Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
BTW, Slate wasn't impressed with Condi.
|
From that Slate article:
Quote:
|
Here Rice revealed, if unwittingly, the roots—or at least some roots—of failure. Why did she need a recommendation to do something? Couldn't she make recommendations herself? Wasn't that her job? Given the huge spike of traffic about a possible attack (several officials have used the phrase "hair on fire" to describe the demeanor of those issuing the warnings), should she have been satisfied with the lack of any sign that the FBI wasn't tracking down the cells? Shouldn't she have asked for positive evidence that it was tracking them down?
|
We know FBI agents in AZ, MN and IL were on the trail of those 11 September terrorists. We also know that without pressure from above, then those FBI agents were told not to investigate. The quote from those IL FBI agents as it was yelled at them, "You will not open a criminal investigation."
Had Rice not waited for someone to tell her what to do, then at least three teams of FBI agents could have been empowered to investigate further. Furthermore, FL FBI agents were not even told to look for terrorism. Primary administration advisors never bothered to even 'shake the tree' for more informaton even after that 'historical' document? Of course not - according to Condi Rice testimony.
Why does Condi Rice need someone to tell her what to do before she takes 'actionable' action. History says quite bluntly that she should have been the originator of action - to find out what is and is not happening to avoid future terrorist attacks. My god. This nation's number one investigator in terrorism - John O'Neill - had to resign because he complained too loudly that no 'actionable' items existed.
To those who see emotionally, the Condi Rice testimony made her look good. To those who need facts, she did nothing everytime the 'actionable' item had to be originated by her.
Rice has already said she will not be part of the next George Jr administration.