Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Phony Snowjob appreciates the second guessing, just don't mischaracterize

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 10:53 AM
Original message
Phony Snowjob appreciates the second guessing, just don't mischaracterize
Edited on Tue Oct-03-06 10:53 AM by Supersedeas
Condi's meeting. (Even when Tenet says that it wasn't mischaracterized.)

Here's the exchange from yesterdays presser:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061002-11.html

Q Tony, going back to the myth that you're disputing, myth number three, back to that question -- how can you dispute it, when in August 2001 there's a document that was declassified by this administration, "bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S. and" --

MR. SNOW: Oh, you're talking about the PDB.

Q Yes, I am.

MR. SNOW: You're talking about the PDB that was discussed ad nauseam before the 9/11 Commission and had a general characterization as some of the things bin Laden may do. It is something that the administration obviously pays attention to.

Let me make a simple point, April, which is that administrations -- and I've said this about the prior administration -- if somebody presents you with a compelling piece of evidence that says American lives are going to be at risk, you don't sit around and say, oh, it's inconvenient, I'm going to ignore it.

Condi Rice, I think, was pretty vociferous on that point yesterday. And it's grossly irresponsible to assume that anybody in a position of power and a position of responsibility is going to look askance at such things. As you know, you can go back and look at the PDB, and it is something that talked in general terms about something that may happen.

Q Tony, I'm sorry, this is not general. It says, "Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Is that --

MR. SNOW: Understood.

Q -- just vague?

MR. SNOW: No. But it also does not say that people -- if you recall, April, before September 11, 2001, when somebody mentioned hijackings it meant taking a plane, taking it to another place and trying to hold up people for ransom. It did not mean flying an airliner into a building and killing 3,000 people.

I am not going to sit up here and tell you everything this administration or prior administrations may or may not have done. But the second-guessing game gets a little bit silly when, once again -- and what I'd have you do is go back and read through all the 9/11 Commission stuff, because a lot of people are trying to grandstand, rather than realize that people --

Q But, Tony, it's not silly when you're talking about people's lives, thousands of lives were lost --

MR. SNOW: Absolutely.

Q -- and it was a month before, there was a lot of chatter leading up to 9/11. And some people want to know why was it not placed as a high priority to move -- to make a movement so that even if it was vague, as far as hijackings, you could have at least been looking at the airports in some kind of way, or the Transportation Administration could have been doing something in relation to this possible hijacking.

MR. SNOW: I appreciate the second-guessing. The fact is that this administration realizes that the preparations this country had made before September 11th were inadequate. It happened. And it happened as a result of people who were trying their best to secure the country having not been apprised of all the facts -- in the Clinton years, and in the Bush years, and in years before. This is not a threat that simply materialized a month before September 11th.

As a matter of fact, the videotape that came out the other day had bin Laden and his guys -- Mohammed Atta and others -- posing for the cameras in the year 2000, before the election of George W. Bush. And the 9/11 Commission, itself, says that the attacks were years in planning.

Please, feel free to second guess. Everybody feels horrible about September 11th, but the other thing that's important is to understand in the wake of September 11th we learned to take the terror threat with utmost seriousness and we need to continue to do so today.

Q But, Tony -- and this is my last question -- I understand you keep talking about the Clinton administration, but let's talk about August 6, 2001, this administration, this PDB. Let's talk about why it was not placed at a high level. Why not?

MR. SNOW: It's a presidential decision brief, for heaven's sake, it goes before the President. What higher level do you have? Members of Congress --

Q Well, why wasn't it acted upon?

MR. SNOW: Precisely what piece of actionable intelligence is there?

Q Department of Transportation, you could have gone the gambit, CIA, FBI, you've could have done a little bit more.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Again, thank you for the second-guessing.

Q I just want to follow up. My question -- mine's not second-guessing of September 11th, it's about the 9/11 Commission. Now you have commissioners outraged, they say that they didn't know about this meeting. You're saying that the meeting did take place --

MR. SNOW: The meeting did take place.

Q -- but it's out of context in the book?

MR. SNOW: Yes. And I will --

Q And is there a reason why, I guess, the 9/11 Commission didn't know about the meeting? That's the bottom-line question.

MR. SNOW: The answer is, I don't know. And people are taking a look at all the documents to find out what was reported and what was not to the 9/11 Commission. As a matter of fact, there's a trip to the Archives right now to try to sort through all that.

Q If there were other meetings, will you let us know about those, if they didn't get to the 9/11 Commission as well?

MR. SNOW: "Other meetings" regarding what? The fact is that this is a meeting, as I've just told you, was mischaracterized, at least in the opinion of people who attended it. Therefore, they are not likely to be able to come up with other mischaracterized meetings. This is an administration that went to extraordinary lengths and went through two different commission hearings -- actually three different commissions that have been involved in the matter of global terror, and will continue to do so.

And we would also encourage people to look forward, as well as back, because right now there seems to be a lot of attention to going back and looking at old meetings that began after January 20, 2001, and to realize, as the President has been stressing, is that there is an ongoing terrorist threat, and we need to take it seriously. It is not something that has gone away, and the President remains committed to it.


YOU KNOW LET'S NOT LOOK BACK--LETS LOOK AT OLD VIDEO TAPE OF WHAT MIGHT BE MOHAMMED ATTA...AND LETS LOOK FORWARD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. He's such a condescending schmuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks earned a shout or two
for confronting the pathetic spinmasters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, she really does. Even when it was unpatriotic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. unpatriotic??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I mean that she was asking hard questions when it seemed
MSM thought it unpatriotic to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. no doubt, she'll get the Helen Thomas treatment from now on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-03-06 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. "discussed ad nauseam"???
It's not the discussion that causes nausea, Tony ... it's the lies and deceit and corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC