Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Transcript of Richard Ben-Veniste revealing the secret Bush testimony:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:20 PM
Original message
Transcript of Richard Ben-Veniste revealing the secret Bush testimony:
"RICHARD BEN-VENISTE, FMR. 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Good seeing you.

BLITZER: All right. You, in your questioning in your investigation, when you were a member of this commission, specifically asked President Bush about efforts after he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, until 9/11, eight months later, what he and his administration were doing to kill bin Laden, because by then it was certified, it was authorized. It was, in fact, confirmed that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in December of 2000.

BEN-VENISTE: It's true, Wolf, we had the opportunity to interview President Bush, along with the vice president, and we spent a few hours doing that in the Oval Office. And one of the questions we had and I specifically had was why President Bush did not respond to the Cole attack. And what he told me was that he did not want to launch a cruise missile attack against bin Laden for fear of missing him and bombing the rubble (ph).

And then I asked him, "Well, what about the Taliban?" The United States had warned the Taliban, indeed threatened the Taliban on at least three occasions, all of which is set out in our 9/11 Commission final report, that if bin Laden, who had refuge in Afghanistan, were to strike against U.S. interests then we would respond against the Taliban.

BLITZER: Now, that was warnings during the Clinton administration...

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: ... the final years of the Clinton administration.

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct.

BLITZER: So you the asked the president in the Oval Office -- and the vice president -- why didn't you go after the Taliban in those eight months before 9/11 after he was president. What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, now that it was established that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing and the president was briefed in January of 2001, soon after he took office, by George Tenet, head of the CIA, telling him of the finding that al Qaeda was responsible, and I said, "Well, why wouldn't you go after the Taliban in order to get them to kick bin Laden out of Afghanistan?"

Maybe, just maybe, who knows -- we don't know the answer to that question -- but maybe that could have affected the 9/11 plot.

BLITZER: What did he say?

BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising.

BLITZER: Now, I read this report, the 9/11 Commission report. This is a big, thick book. I don't see anything and I don't remember seeing anything about this exchange that you had with the president in this report.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I had hoped that we had -- we would have made both the Clinton interview and the Bush interview a part of our report, but that was not to be. I was outvoted on that question.

BLITZER: Why?

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't have the votes.

BLITZER: Well, was -- were the Republican members trying to protect the president and the vice president? Is that what your suspicion is?

BEN-VENISTE: I think the question was that there was a degree of confidentiality associated with that and that we would take from that the output that is reflected in the report, but go no further. And that until some five years' time after our work, we would keep that confidential. I thought we would be better to make all of the information that we had available to the public and make our report as transparent as possible so that the American public could have that.

BLITZER: Now, you haven't spoken publicly about this, your interview in the Oval Office, together with the other commissioners, the president and the vice president. Why are you doing that right now?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think it's an important subject. The issue of the Cole is an important subject, and there has been a lot of politicization over this issue, why didn't President Clinton respond?

Well, we set forth in the report the reasons, and that is because the CIA had not given the president the conclusion that al Qaeda was responsible. That did not occur until some point in December. It was reiterated in a briefing to the -- to the new president in January.

BLITZER: Well, let me stop you for a second. If former President Clinton knew in December...

BEN-VENISTE: Right.

BLITZER: ... that the CIA and the FBI had, in his words, certified that al Qaeda was responsible, he was still president until January 20, 2001. He had a month, let's say, or at least a few weeks to respond.

Why didn't he?

BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think that was a question of whether a president who would be soon leaving office would initiate an attack against a foreign country, Afghanistan. And I think that was left up to the new administration. But strangely, in the transition there did not seem to be any great interest by the Bush administration, at least none that we found, in pursuing the question of plans which were being drawn up to attack in Afghanistan as a response to the Cole.

BLITZER: Now, as best of my recollection, when you went to the Oval Office with your other commissioners, the president and the vice president did that together. That was a joint interview.

BEN-VENISTE: At the request of the president.

BLITZER: Did the vice president say anything to you? Did he know that this warning had been given to the Taliban, who were then ruling Afghanistan, if there's another attack on the United States, we're going to go after you because you harbor al Qaeda? And there was this attack on the USS Cole.

BEN-VENISTE: The vice president did not at that point volunteer any information about the Cole.

BLITZER: So what's your -- did the president say to you -- did the president say, you know, "I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something"? What did he say when you continually -- when you pressed him? And I know you're a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that -- asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that -- or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that.

He made his statement about the state of his knowledge, and I accepted that as a given, although I was surprised considering the number of people who continued on, including Richard Clarke. So that information was there and available, but the question of why we did not respond to the Cole, I think it was an important lapse, quite frankly.

I think that we would have sent a message to the Taliban and we would have sent a message to al Qaeda. It could have conceivably -- I don't know the answer to this, but conceivably it could have had an affect on whether Sheikh Mullah and -- Omar.

BLITZER: Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban.

BEN-VENISTE: Omar, right -- would have continued to harbor bin Laden and al Qaeda in their country.

BLITZER: It's such a fascinating aspect of this whole issue. It's surprising to me that none of this made it into the final report, but that's a question for another day.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, some of it did.

BLITZER: But the -- but the -- but the specific references to the interview in the Oval Office.

BEN-VENISTE: That's correct, but the threats that were conveyed to the Taliban government in Afghanistan are reflected in our report.

BLITZER: Well, thanks very much, Richard Ben-Veniste, for coming in.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

BLITZER: Appreciate it.

And coming up, is Osama bin Laden seriously ill? And if so, what does he have? We're going to talk to experts about a possible -- repeat, possible -- health crisis for the world's most wanted terrorist.

Plus, new rules that will affect anyone who flies. The government changing what you're allowed to bring on board on your next flight. We're going to tell you all about it.

Stay with us. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for this! I have been avoiding Wolf as he curdles my stomach
so I am very grateful for this transcript.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It has some pretty interesting shit in it so far, doesn't it?
WOW! The President asked that the VP be there during the interview? WHY? There is some weird shit going on and we will soon begin to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. It is very interesting!
I had read the transcripts from the 9/11 Commission when they had been posted on their official site and Ben Veniste was very good on his questions, imo. It seems he was very good in his questions to bush and cheney as well. This statement sticks out for me:

"BEN-VENISTE: He said that no one had told him that we had made that threat. And I found that very discouraging and surprising."

bush has to be either outright lying or the PNAC group kept EVERYTHING away from him. I would make book on the former rather than the latter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. He said later that he wanted the commission to see their "body language."
Which just made it even weirder.... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoKnLoD Donating Member (923 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. and not
under oath, so they could like their sorry asses off freely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. The (p)Resident did not just ask for Darth Cheney to be present, it was a
Edited on Mon Sep-25-06 11:34 PM by Raster
SPECIFIC CONDITION of appearance. bush* nor cheney* were NEVER under oath, and if I'm not mistaken demanded the room be cleared, appearing only in front of persons THEY specified. Keep in mind, this is the (p)Resident whose mis-administration has spent more money to inhibit investigation than investigate. If not for persons like Rep. John Conyers and the "Jersey Girls," there NEVER would have been any effort at investigation at all. bushco* tried to shut any all inquiry down with the meme "national security" repeated ad naseum.

I've posted the following many times on DU, as have others. It is an open letter to Condoleza Rice from Catherine Fitts, a member of Bush I, upon the occasion of Rice testifying before the Terrorist Act Commission. Keep in mind this is one smart woman with international connections.
___________________

An Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
Re: 9-11 investigation and Commission testimony ... You knew. You kept silent. They died.

by Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I


Hon. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

April 9, 2004

Dear Ms. Rice:

I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Point #1: You are a liar.

Attorney General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by his FBI security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States knew to avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001.

It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who flew on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same warnings as those they paid to protect us.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 – sufficient to let the American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a possible attack. It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade Center had the knowledge they needed to evacuate their building upon seeing the North Tower hit by a plane.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

Point #2: Your motives are transparent.

The World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City – one of the great financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of Washington -- the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and credit and the US Treasury – the largest issuer of securities in the world.

Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work. Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.

Those personally impacted and the global researchers they network with have the intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, “Cui Bono?” (Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National Security Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.

All the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people that you have their best interests at heart.

Point #3: You are going down.

The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are better at lying than you.

The myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about the risks of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust heap with the notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are dying to protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Your lies of 9-11 – like your lies about the Iraqi war – have been profitable for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies, however, have not misled the crowd. The American people and global citizens are looking for the truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning and honor to those who died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end to further bloodshed. We demand a refund of all that you and your backers have stolen from those of us who remain alive.

Point #4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.

If you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your own mirror.

Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.


Sincerely Yours,

Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
President
Solari, Inc.
PO Box 157
Hickory Valley, TN 38042
731.764.2515
catherine@solari.com



Letter Submitted:

White House Webmail: https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm
E-mail cc to:
President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov;
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov;
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Tel: 202-456-1414

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
(202) 331-4060
info@9-11Commission.gov

Background Articles:

Ashcroft Flying High
CBS News
Washington DC, July 26, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml

A Historical Whitewash?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/news/565658.html

If the World Was Talking, Why Didn't We Listen?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=565664

9-11 Profiteering
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, March 22, 2004
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00244.htm

A Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, October 6, 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00038.htm

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Cheney was REQUIRED to be with B*sh?
Wow - I don't remember it that way at all. Would you happen to have a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I mis phrased. bush* only agreed to appear IF he could be accompanied
by cheney* It was one of THEIR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS of appearance. They set all the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Sorry for the late reply
and thanks for the clarification.

I found a great timeline for events as they went down in the formation of the 9-11 commission, etc.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=124722
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. This was a big deal back then
IIRC, the pResident didn't even want to testify, and then backed off, but only if he could hold Cheney's hand throughout the interview.

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think that's how it went down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks for posting this!
Good stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. ....
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Holy shit, will this be corroborated by the other 9/11 commission
...members who were present I wonder, because there probably the out which Dick Cheney and George Bush have is that they were not under oath when they gave that testimony in the Oval Office. So this becomes a he said, they said back and forth and most certainly a parsing of words.

Once that was learned, the commission should have demanded separate testimony from Cheney and Bush and gotten it under oath. I am surprised that Dick Cheney was not pressed for direct testimony about what he knew and when he knew it.

The 9/11 investigation really needs to be re-opened again and soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bush/Cheney Also Refused to Testify Under Oath....
.... so you have to ask, why the "tag team no oath" statements to the Committee?

Everyone should WANT TO HELP this committee get to the bottom of 911, don't you think? Including the Pres and VP, right?

Remember, Bush and Cheney were against having a 911 Commission, then wanted one staffed and run by their office, and finally acknowledged that one was going to be convened with both Dems and Repubs. This all goes to show how enthusiastic they were about cooperating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. "No oath tag team" sounds better to my ear.
Good concept. Good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. And no one was to transcribe their comments.
And they got away with that demand, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
7.  not only were these warnings ignored by bush.............
..but under the Hart /Rudman report bush was told do not give any money to the Taliban..none...unless they turned over bin laden..to the USA...but then on May 22nd 2001 bush and Cheney turned over $43 million of your tax dollars to the Taliban ..because Cheney's Halliburton was negotiating an oil pipeline through Afghanistan!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. So the threats the US made against the Taliban "made it" to the report,
but the fact that the Preznit was clueless even about those threats did NOT make it into the report.

Is there any doubt left that this Chimp is a puppet fronting a larger cabal?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thank you, originalpckelly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. Bush is a pathological liar. Of course he knew.
Cheney and Halliburton were working on the pipeline deal--that's why they didn't retaliate. They sold out the victims of the Cole--and possibly the 9/11 victims, as well--for a fucking pipeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-25-06 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. Notice how Bush typically makes a joke when he' s backed into a corner
BLITZER: So what's your -- did the president say to you -- did the president say, you know, "I made a mistake, I wish we would have done something"? What did he say when you continually -- when you pressed him? And I know you're a former prosecutor, you know how to drill, try to press a point.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, the president made a humorous remark about the fact that -- asking me whether I had ever lost an argument, and I reminded him that -- or I informed him that I, too, had two daughters. And so we passed that.


I'm waiting for the day when someone just returns a deadpan face to him and says, "Answer the question."

Thinking of which, in recent memory, Matt Lauer seems to have come closest to doing just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC