9/11: Where Barack Obama and Condi Rice Sound Alarmingly Alike

[indimuse]

<<snip>>

Breitweiser
9/11: Where Barack Obama and Condi Rice Sound Alarmingly Alike
Posted April 3, 2008 | 10:53 AM (EST)


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

Read More: 9/11, 9/11 Families, Barack Obama, Barack Obama 9/11, Barack Obama Hardball, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton 9/11, Lee Hamilton, National Security, Breaking Politics News

The transcript:

MATTHEWS: Let me give you a scene that may face you in the next year or two, where the national security adviser calls you at 3:00 in the morning and tells that you a couple of jet -- commercial jets have been hijacked. And they believe it is al Qaeda. And, as we know, al Qaeda always tries a second time. They tried for the World Trade Center after '93. They came back in '01.

They're heading for the Capitol. What do you do?

OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypotheticals like that, because...

MATTHEWS: But it has been predictable.

OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.


Yup. That's right, Barack Obama glibly stated that he didn't "think anybody predicted 9/11."

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe Obama needs a tutorial from former Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, who just endorsed him yesterday. Heck, even Hamilton knows and has to acknowledge that 9/11 was predictable.

Not that Obama conferring with Hamilton should give any of us warm, fuzzy feelings since Lee Hamilton is largely responsible for the 9/11 Commission's Final Report being a total whitewash.

To put it mildly, as Vice Chair for the 9/11 Commission, Hamilton was not interested in transparency, he was not interested in accountability, and he was certainly not interested in telling the truth to the American public. So why is a guy like Hamilton so interested in Obama being president?

Take further Hamilton's words of endorsement for Obama where Hamilton said, "Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people. (Remember those words, folks, "power" and "relentlessly promote" and recognize that they have nothing to do with the sort of foreign policy Obama is currently trying to sell to the American public.)

2. Perhaps Obama might better strengthen his image of having a handle on national security issues by not sounding so much like the disgraceful, incompetent former Bush Administration National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Recall that Ms. Rice stated that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

In other words, that before 9/11 nobody in our (entire) intelligence community could have predicted that something like 9/11 could happen. (i.e. the Bush administration's 9/11 talking point)

I am not even going to bother listing the hundreds of cites/articles/studies/reports/military exercises, drills/testimonials/PDB's/SEIB's or even television shows that disprove Rice's statement. I will just mention my personal favorite -- the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S."

The point is that when it comes to the "predictability" of the 9/11 attacks, it is fairly well known and accepted that the attacks were entirely predictable -- indeed, their very predictability is why our government (wrongfully or rightfully) spent millions of dollars overhauling, upgrading, and re-shuffling our entire intelligence apparatus post-9/11 -- because the attacks should have been prevented.

How could Obama have such a poor understanding of the 9/11 attacks and their subsequent impact on the US intelligence community? Has Obama even read the 9/11 Commission's Final Report that (even in its whitewash form) calls Rice to task for her "misleading" statement about the predictability of 9/11-style attacks? Or sets forth recommendations for intelligence community reforms?

When Obama says we need to end the war in Iraq and re-allocate some of the money spent on the war to hardening our homeland security apparatus, does Obama just say that glibly or does he really understand what he is saying and how desperately we need to pay attention to the vulnerabilities in our national security apparatus? His statement on Hardball makes me wonder.

3. One of the reasons I support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is because of the enormous help Senator Clinton gave to the 9/11 families who were fighting to create a 9/11 Commission.

My experience in Washington showed me that there were very few people who understood what needed to be done and even fewer people who had the courage, stamina, and ability to get those things done.

Hillary Clinton was one of those people. And without fail, anytime we needed help -- whether that was achieving bi-partisan consensus, strong-arming the White House and/or House Republicans, or cajoling reluctant and recalcitrant Democrats like Lieberman, Senator Clinton always took the call and helped solve the problem.

I might add that for someone whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, was a point of investigation for the 9/11 Commission, it certainly did not play in Senator Clinton's favor to have something like the 9/11 Commission impaneled. Yet, Senator Clinton was one of our biggest, fiercest, and most vocal advocates for the creation of a 9/11 Commission.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Barack Obama since he was still in the Illinois State Senate for the years that I was fighting for a 9/11 Commission in Washington.

But as a 9/11 widow who, along with other 9/11 families, fought very hard to learn lessons from 9/11 to not only make our nation safer but also to hold people like Condoleezza Rice accountable, it is wholly unacceptable for any presidential candidate to get such a simple, historical fact about national security -- that the 9/11 attacks were predictable -- so totally wrong.

Because to do so, means that you don't fully understand and appreciate all that has happened and everything else that needs to happen since 9/11 with regard to our national security.

So why did Obama say it? Because he was just being glib? Or does Obama actually mean it and genuinely not know what he needs to know to be the next president?



I found this article to very telling...Obama just NOT ready to run our country!

[mac2]

1. Big holes in their logic is apparent.

Obama has said, he wants to put 911 investigations behind us. No wonder the media loves him so much. What? He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee and doesn't know we were told, warned, etc. Is this a change in agenda and open govenment by a Senator running for President? Nope.

[indimuse]

2. how so?

>>?

[mac2]

9. Even the NY Times had a big headline...Bush knew!

[NYCGirl]

10. NY Times never had that headline. The NY Post did.

http://jacq.org/bush_knew_pic.htm

[dogday]

3. If he said that, then he is clueless on this subject...

There were plenty of signs including a daily briefing that stated that,and FEMA was in New York on a mock drill, and the scenario was exactly the same... That planes had hit the tall buildings in New York....

[Berry Cool]

4. I don't know about that.

He said he didn't think anyone had predicted 9/11. Perhaps because, if they did, why didn't they try to do anything to prevent it?

Obviously, Obama isn't a LIHOP or a MIHOP. So perhaps, what he's saying is, maybe all these people SHOULD have predicted 9/11, given all the evidence they were presented with, yet they didn't.

Just a thought.

[dogday]

5. Maybe he should look into that if he becomes President..

Because the President and his staff knew, I highly doubt that they shared with congress or the senate. At this point today, it should not be a surprise that this happened....

[Berry Cool]

7. Here's another thought.

This is just silly and crazy, I know, but perhaps Obama thinks that what he would do in such a situation should be dictated by more specifics and details he might be privy to if the situation were real than he possibly could be by having some media pundit put him on the spot with some vague description of a terrorist attack.

In real life, it would be important to collect whatever other information were available before acting. Only if there were no further information would he have to act without it.

I believe the same thing would be true for Hillary Clinton, if you asked her. I would like to see what kind of answer she would give that would be different. Would she say "Here's what I would do..." or would she say "Well, Chris, what I would do would depend on a lot of factors I can't go into or possibly know here..."?

Second, so what if Lee Hamilton endorsed Obama and is not interested in transparency or accountability? That doesn't mean Obama isn't interested in transparency and accountability. It just means someone who isn't decided to endorse him. That's another case of trying to transfer any sins of his supporters to the man himself.

I am very glad Hillary Clinton helped the 9/11 families who were fighting to create a 9/11 Commission. It is no doubt why Kristen Breitweiser is loyal to her candidacy. But as she says, "Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Barack Obama since he was still in the Illinois State Senate for the years that I was fighting for a 9/11 Commission in Washington." She says this to condemn him merely for his youth and inexperience. But she has no way of knowing whether or not, if 9/11 had happened in, say, 2005 or 2006 rather than 2001, Obama might not have provided her with that selfsame help.

The truth is, Kristen Breitweiser favors Clinton because she has sexist ideas about what makes women and men different. She has made that clear in another pro-Hillary, anti-Obama editorial, in which she promotes Hillary as a kind of DC version of Martha Stewart, a National Mom, a National Housewife, who is going to come back into the White House with her mops and brooms and clean up this country, whereas the lazy slacker Obama will just kick back and relax and have a beer in the backyard, because that's what men do. (Stopping just shy of the other implications.)

I find that particular philosophy of supporting Hillary just as offensive as I would find that of someone who said they were supporting Obama because he will be the National Janitor who will come in with his bucket and mop and clean up the country.

edit: typo fix

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Could you produce someone who actually predicted 9/11?

I'm not talking about someone who imaginatively came up with similar circumstances, or something like Alex Jones' insane ramblings that managed the correctness of a broken clock.

I'm also not talking about "They Shoulda!" They Shoulda is not in dispute.

Can you document any instance where the 9/11 attacks were actually predicted in any degree that would require action? That's what Obama is talking about.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Nothing in your link says 9/11 specifically.

It all says They Shoulda. They Shoulda is not in question here.

That was clearly mentioned in my post. Perhaps you missed it.

BTW, how's that Flight 77 denial working out for you guys? Still think there are no witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon?

[JoFerret]

8. If that's an accurate bolded statement

<<OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.

Obama either slipped up or he hasn't been paying attention.

oh well - politicians are under a lot of pressure. And quite often they sound silly.

[nichomachus]

11. Jobs, health care, the economy, the war, energy

Those are the issues I will judge a candidate on -- not what he said on a talk show, what his minister said one day, what his wife wore to her senior prom, or any other silly shit drag out of his trash can.

The country is facing crises of massive proportions:

The economy is going south at a record rate and we are heading for depression
Food shortages are looming on the horizon
Fuel prices are heading for $4 and will probably blow through that
4000+ Americans are dead in Iraq
28,000 Americans are on food stamps
Jobs are disappearing at a record pace
Millions of Americans will lose their homes in the next two years

If you're not talking about those issues in regard to this election, then as far as I'm concerned, you're just farting through your lips.

[GeorgeGist]

14. obama flunks

Here’s the important thing about that 3:00 a.m. phone call. What you want is somebody who is, first of all, going to get all the facts and gather up good intelligence. The second thing you want is somebody who is able to analyze the situation, the costs and benefits of action.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23925495/page/3/