Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 3, 2006
WB: Arroz Con Pollo

Billmon:

I don’t know what Ben Veniste’s story is, but now would be a good time for him to tell it. As for Rice, well, I’m not sure even Uncle Ben could make her taste good now.

It’s a funny thing — Tenet being such a loyal team player and all, even while they were filling the tub with cement and letting it dry around his feet.

It’s like my grandfather used to say: A mule will work for you twenty years just for the chance to kick you once. It looks like Tenet aimed straight for Condi’s head.

Arroz Con Pollo

Comments

Rumsfeld, Ashcroft received warning of al Qaida attack before 9/11

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department’s disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don’t remember the warning.
One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a “10 on a scale of 1 to 10” that “connected the dots” in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.
Rice’s deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, who became national security adviser after she became secretary of state, and Rice’s top counterterrorism aide, Richard Clarke, also were present.
Speaking to reporters late Sunday en route to the Middle East, Rice said she had no recollection of what she called “the supposed meeting.”
Ashcroft, who resigned as attorney general on Nov. 9, 2004, told the Associated Press on Monday that it was “disappointing” that he never received the briefing, either.
But on Monday evening, Rice’s spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement confirming that she’d received the CIA briefing “on or around July 10” and had asked that it be given to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Two possible explanations for the mass murders of 9/11 going forward are supported by the facts : incompetence or, in the neocon phrase, “benign neglect”.
Either explanation can account for the facts in the public domain.
An independent investigation by disinterested parties, as after the Challenger tragedy, must discover just what did happen.
An argument might be made for “burying the hatchet”, to allow the nation to go forward after the global tragedy that has been the Cheney administration as was done in South Africa, but not in this case with its horrific results still piling up in its wake.
There is a real possibility that the cabal in Washington knowingly allowed the murder of nearly 3000 innocent Americans in order to trigger their long standing plans for aggressive war in the Middle East.
If that is the case the depravity of the regime must not only be made known but taken to heart.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 3 2006 5:48 utc | 1

burn baby burn

Posted by: annie | Oct 3 2006 6:42 utc | 2

If I were eating a bowl of “rice” when I read the passage above I swear I would’ve blown the grains right out my nose. You are one dark, funny MoFo! Keep up the good work & don’t quit blogging quite yet!

Posted by: Richard Silverstein | Oct 3 2006 9:05 utc | 3

When you instigate a secret plot, that you aim to control, and hide that from those who are supposed to uncover those secret plots, you have a serious problem, when news of it comes back to you.
There are a few options:
1) pretend to be too busy with other things, ill, out of circulation, completely stupid, etc. (Total avoidance)
2) Act dumb, turn your face away, pretend to forget (Partial Avoidance)
3) take the rumblings or warnings ‘seriously’ and assure that you are supremely aware and all that is necessary is being done, in all channels, by all professionals, and then dismiss your interlocutors. Keep up the pretense with a show of concern, updates, blah blah. (False acceptance)
4) Go for straight out authority: you are the boss, and no more idle uninformed chitter-chatter about outlandish dangers or dire events will be tolerated. Silence is golden. Minion’s jobs depends on discretion. (Use of power relations)
5) Subvert, fire, get rid of all the busy bodies, make them go away. Cut off information lines, then say they ‘failed.’ (Covert Acceptance combined with direct action)
There are two last strategies, these were not used. (?)
6) Muddy the issue with more important dangers, conspiracies, an incredible event, etc. (Diversion) (Anthrax?)
7) Review your plans. Possibly, annul the plot, or let it go half way, with scapegoats up your sleeve.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 3 2006 13:51 utc | 4

looks like you might have a staff job Noirette 😉
the rules as they were told to me are;
admit nothing
deny everything
demand proof
make counter accusations.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 3 2006 14:51 utc | 5

Here’s what I love about Condi Dangerfield’s (“I don’t get no respect!”) statement – she refers to a “steady stream of quite alarmist reports of potential attacks” (emphasis supplied). Here’s how my dictionary (Random House Webster’s; it sucks but it doesn’t take up much shelf space) defines “alarmist”: “a person who tends to alarm others, esp. without sufficient reason.”
I’m sorry, but I think that almost 3,000 dead people is a pretty sufficient reason.

Posted by: rod | Oct 3 2006 17:14 utc | 6

Clearly Condi follows dan os’ rules. Remember, in the way way back machine, testimony before Congress: “no one imagined attacks using airplanes”? Totally bald-faced. If her lips are moving, assume she is lying.

Posted by: small coke | Oct 3 2006 19:39 utc | 7