Richard Ben-Veniste is aptly named
From Condoleezza Rice’s public testimony:
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Now, the …
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste …
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the …
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point.
RICE: Given that you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
I swear I was this close to taking a chair to my TV, Jerry Springer style. Richard Ben-Veniste was being horribly aggressive and disrespectful. He asked Dr. Rice two questions:
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
And then she answered the second one first:
RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.
Now, the …
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
And then he wouldn’t let her answer the first question! What makes this particularly odious is what he hoped to force her to imply. The name of the report was “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” even though the report contained no evidence of specific future threats. By having her recall the title of this report (which was obviously poorly named) and then cutting her off, he hoped to force her into implying that the administration had credible evidence of an upcoming attack, even though the report contained no such information.
Real mature, Dick.
I hope the White House de-classifies that document. Its obvious the left wants the title to be bandied about in the press but not the actual content.
See, its easy to misconstrue the title:
That title seems to imply that it may have information about a future attack but the memo doesn’t necessarily have to have that sort of information in it.
The fact that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States is not really all that informative. The entire Islamic extremist world would love to attack us within our borders, how does that help us avoid 9/11?
Its all in the details…
By the way, your editable comments are still working fine, have you decided if you’re going to release it yet?
Comment Edited: 05:02:16 PM
It sounds as if that document will get released, which is sure to be good.
It’s very easy, with hindsight, to say “hey, we knew they wanted to hurt us, and then they hurt us. WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT!” But you need more than 1 dot to connect to prevent it. That’s why they call it “connecting the dots.”
Both Shelley and Kristine have expressed interest in the script, so yeah, I’m gonna release it. I’ve been cleaning up the code and adding in options so that users can easily adapt it to their blog. Look for an announcement later today… it’s mostly done, now I just need to document it.
Comment Edited: 05:12:58 PM
I look forward to using it.
As far as the doucment getting released, I somtimes wonder if Bush doesn’t do this stuff on purpose. He makes it sound like Rice isn’t going to testify so the Dems will scream their heads off, then he lets her. Then he with holds a document until the Dems scream about it, then he releases it.
I’m reminded of how everybody wanted him to release his National Guard records and he putzed around until the Dems were worked up into a lather over it, then he released it.
You anti-Semic Right Wingers. I suppose you do not know that Ben-Veniste is a Sephardic Jewish name. You Right wing idiots will never forgive his breaking of John Dean which brought down Richard Nixon.The Right Wing Republican can not stand the fact that so many of your corporate “God’s” are such crooks you will find and use anything against anyone who stands in your way.Please go read “Jefferson’s Bible” and learn what the most intelligent “Founding Father” thought about fanatical Christianity.
I did know that, actually. But what does it matter? He was immature and partisan. His Judaism doesn’t enter into it.
The August 6th 2001 PDB has been declassified. Here is the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pdb_080601.pdf . Anyone who thinks that this was vague and non-representative of a real threat is either dumb/lazy-brained, or too busy working on another agenda so they can’t be bothered with silly stuff like terrorism. I know someone who was both.
No, it was very vague. And such vague threats are identified on a daily basis, going back many years into the Clinton presidency.
I have 2 words for you to Google. Richard Clarke
Richard Clarke had 8 years with Clinton to do something about Al Qaeda. Actual attacks… lives lost. And somehow Bush is supposed to do in a few months what Clinton couldn’t do in 8 years with a PDB that contained nothing that Clinton didn’t know years before.
You’re ignoring Clarke’s key testimony, and not acknowledging the fact that Bush failed where Clinton succeeded in December 1999. The Clinton administration was the learning process through which future administrations could base their response, Clarke who was demoted for Bush’s administration (who served under Reagan and the 1st Bush in addition to Clinton) thoroughly documented his attempts at warning the administration only to have them treated with less seriousness than Clinton. Bush should have also been quite intimate with the situation due to him and his father’s strong relationship with the Bin Laden family. Not to mention the Iraq invasion was based on now revealed to be bogus CHECH intelligence that said Mohammed Atta had met with senior Iraqi officials on April 10th 2001. Incidently Dick Cheney was caught lieing about stating that the intelligence was “pretty well confirmed.” It’s hard to decide which side in this is right, but all you have to do is look at which side is lieing about what they did and did not say or know. The 08-06-01 PDB title is “Bin Laden determined to strike in US” and it mentions future plans for plane hijackings. Rice denied that it implicated that in any way. Even watching movies would have clued anybody in to an attack using planes. Ever watch “Executive Decision” from 1994? Different ends but the same means. Now…try to defend the bias and ignorance again.
No it doesn’t! It mentions old plans (1998). It calls such reports “sensational” and says that the reports cannot be corroborated.
Richard Ben-Veniste attempted to make the title of the PDB into an actual threat of specific violence. The PDB contained no such specific threat.
You’re as bad a liar as the screwballs you idolize. Remember what I said about who’s being caught lieing? I guess I’m going to have to quote the whole last part of the PDB. If you follow the link I posted you can read the whole thing, but the last 2 out of 3 paragraphs read as follows and I quote:
“We have not been able to corroberate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (name blacked out) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘”Blind Shayakh”‘ Umar Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”
“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates suspicious patterns of activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of Federal buildings in New York.”
I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time talking to you…just like every other Republican you won’t listen to the truth…you only listen to and quote the lies that will keep your agenda moving forward. While some of the lies being told are just simply half-truths, the scary part is that you all rally behind them like they’re scripture just so you might be able to go kick someones ass. Anything goes as long as you get to go kill some folks and maintain control right? Even if you’re wrong it doesn’t matter as long as you have the final word in EVERYTHING huh? Nazis…all of you.
So what’s your point? That the Bush administration didn’t put together all the clues leftover from the Clinton administration in their first 8 months in office? Yes. And hindsight is 20/20.
The Iraq invasion wasn’t based on a 9/11-Iraq connection. Yeah, there were some Al Qaeda/Iraq connections, but that’s not what Iraq was primarily about. They violated the cease fire, and numerous U.N. resolutions. Period. All other reasons are secondary. The Bush administration was looking into a more permanent response to Saddam’s hostilities well before 9/11, so that can’t be what it was about.
I’m not a Republican, and would not vote to re-elect Bush if he ran for a third term.
“Lieing”
1) Yeah, they can be mis-named. Buut that’s kind of major…
2) Heh-lo!! He’s Rick, not Dick.
Peon said, I have 2 words for you to Google. Richard Clarke
Which Richard Clarke? I see three. I see the 9/11 testimony Richard Clarke. I see the book Richard Clarke. And I see the TV interviews Richard Clarke. Funny thing is, they all contradict each other and yet they are all given by the same man. Which one to believe?
It’s hard to decide which side in this is right, but all you have to do is look at which side is lieing about what they did and did not say or know.
Yeah, no kidding. That’s my predicament. Which Richard Clarke to believe?
Anything goes as long as you get to go kill some folks and maintain control right? Even if you’re wrong it doesn’t matter as long as you have the final word in EVERYTHING huh? Nazis…all of you.
Oh…I see that you’re a kook. Oh well. What else could I expect from someone who uses the many faces of Richard Clarke as a source?
[...] doubt all over that. “Possibilities, reports from 1998, Bin laden vowed to strike Washington, didn’t connect the dots”, and on it goes. This plan of terror was not seen by anyone in any clarity what so ever and to lay [...]