State of Denial

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

And we're to swallow this as the god-given objective truth? Do you really believe the CIA and FBI were up to snuff all that time, after all the bunglings have since been reported of how US intel agents behaved more like the Keystone Kops for years, even after 9/11 (dare I say still too often to this very day)?

"For a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
- "The Boxer", Simon & Garfunkel

No, I'm not saying to take it as gospel. What I'm saying is if you are going to disagree with it at least have something to say in regards to this subject not just "he's a dem" or "thats BS".
FBI isn't mentioned except in one instance of the plane tickets so thats after the fact. (In this I'm assuming because of their legal inability to work together) However Tenet had been on the phone with thirty-something inteligence agencies of different countries to put the squeeze on for information. You have to remember they don't know what's going to happen, only something is going to happen. Woodward portrays Tenet as someone who is frustrated because he can't get Rice to raise the flag to get everyone working on this 'thing'. It isn't a case of trying to covers ones ass for the book. It's a this is what happened book, make of it what you will.
Remember I said I'm condensing a lot into a paragraph but it stays true to the book.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

No, I'm not saying to take it as gospel. What I'm saying is if you are going to disagree with it at least have something to say in regards to this subject not just "he's a dem" or "thats BS".

But there's nothing to substantiate this. It's one responsible person's pin-the-blame against the other.

And my point was that from all of the major intel goofs reported on since 2001, no one but especially not Tennet and the CIA, come off smelling like roses.

FBI isn't mentioned except in one instance of the plane tickets so thats after the fact. (In this I'm assuming because of their legal inability to work together) However Tenet had been on the phone with thirty-something inteligence agencies of different countries to put the squeeze on for information. You have to remember they don't know what's going to happen, only something is going to happen. Woodward portrays Tenet as someone who is frustrated because he can't get Rice to raise the flag to get everyone working on this 'thing'. It isn't a case of trying to covers ones ass for the book. It's a this is what happened book, make of it what you will.

As told by very interested parties.

Remember I said I'm condensing a lot into a paragraph but it stays true to the book.

I never questioned that.

[bradclark1]

I understand what you are saying and the only thing I can say to that is that nobody has refuted the book yet except that there is argument on the first lady supposedly giving an opinion to fire Rumsfeld and this list that the white house put out and Woodward brought out copies of documents backing the given statements up.
Sadly the arguments over this book has been backseated by the perverted congressman.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

It's me and I'm she, not he!

Goo goo ga joob!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Goo goo ga joob!

Ah, you are the walrus!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I understand what you are saying and the only thing I can say to that is that nobody has refuted the book yet

Only because the mass media doesn't want to tell you.

After all, why ruin a great read?!

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Only because the mass media doesn't want to tell you.

After all, why ruin a great read?!

I thought I was cynical.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Only because the mass media doesn't want to tell you.

After all, why ruin a great read?!

She has no other option. At all.

I'm not saying that Woodward is correct. He could have pulled that sentence from under the sink, it doesnt matter. The fact remains that the Secretary of State can only deny allegations of ignoring warnings.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

She has no other option. At all.

I'm not saying that Woodward is correct. He could have pulled that sentence from under the sink, it doesnt matter. The fact remains that the Secretary of State can only deny allegations of ignoring warnings.

So, since she has no other options, she must be lying?

Uh-huh.

Nothing like being the master of conclusions, is there?

[The Avon Lady]

Here's another book, for the open-minded, of course: The Looming Tower - Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

[bradclark1]

AL, are you going to read State of Denial?
Just curious.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

AL, are you going to read State of Denial?
Just curious.

No. I find nothing convincing of its descriptions or contents.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

So, since she has no other options, she must be lying?

Uh-huh.

Nothing like being the master of conclusions, is there?

This attack the post, not the poster business has to stop somewhere.

Read my post. Then read your reply.

Repeat this step four or five times.

Me: She has no other option, no matter what the actual truth is behind the allegation.

You: So, since she has no other options, she must be lying?

And what you tacked on to the end was just lovely. Thanks for that.

I was trying to show that a denial may mean less than it appears to.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Got the book yesterday and am on page 76. It's mainly covered Bush seniors efforts to staff juniors cabinet. The Bush's are extremely tight with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Its covered Rumsfeld's becoming Sec Def and his battle(?) to gain control of the military. Rumsfeld is a wierd bird that wants to control everything and everyone and no detail is too small.
He sends out a huge amount of snow flakes(quick messages) for meticulous information, so many that it's hard for people to do their jobs. He won't sign them because that gives him deniability (? for whatever reason) but everyone knows where they come from. He's a centralist. He made a minor attempt to even stop the Chief of Staff from being able to talk to the president. He's very self important and has an ego to match. He's a big believer in covering his ass. He will dress down anybody in front of anyone but if pushed back he doesn't quite know how to handle it.
I'm now in the section where it is June and Tenet is getting pretty excited because he can't get the NSC to understand that something big is going to happen. Rumsfeld questions his sources etc.
Get the book. Its a hard one to put down and is well written. Cost $20 right now on sale. If you happen to be in a book store read pages 48 to 52.

Hmmm. I don't have a US copy of the book as I'm in the UK but I did take a look at the British copy from P.49 which is the beginning of Chapter 6 along to page 53 ending with the paragraph that begins "SHELTON HAD BEEN CHAIRMAN since 1997."

If this is the passage in the book that you are referring to then it doesn't reflect well or enhance the reputation of Condaleeza Rice. The fact that after the release of the book "State of Denial" Rice denied that any such meeting with Tenet and Black took place and then for her own staff to embarrassingly have to come out a day later and say that in fact a meeting did take place makes Rice look kind of silly. In the book however it is not a case of Rice appearing silly. Rather she looks distracted, even bordering on negligent. And while Rice seemed distrated with other issues such as missile defence, Rumsfeld questioned and appeared highly sceptical of the intelligence that Tenet and Black were presenting. Direct from the book with my own emphasis in bold:

They both felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. Bush had said that he didn't want to swat at flies. As they all knew, a coherant plan for covert action against bin Laden was in the pipeline, but it would take sme time. In recent closed-door meetings the entire National Security Council apparatus had been considering action against bin Laden, including the use of a new secret weapon: the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, that could fire Hellfire missiles to kill him or his lieutenants. It looked like a possible solution, but there was a raging debate between the CIA and the Pentagon about who would pay for it and who would have authority to shoot. Besides, Rice had seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defence system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.

Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. "Adaults should not have a system like this", he said later.

How far are you into the book now Brad? Anything else of note that you have picked up on?

[bradclark1]

I layed off of it for a few days and started reading again last night. I'll get into it later but right now it's Rumsfeld running out of control and his juvenile dislike of Rice and other people. Whats bad about it is it affects how business is conducted. Rumsfeld's micromanagement. It's bad when a Sec Def thinks he's a general.