REVEALED: THE CONDI SPEECH THAT WAS NEVER DELIVERED ON SEPT 11

[0rion]

The WASHINGTON POST on Thursday is planning an exclusive: On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday"

Revealed: The Condi Speech That Was Never Delivered on Sept 11

[BootinUp]

1. What will it take for

stupid Americans to see we are being led by the blind?

[berner59]

3. and the walls...

come tumbling down.... Bet they'll claim that Clarke leaked this one out...who cares...Condi can now be questioned on it by the commission...woo hoo!!

[Renew Deal]

2. This could be really good or really bad.

It's hard to interpret that.

[berner59]

4. Isn't this saying...

what Clarke was saying - that this speech is all about long range missles, rogue nations and Iraq??? I think this is good...

"world of yesterday" - insinuates the Clinton plan I think...

[Elidor]

6. It sounds like it will be key

If it's really as bad as all that, not even Rice's friends on the panel will be able to pull her fat out of the fire. Nothing would be sweeter than Rice's own words used against her to show just how dishonest she has been on television over the last two weeks.

[skypilot]

35. And it's really nothing more...

...than a SPEECH. They're always giving speeches. Action not words.

[yardwork]

11. I must be missing something.

If true, the information seems to blow another huge hole in the * camp's credibility, while totally confirming what Clarke said.

How could it be bad? Unless it's a lie that Drudge dredged up and a false alarm. Remember Drudge "broke" the story on Kerry's intern.

[asthmaticeog]

5. Before we get all excited

the source on this is Matt Drudge. Doesn't mean it's untrue, of course, but nothing coming from that camp is ironclad.

[markses]

7. No, Drudge has an in at the newspapers

Especially the NY Times and the Washington Post.

If this is a plan for missile defense, I think Condi is sunk. I also think the Administration leaked this in order to avoid the revelation at the hearings themselves. Here's my take: The Commission already knew damn well that this speech was to take place, and were going to ask Dr. Rice what the conmtent was. This is clearly damage control, with the Bushies trying to get ahead of the story. It is now more clear that they were pressured politically into giving Dr. Rice up on this, and their protestations about privilege are given the very public lie. Bad news for Bushie, though they will try desperately to control it.

[berner59]

9. wouldn't this be THE proof...

a smoking gun???? Clarke was right, Condi is lying... How would getting this out help?? Build it up all weekend and then what, fire Condi or have her resign?? Either way, the lies are proven...

[hedda_foil]

8. When Drudge says that a specific paper will print in a specific edition

It's because he's got an embargoed copy of the article. Watch the WP website. It'll be up within the next hour. I guarantee it.

[asthmaticeog]

10. I hope you and markses are right.

Then we'll get to see if Rice plays the sacrificial lamb or spills the beans on the BFEE - either way, someone high in the * administration could be looking at 3000 counts of negligent homicide.

[yardwork]

13. I don't see it having quite that impact.

It would be different if she had actually given the speech. The WH will say that these were just "notes" or some bs like that.

I see it as one more piece of evidence confirming Richard Clarke's information, which is that the WH didn't give a damn about al Quaida and were focused on Iraq.

[Sparky McGruff]

12. Bingo. You're right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40697-2004Mar31.html

[yardwork]

15. Wow heda foil! Great call!

This is a good article. I see two positive trends developing. One, the * administration is going to be remembered in history texts as a major f*ck-up, even if many Americans don't see it yet.

Two, the press is finally starting to take notice. The tone of this article is markedly less deferential than articles written even a few weeks ago.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Damn! Hedda's good, isn't she?! n/t

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

36. Oh man.... too bad they did not give that speech on Sept 10th

What a bunch of idiots fighing the last war.

[TahitiNut]

14. Thursday is April Fools Day, you know.

:shrug:

[darkstar]

16. Wait a second...

Wouldn't Rice's speech and the subject matter have been well known in advance? How can it just now be being learned that Rice had a national security speech planned for that day? Aren't the whens and wheres and such established well before a major policy speech?

[oasis]

18. Doo-doo meet fan.

:wow:

[Zo Zig]

19. Shake and bake Rice,

and I helped!

[keopeli]

20. This is a big A-HA moment...

Since Condi's speech was never delivered, it was not a matter of public record. That doesn't mean people didn't know about it. It's just an excuse not to talk about it.

This is a common excuse. For example, there are Republicans (and Democrats) on Capitol Hill that are political figures who are known to be gay. It's not known to the general public simply because it is not a matter of public record. In other words, there has never been a public statement to this effect. Everyone, from Orrin Hatch to Bill O'Reilly keeps these secrets.

It seems apparent that many people on the 9-11 commission knew about this speech. Clarke, a conservative career diplomat, bet his career and reputation on the existance of this speech (and perhaps other unknown facts).

When Bush* reversed himself this week, it was because he and Rove came up with a plan for how to deal with the release to the public of this speech. He had to know this would sink Condi.

Notice that, by Condi saying she doesn't plan to stay on past the election, she is submitting her resignation, making the issue of firing her a moot point (for Bush*).

The question is how this revelation to the public will effect Bush*'s electability. I am willing to bet that it will dirty Cheney a great deal. Cheney, however, probably also thinks of himself as a sacrificial lamb for Bush*, since he has only a few years of life left and his goal of an All-Republican US government in perpetua is important enough for him to sacrifice.

Well, the first quarter of this year has sure been different than the first quarter of last year, eh?

Keo

[maggrwaggr]

21. looks like she was setting the stage for big star wars spending

which they're still trying to do.

Can you say "corporate welfare?"

[Fovea]

23. In an LTTE to CNN in 1990

I called Star Wars "A Maginot line in Space."

If anything, it is more true now than then. And it was plenty true then.

[Insider]

22. my usual take

there are two options:
a. they were negligent/incompetent, and people died. and they accidentally stumbled onto our treasury and made all their energy and military industry friends rich(er). they own the voting machines and will win anyway in november.
-or-
b. they actively caused the new pearl harbor as written in pnac & operation northwoods, and planned all along to enrich their friends and loot our treasury. THIS can never be found out, and they offer up (and gladly accept) negligence/incompetence and the next election instead of the alternative.

btw, IMO this crew has not been even close to negligent/incompetent in anything they did alone or together.

[SoCalDem]

24. It was probably just like this one from July 26, 01

SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-23-04 01:38 AM
Original message
Watch Condi ..July 26, 2001.. speech at the press club

If they were so involved in "terrah", it should be in this speech..

Let's give it a listen

So far,,it's soviet..soviet..soviet..

http://www.connectlive.com/npc/luncheons-2001.php

It might be worth a listen to see what Cohen (defense sec) had to say before Bush took over.. bottom of the page

[xchrom]

25. is that the sound of someone's bacon frying?

i hope.

[G_j]

26. The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice's speech,

here we go again...

[calimary]

27. Wanna make a stink about this?

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: [phone]
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: [phone]

email: [e-mail]
AL FELZENBERG, DEPUTY FOR COMMUNICATIONS National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Office: 202-401-1725 Cell: 202-236-4878 Fax: [phone]"

[e-mail]

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

28. A Wealth of Information Here

Thanks for the post!

[oasis]

30. Thanks for the addys. We'll help this stay on the front burner until Condi

testifies.

[Festivito]

29. Condi on 9/11, Mentioning the WTC bombers 9/11 sentencing?

The bombers that Clinton sought, found and managed successful prosectuion. The ones due for sentencing in NY on 9/11, sentencing that had to be delayed.

Oh yes, April fools.

Although for the Bush administration, it's not just a day in April, is it.

[Redleg]

31. I heard Rumsfeld on NPR the morning of 9-11

giving a talk about the need to re-structure the military (including downsizing the Army by another two divisions) and making the SDI missile defense a top priority. 30 minutes later I heard about the planes hitting the WTC and thought to myself "no f@cking missile defense system would have prevented that sh!t from happening!"

[louis-t]

32. Oh, it was MISSILES that were the biggest threat..

oh, I see, still delusional. These people will look you straight in the eye, read you this speech, and tell you "we were going after Al Queda not Iraq and we had a plan (not Clinton's) and bushie had meetings every day about this and he's a HERO an..." and the public will buy it. Sickening.

[Ratty]

33. This clears up a lot for me

I had known that Bush's advisors dismissed the urgent recommendations on terrorism Clinton's outgoing advisors tried to impress upon them. We knew that years ago. I had thought it merely their arrogant disdain of all things Clinton. But now we see that old failed pork-barrel giveaway scheme of "missle defense" making its reappearance. I can see now why that would become their top priority. The chance to resurrect the opportunity to give their big campaign contributors in the defense industry tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer's money? No way were they going to pass that up.

If it was important to Clinton it was by definition something they did not want to support. What a marvelous way for a political party to set priorities. First we see them dismantling everything of Clinton's that they could through executive order. Then we see them taking down the WTC towers with 3 thousand souls inside. Ah, the compassion of the Republican Party.

[TacticalPeek]

34. We have a winner in the Rebirth of Irony contest!

"the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday"

This from the gang who on January 20, 2001 promptly turned the national security page back to January 19, 1993 and resumed the feeding of favored sectors in the military/industrial/congressional complex. And in the name of "modernization".

:shrug:

[0007]

37. bbt