09 April 2004

Condoleeza "Tha' Skeeza" Rice Surpasses Her Masters' Expectations

According to the negress, the Administration didn't act on the information provided by Richard Clark because it was waiting for more "actionable" intelligence.

What is "actionable" intelligence anyway? I think she means they wanted a more specific PLAN.

The best (most outrageous) lie of all is refuted by Coleen Rowley in an interview on .::Democracy Now::.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, yesterday, Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that all of the field offices knew about the potential threats. What did you understand at the time, Coleen Rowley?

COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, you know, historically the FBI has been investigating al Qaeda for a long time. Obviously, the first 1993 World Trade Center attacks brought that into focus. So, al Qaeda certainly was considered a threat, but what I'm talking about is any special urgency, especially during the summer of 2001 which would have made people, especially the mid-level management people, more aware of information, little pieces of information that were generated to them. And again, if you read -- reread the letter and the fact that the .::Phoenix Memo::. and the information that came in from our office and other offices simply was not acted on --

AMY GOODMAN: I just want to interrupt for one second. On August 15, Zacarias Moussaoui was taken into custody. To refresh people's memories -- three weeks before the September 11th attacks. At that point when the alleged 20th hijacker is taken into custody, at a point when -- well certainly, if information was gathered and if in fact he was a part of this, and you could get information, perhaps the September 11 attacks could have been avoided -- averted, can you talk about what you understood the threat level to be, and if you understood how high the people in Washington -- how seriously they were treating things at this point?

COLEEN ROWLEY: I don't have any firsthand information about what the threat level was, and the people in Washington, other than what the comments and the responses that were given from these people to our field office agents here. Again, if you reread the testimony, even from the Joint Intelligence Committee of responses that were given, it does not show that there was any understanding of the urgency of the threat.

See .::Claim vs Fact::. for a complete deconstruction of her lying testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

No comments: