WAR: Rice Speech Before 9/11 Proves Top Focus Was Not Terrorism

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
News rooms across the country are buzzing today with transcripts of a speech Condoleezza Rice planned to give on, or soon after 9/11. Because of the events of the day, the speech was never given, a speech that clearly stated our primary national threat is long range missiles from rouge nations (Iraq) not terrorism.
 
WashingtonPost.com 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. As she prepares for testimony before the 9/11 Committee, this seems to confirm the testimony and book from Richard Clarke. Also: Main U.S. Focus Before 9/11 Not on Terrorism - Report Drudge Report Related ATSNN Stories White House Offers Conditions for Rice's Testimony Richard Clarke Fights Back Against White House Attacks President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings Bush Wanted to Bomb Iraq Right After 9/11 [Edited on 1-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord] [Edited on 2-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Link not working.




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
very nice find, SO, if I may say so myself.

I would also like to add a picture depicting this practiced liar from BBC. i think it is better suited to this story than any other pictures you guys have seen. .


taken from:

news.bbc.co.uk...


and I like how the speech is about the threat from long range missiles. that just reaffirms the idea that the war on terrorism is really just a sugarcoated form of US protection for Israel. that's pretty much the only country the "rogue nations" want to use such missiles upon anyway.



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Sorry... had to do it...
[Edited on 1-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
You only have to look at her eyes to know that she's an evil ##, sometimes that's all you need to know.

Gives me shivers.

[Edited on 1-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Ofcourse the reason for all of this is not the one they want us too believe.

I think were all better of without her.

[Edited and personally censored on 3-4-2004 by Hoaks]


[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Hoaks]



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Sorry... had to do it...





[Edited on 1-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]
SkepticOverlord that was some funny #!



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Ya know, I don't doubt this one bit. Before 9-11 very few of us were aware of just how capable Bin Ladens boys were of striking the US at home. Most of us had grown up under the threat of a "nukular" missle attack and then full out war. I'm very certain that the Bush administration did give higher credibility to a rougue missle attack than to a terror cell and so did the rest of us because we only know what we're told, really.

We were all very wary of just how many weapons had been illegally sold from the dismantled Soviet Union and to whom. Saddam was a good damn bet at the time. Hell, I would have put money on it and so would the Clinton administration who put in a lot of intell hours trying to locate just where these weapons were going and trying to make sure their destruction was supervised and documented. An impossible task but one we had to assume had some discrepencies.

Its easy to blame both our past and current admins for focusing on this while the terror group plotted 9-11 and I think much of that criticism is warranted and legit but it doesn't change whats happened nor the attacks on the trade center through two separate administrations.

Thats all well and good but of course here's the fly in the ointment.

This shoots in the head the conspiracy that Bush and company planned or knew about 9-11. Why would he push for missle defense and then throw us the other way? Sure, you'll all come up with outlandish connections and crappola basically but if the Bush admin had planned an attack to further their cause, would they not have planned a missle attack if thats where they were headed with their policy? I think so.

So, Condi's unearthed speech proves bad and very bad things here. It proves that Bush and company were in the dark about 9-11. In a way thats bads but it also proves they were ignorant about the true threat as was our last administartion and thats very bad because it asserts either a lack of integrity in our intellegence community or a lack of coimmunication between them or both.



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
You only have to look at her eyes to know that she's an evil ##, sometimes that's all you need to know.

Gives me shivers.

[Edited on 1-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]


I'm gonna go out on a limb here and disagree. I think that look in her eyes is intelligence, determination and frustration. I know I'm not gonna sway any of you who have to believe that Bush et al are the personification of evil and responsible for everything wrong in the world. Personally, I think Rice is a very well educated and competent NSA. Perhaps the two issues of Iraq and al-Qda were to be dealt with in tandem. Perhaps the long range missle threat from Iraq (and others in region) seemed a more pressing concern. The morning of 9/11 skull#ed all of us, they couldn't have known that an attack of that magnitude was that imminent (regardless of what that whore Clarke says). Cheney and Rumsfeld probably did.

By the way, it seems to me a bit ignorant that if you believed that the Bush cabal knew of 9/11 prior to it happening, you now believe otherwise due to this bit of news.

One last thing, Bush doesn't seem clever enough to be the head or even middle-management of any worthwhile global conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Astrocreep--

This hardly discounts the "Bush knew" hypothesis. On the contrary, it bolsters the theories of those see these wars as chiefly about oil control (not profits). I for one think the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion had LOTS to do with getting ahead of the ball on the issue of peak oil. Eventually nuclear powers like Russia and China almost certainly WILL become hostile to America as oil reserves diminish and oil prices globally skyrocket. The Bush Administration knows this was trying to anticipate such nuclear attacks.

Let's also add that it only shows how intent the cabal was on invading Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of 9/11.

A national missile defense shield is also a LOOOOT of money for the military employers of the South (i.e., VOTES). Yadda yadda yadda, military industrial complex, yadda yadda yadda.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Can you immagine either administration, trying to drum up support for fighting al queda like were doing now before 9-11?

i can see the conspiracy nuts going nuts on that....try to convince the USA people as well as the rest of the world that we suddenly need to attack afganistan because of some mystery unseen threat from a shadowy underworld terrorist organization....yeah i can see us all just signing up for that story....give me a break

this speech is no smoking gun, and OF COURSE the administration had priotitized other things higher on the list. (tho they did seems to be taking steps to do things before 9-11)

Why would they try and push this to the front? Terrorism more important than what before 9-11? what were your top 3 political concerns before 9-11, was terrorism even on the list? what if no attack ever happened? Do you think they (bush admin) really wanted all their political adgenda turned upside down and be forced to go a different path?

Rouge states with WMD's as well as the missiles to deliver them are a great threat to the USA and to world peace...
Terrorism is tough in its own way, but as rich as they are, they arent afforded the same "protection" as being a recognized government get you.
n. korea can and is building huge rockets to put their nukes on and they will point them at us. That is serious business.

Before 9-11 terrorists werent in the same league as a rouge nation. This speech reflects that. DUH!!



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I posted this in another topic but I think it also applies here too.. And CAZ, you are in part correct but you also have to remember NK, China, Iraq, Russia had not blown up a US Navy ship, Had not blown up US embassies, Had NOT smuggled bombes into the US and tried to blow things up, but Al Queda had.

Well here's how I see it, and this is a issue that a lot of people have strong feelings about but I just like to take the facts over a period of time and collect them. Most people forget the context of the things they hear and it makes it easy to blow it out of proportion. Here's my take on the issue anyway:

In the last month of the Clinton administration the head of the FBI, CIA, and National security and anti-terrorism had a meeting EVERY DAY because there was evidence to suggest that an attack was coming. The type of things they did at these meetings were shared information collected by all the agencies involved, the heads of the FBI and CIA were "shaking down" so to speak their organizations for any information that could be helpful no matter how small it may of seemed they were putting together a puzzle and because of their meetings they thwarted the millennium attack.

Bush got into office and the same type of chatter/threat was detected again and Clark, and the head of the CIA obviously had the same concerns. President Bush was told EVERY DAY in his daily briefings that there was an impending attack and he blew it off EVERY DAY but 1 (I think it was in june before 9-11) where he asked if there was a plan. If he had taken it or thought of it as a real threat like Clinton did the FBI and CIA would of had their daily meetings on the subject and there is a good chance that the information that the FBI had on terrorists taking flight lessons but not asking about how to take off or land may (and it is not a big may) have come out. So there is a chance there that if Bush had done his job this wouldn't of happened. Again, bush did nothing with the exception of that one comment for 9 month about al-quada even thought he was told about the threat every day. Yes there was a plan in the approval process, but had it been important to Bush it would not have taken 9 months to get past committees. That's what he had on his desk on sep. 9th, it was passed by the committee on sep. 4th. He did nothing, Clinton may not have done enough, that may have been a mistake, but at least he did something.





top topics
 
0

log in

join