmmmm

This is a grand slam point, Warrior, considering the fact that this guy, who wrote the book "Imperial Hubris" under the pseudonym "Anonymous," slammed President Bush much harder in his book than he slamed Slick.

The only logical conclusion we can come to, Warrior, is that Berger, Bill, and Madeline are liars!!!

He attacked Bush on the program over the weekend as well, no doubt. But his takeaway was that Bush never had the ability to go after Bin Laden as Bin Laden was never in the cross hairs.

He claims Clinton had at LEAST 10 opportunities.

Oh how true

Clinton went after Fox News harder than Al Queda

DEMOCRATS and Liberal Judges say terrorists have the same rights as you. How will you be voting in November?

"DEMOCRATS and Liberal Judges say terrorists have the same rights as you. How will you be voting in November?"

Tough decision. Vote for dems who believe in those stupid Geneva Convention laws. Or vote for Repubs who have created more terrorists. I'll vote for change.

Lovedaright...is there a Terrorist Census out there that tracks how many terrorists there are?

Interesting.....

Sorry, I'll be voting for those people that call an ace an ace and not a group that REWARDS terrorists like the Jack Ass party does.

By the way, loved you never voted for a Republican in your life so you aren't voting for change...you're voting for the same clowns you always voted for.

Mark -

First Condi said she had no recollection of "the supposed meeting". Now, we have independent confirmation that the meeting did in fact take place, as you are acknowledging here. Condi's first instinct seems always to lie - a skill she honed well as the admin's designated Sunday talk show liar during the first term. It seems such loyalty is the only requirement for getting promoted in the Bush WH.

Later, Condi said that she would certainly have reacted strongly had any meeting happened which indicated an imminent threat. Now, we have intel officers who attended the meeting saying the meeting did indeed ring alarms loudly about an imminent threat:

"One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida... was poised to strike again."

Now it turns out that both Rumsfeld and Ashcroft receieved the same presentation, although both initially denied any recollection of it as well. It appears both had other priorities:

"It isn't clear what action, if any, the administration took in response, but officials said Rumsfeld was focused mostly on his plans to remake the Army into a smaller, high-tech force and deploy a national ballistic missile defense system."

And Lord knows what important stuff Ashcroft was focused on instead of terrorist warnings - perhaps putting more fig leafs on nude statues in the Hoover building?

Mark says,

"Now it is known that Woodward timed the book to come out before the election. Not only are his motives questionable, but his content is as well."

A couple things. First, this is the third book on the Bush Residency Woodward has written in the past 4 years. With 3 books out in 4 years, it is inevitable that one or more will come out near an election, which are held every other year. When are election campaigns not going on in this country??

Second, Woodward's first two books were generally positive about Bush. Also, the Bushies gave Woodward unprecedented access - clearly an attempt to co-opt some good coverage for Mr Bush. Now you're all upset because, after hundreds of interviews with key admin offcials, the designated steno-boy has come to the obvious conclusion that Bush is an appaling, incompetent, clueless failure? Well, booo-friggin-hooo.

Aarontime is obviously a racist as well

warrior -

ah, so calling Condi a liar (which is akin to calling the sky blue) is the same as being a racist? Very logical.

Aaron...it's interesting that in the first two books Woodward was given a lot of access and interviewed many people.

In this book, he only interviewed a few Bush Administration officials....funny, do you call that fair and balanced? Where is their side of the story presented?

Hmmmmm.....

warrior -

"In this book, he only interviewed a few Bush Administration officials....funny, do you call that fair and balanced? Where is their side of the story presented?"

Wrong. Woodward conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with all the top admin officials. that's what the book is based on. And you ask where is their side of the story??? Um, practically the entire book is their side of the story!

"Lovedaright...is there a Terrorist Census out there that tracks how many terrorists there are?

Interesting.....

Sorry, I'll be voting for those people that call an ace an ace and not a group that REWARDS terrorists like the Jack Ass party does.

By the way, loved you never voted for a Republican in your life so you aren't voting for change...you're voting for the same clowns you always voted for".

Actually I'm not a very partisan. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush,and Kerry in the past 5 elections. Even conservatives agree that this is a do nothing congress. Why would you vote for failure? Dems did the same stuff in the 90s and deserved to get booted. Now it’s the repubs turn. Don’t you think it’s better for conservatives in the long run to get rid of these bums now and get real conservatives that deliver in ’08? Also are you an American or republican first?

"Lovedaright...is there a Terrorist Census out there that tracks how many terrorists there are?

Interesting.....

Sorry, I'll be voting for those people that call an ace an ace and not a group that REWARDS terrorists like the Jack Ass party does.

By the way, loved you never voted for a Republican in your life so you aren't voting for change...you're voting for the same clowns you always voted for".

Actually I'm not a very partisan. I voted for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush,and Kerry in the past 5 elections. Even conservatives agree that this is a do nothing congress. Why would you vote for failure? Dems did the same stuff in the 90s and deserved to get booted. Now it’s the repubs turn. Don’t you think it’s better for conservatives in the long run to get rid of these bums now and get real conservatives that deliver in ’08? Also are you an American or republican first?

But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.

Well, that's what Ashcroft said, but apparently not the truth, according to the State Department.

Even if we accept these types of "I do not recall" excuses as the truth, not "recalling" something so important is a pretty damning illustration of how seriously al Qaeda was taken pre-9/11.

Wrong Aaron...Bush not interviewed yet the entire book is about Bush's state of Denial

How in the hell can the writer say that and not even interview the MAIN SUBJECT?

warrior -

ah, so calling Condi a liar (which is akin to calling the sky blue) is the same as being a racist? Very logical.

Aaron that's the entire point. The left calls any conservative a racist whenever they challenge a liberal who is of color...they are labeled a racist.

Turnabout is fair play. And I'm sorry, you're not only racist but apparently hate women too.

Loved

I'm not a Republican but a registered Independent. I'm an American first and foremost, that's why whenever I see anything anti-American (socialists, communists, liberals) then it sets off the red flags.

Minnowhead...DEVESTATING REALITY from someone who was there...released yesterday

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/79586,CST-EDT-novak02.article

"Clinton blew it on bin Laden: ex-CIA official"

"On CBS's "Early Show" Monday, the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit during the Clinton administration, Michael Scheuer, said the al-Qaida leader "is alive today" because Clinton and his top lieutenants refused to kill him. "It's just an incredible kind of situation," said Scheuer, "for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

CLINTON LIED. PEOPLE DIED

Bill Clinton received daily briefing in 1998 on imminent Al Queda attack....again...1998.

Apparently Hillary is lying out her ass to use the same standard as Aaron.

"One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida... was poised to strike again."

I've got to ask. Did he consider it a 10 on connecting the dots when the presentation was given or after, now that we know what happened on 9/11. Was that "stark warning" that they were going to hit within the US or just another US target abroad. The lack of focused documentation is what concerns me. We hear about the infamous briefing Bush got just before the attacks (Al Quaeda determined to attack in the US), but we don't here anything that can be acted on. That would be the same as saying that everyone will experience a car accident in their life. What trip do you avoid to keep yourself from being one of the statistics.

That is the part that kills me about the Bush lied rhetoric. He had intelligence put in front of him (which other nations, Democratic senators, and the Ex President himself) all agreed with (up until it came time to make a decision) and he acted on the cautious side. Intelligence isn't a crystal ball and making a decision based on intelligence estimates doesn't make someone a liar if it doesn't turn out to be good intelligence. If that were the case, Eisenhower lied about the Nazi Redoubt, liars led our men into Somalia's heavy resistance, and...well...I guess those sports casters lie everytime they get a pick wrong on up comming games.

Hindsight doesn't help move the country forward especially when people want to be upset that someone couldn't tell the future.

It is also worth repeating--for the millionth time--that the Bush administration had planned to attack al Qaeda before 9/11.

Ahem, Mark, nice set of standards you have. The VERy FIRST Principals meeting on Al Queda in September. A meeting Clarke was asking for since the very first day the Bush Administration was in office. NINE Months. A meeting that focused on the use of an armed Predator. In the end of the meeting, nothing was decided.

Bill Clinton received daily briefing in 1998 on imminent Al Queda attack....again...1998.

And this is what Bill Clinton did according to the 9-11 Commission report:

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

Dan...lovedaright

Why do you keep changing your login names?

I cleared my history and didn't save my login. Then realized I used my name instead of my login name. Basically, it was a long day.