WP: Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism

[kskiska]

Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense

Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A01

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" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

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

[Reciprocity]

1. Focus Wasn't OnTerrorism

Why is no one pointing out that Bush took a month long vacation in August all the while being warned that an attack was in the works.

[burrowowl]

4. Welcome to DU, Reciporcity!

Read somewhere soon after 9-11 that terrorism just wasn't on the maladmistration's list of priorities but I forget where and the article gave a list of their priorities in AssKKKroft's request for budget funding.

[VolcanoJen]

2. This is big... and who leaked it?

Is this something the Commission plans to bring up? The timing is, well, interesting.

This speech pretty much sums up Clarke's position in a nutshell...

[yardwork]

3. It appeared in Drudge today, so that tells you who leaked it.

See other thread.

[VolcanoJen]

7. No... I mean, who told the WP about this speech?

And why is it only coming out now?

[fishnfla]

5. With a name like Condi, who needs missle defense?

[Old and In the Way]

6. IIRC, this was shortly before the Senate confirmations of Myers and

Eberhardt. Wasn't Eberhardt confirmed asthe new military commander for space defense/offense?

I think this speech was to lay out the new MIC opportunity to militarize space and make great profits, too.

[diamond14]

8. bush*:"We must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses,"

"A review of major public pronouncements in the first eight months of 2001 found relatively few extensive statements by Bush, Vice President Cheney or Rice about al Qaeda, bin Laden or other Islamic extremist groups."


"After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy."







ahhhh...the bush* 'ship of state' is sinking fast now....the rats are jumping off...and the damn is breaking wide open....

[Elidor]

9. This is huge!!!

Clarke is vindicated, Condi is proven a serial liar (especially her recent statements on tv), and Bush and his gang of thugs are shown to be clueless fucktards of the first water who will smear anyone who dares expose the truth. At last it's there for all the sheeple to see clearly.

"The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles."

The only long-range missile around here is the long-delayed truth about the full mendacity of the Bushies. The fallout from this is worth several weeks of attention in the news cycles. Flight-suit boy is goin' DOWN! And this speech-that-never-was is the missile in the tailpipes of his administration.

[The Night Owl]

10. I guess now we know why Condi has looked so guilty since 9/11.

Missile defense. What a joke.

[berner59]

12. topic for Air America today???

What luck...what timing!!! This story is on MSNC's page already and google news homepage...how can they possibly spin this???

[Blasphemer]

11. Hmmmm....

So info like this paints a picture of incompetence/negligence as opposed to some sort of LIHOP. Leak this type of info and admit to incompetence in order to steer questions away from LIHOP/MIHOP. I suppose it could just be one of the few remaining good guys in the WH spilling the beans but the timing definitely makes it suspect.

[leftchick]

19. More like gross negligence...

I am a firm believer in LIHOP but I don't think the murika of today could or would EVER accept it. Given our pravda media it would be especially hard to convince the public. I would settle for gross negligence and impeach the lot of them!

[The Night Owl]

13. Get ready for the spin...

Of course, the Bush administration will now claim that the missile defense initiative, as outlined by the speech Condi never gave, was one of many issues they planned to bring to the forefront.

[wabeewoman]

14. What is not said

in this article is that the missile defense focus was just another bush rewarding his cronies and not a serious need for national defense.

"Bush's budget for next year includes $10.7 billion for missile defense—over twice as much money as for any other single weapons system. This summer, he's planning to start deploying the first components of an MD system—six anti-missile missiles in Alaska, four in California, and as many as 20 more, in locations not yet chosen, the following year.

Yet, except by sheer luck, these interceptors will not be able to shoot down enemy missiles. Or, to put it more precisely, Bush is starting to deploy very expensive weapons without the slightest bit of evidence that they have any chance of working."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097087/

[Oilwellian]

15. This is a Washington Post exclusive...just hit the wire

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" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

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

Edit: Oh, duh, I just realized your link was the same. Ok, it's late and I'm excited. :silly:

[papau]

16. Bush/Condi are hung buy Condi's own scheduled 9/11/01 speech

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040401/ts_nm/security_rice_report_dc



Main U.S. Focus Before 9/11 Not on Terrorism - Report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver a major policy speech on Sept. 11, 2001, that focused on missile defense, not terrorism, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.

Citing former U.S. officials who have seen the text, the newspaper said the speech was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of the Bush administration's national security and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups.<snip>


The Washington Post reported that the text of Rice's Sept. 11 speech, which was never delivered, mentioned terrorism as one of the dangers from rouge nations such as Iraq rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States. <sbip>

"Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism rated lower on the list of priorities, as outlined by officials in their own public statements on policy," the newspaper said. <snip>

[DeepModem Mom]

17. This is a smoking gun, but not sure even a smoking gun...

will sink into the public consciousness, through the media filter. I hope so.

As was pointed out upthread, missile defense, of course, would mean big bucks for major Bush contributors. The hard work of fighting terrorism -- good intelligence and police work, smart foreign policy -- offers no such rewards. Condi's "expertise" is a sham; she was using her position to promote a political pay-off, at taxpayers' expense.

[DeepModem Mom]

18. kick

[wyldwolf]

20. How will they spin this one?

That damn liberal media!

From Drudge's description:

The speech, postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker, mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.

The text also implicitly challenged Clinton administration policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat, long-range missiles.

So which rogue nations have hit us with long range missiles?

Just like Richard Clarke said, this Bush administration was more concerned with cold war issues - like the issues from the Reagan/Bush era were frozen in time then thawed out when Shrub took over.

[0007]

21. The White House can't have it both ways

The White House declined to release the complete text of Rice's speech, since it was not given. The White House did confirm the accuracy of excerpts given to The Post, and former U.S. officials provided a detailed summary of the speech.

Richard A. Clarke, accused the administration of failing to take seriously enough the danger from al Qaeda -- a charge the White House strenuously disputes.

.......the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.

"Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now."
“plodded through the shadows fruitlessly like an ubiquitous spook” (Joseph Heller).