Berger: Rice was told about 'urgency' of al Qaeda (CNN)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/911.commission/index.html

"When the Bush administration was entering office, outgoing National Security Adviser Samuel Berger told his replacement, Condoleezza Rice, "she'd be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue," Berger told the panel investigating the attacks Wednesday."

Colin Powell, in a heartwarming display of loyalty to his Commander In Chief, responded to allegations in Richard Clarek's new book (Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror):

"The president by word and deed made clear his interests and his intense desire to protect the nation from terrorism," Powell said. "He frequently asked us to do more. He decided early on that we needed to be more aggressive in going after terrorism and especially al Qaeda."

[SpiralHawk]

1. Damn straight she was told

Condi you owe the American people some straight answers in public and under oath. Now.

What happened? What did you do, and what did you not do.

There is nothing wrong with telling the truth and taking the consequences.

It is called honor. And that is something that earns enduring self-respect -- more precious than gold, diamonds, or oil.

[Bandit]

2. Okay then Mr. Powell what exactly did you do in response to Bush*?

"The president by word and deed made clear his interests and his intense desire to protect the nation from terrorism," Powell said. "He frequently asked us to do more. He decided early on that we needed to be more aggressive in going after terrorism and especially al Qaeda."

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Can we blame Berger's statement on

Clinton? Come on Rush, tell it like it is: it's Clinton's fault that Rice was informed of the terrorism threat.

[Virginian]

4. Powell isn't under oath, is he?

Can't he still be proscecuted for "Lying to Congress" ? Or is that something Republicans get to do without penalty?

[Jane Austin]

5. They're under oath! eom