Condoleeza Rice's testimony before 9-11 panel.

[Arundel Pajo]

I watched this on C-Span this morning, and was utterly unable to pull myself away. Did anybody else see it? If so, did she seem as uncomfortable and defensive to you as she did to me?

[nobody]

i only saw about five minutes of it but you're right. she didn't seem too comfortable to be on the spot. then again i wouldn't think it would be much fun knowing that everyone will spend weeks picking apart every single word she said. hey, kinda like VV! lol.

[Kelshara]

I was unable to catch it unfortunately, but I have read the transcripts and comments.. didn't sound too impressive to me. Then again, I consider her a stuck up arrogant bitch. I did see Clarke and a few others, and so far Clarke was the most impressive imho.

[Arundel Pajo]

She's a smart woman and a quick-witted speaker, but she was totally at a loss for a good many of the questions. As each questioner had 10 minutes' time with her, it seemed one of her primary tactics when facing a barrage of tough questions was to get as wordy as possible and filibuster the 10 minutes until it was time for the next questioner. She dodged a good many bullets that way.

[Chidoro]

More will be made of their interpretation than what was actually said. Depending on who asked the questions made a very big difference on that interpretation.

She seemed amazingly uncoached, probably relying on the fact that she's so intelligent and as stubborn as she is intelligent.

I don't think it made a huge difference, it's not as if "under oath" means anything anyway. Just ask Reagan or North

[Dregor Thule]

Didn't watch it, but caught the highlights. Loved the evasive time-wasting. As for my opinions, just download tonights episode of the Daily Show. They sum it up pretty well.

[Skogen]

yes, she was pretty fidgety & indecisive at times...for a women who is well known for being quick very intellegent, quick witted & strong in her beliefs. Not what I expected at all. I expected her just to get her there, and pwn ovr all the needling questions thrown at her.

[Adex_Xeda]

Hehe, that's funny, I thought she shut down every democrat attack and managed to discredit Richard Clarke.

It was a slam dunk.

[kyoukan]

adex, if she stood up on the table, kicked the water pitcher at the panel, announced that osama called her on her cel phone and told her what flights he was going to hijack and when and all she did was tell him good luck and then went to play a round of golf with ken lay, and then wrap a bath towel around her head, screamed "allahu ackbar" while firing an AK47 in the ceiling, you would come here and say that she totally owned every liberal scumbag there and made the bush administration look like heroes.

I wonder if you even have a slightest inkling about how little value your opinion holds.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

More value than yours Kyo.

Anywho.....I think she did well. I was surprised how beligerant the interviewers were though. Blantantly partisan. Quite unprofessional, btu I guess I really shouldn't be that surprised. They are congressmen after all.

[Arundel Pajo]

I don't know, Mid - some of them were, surely...but some of her toughest questioners, in my opinion, were some of the Republicans. John Lehman springs immediately to mind.

[Arundel Pajo]

Hehe, that's funny, I thought she shut down every democrat attack and managed to discredit Richard Clarke.

It was a slam dunk.

Adex, I would urge you to look again at some of the Republican questioners. Many of them were more polite to her than many of the Democrats, but it was a couched etiquette–purely the politeness that her position and the situation demand, and there was plenty of subtext beneath.

Lehman, as I noted above, was one such Republican. He told her up front (politely) that he wouldn't stand for her filibustering, then he proceeded to ask her a difficult series of essentially "yes/no" questions about what she had knowledge of prior to 9-11. Not much, it turns out. He drove his point home again and again for 10 minutes, with her getting visibly more and more uncomfortable, and he did it without coming off as partisan. Looks like some people missed it, though, because of the (R) next to his name. ...And he wasn't the only one, either.

Some of the Democratic questioners, too, were not really that partisan, per se, even though they were less polite. Kerrey was not asking partisan questions, he was not really that leading, and he supported the action in Iraq, but he was very stern with her in the interview. Roemer was another that had some very good points.

There were some partisan questioners, yes. Gorelick (D), for one, was quite partisan in her questioning. I'll certainly give you that. But for all the partisan Dems, there were partisan Repubs, too, who I felt let her off way too easy.

As far as discrediting Clarke...I didn't feel she discredited him at all. She constantly talked about his expertise, strength of character, and dedication, flying pretty much in the face of the GOP's attempted character assassination of him. There were some differences, mostly in interpretation of events, between her deposition and his, but these do not amount to discrediting, IMO.

One other thing about Clarke which comes to me from my father, who spent his career in the State Dept's intelligence division (as a cartographer) under Clarke: The GOP might discredit Clarke sufficiently for Joe Voter out in the sticks, but (though that's all that really matters), they're going to face a much more difficult time attempting the same in Washington. Clarke was a career civil servant, who's career has spanned several administrations in several departments. He has a reputation on the hill, with both parties, of being extremely business-like, extremely respected, extremely intelligent, dedicated, and non-partisan. Not everybbody *likes* him, but (at least until this current upheaval) everybody *respects* him.

The grandstanding of GOP congressment notwithstanding, Washington pretty much *still* holds this opinion of Clarke. Lifetime career civil servants with impeccable track records are generally seen as more reliable than outside appointees. Clarke is not saying anything new in his book, and he's not really coming down much harder on GW's admin than he did on Clinton's. The GOP aren't feeling threatened because of *what* he's saying, they're threatened because of who's saying it. That, to me, speaks volumes about his credibility.

[Kluden]

All she did was tap dance. It was disgusting, and a typical "congressional hearing" type response from her (and everyone else really) for every question.

These things truly are a waste of tax dollars. The FBI/CIA should just investigate like normal, and release a report to a commitee, no need for testimonies.

[Kelshara]

I actually think the testimonies are interesting to watch, you get a feeling about people when you can see them and hear them answer questions.

And Adex and Midnyte didn't surprise me at all

[Chidoro]

Hehe, that's funny, I thought she shut down every democrat attack and managed to discredit Richard Clarke.

It was a slam dunk.

Did you even watch/hear it? I mean I know you felt that way regardless of what came out of her mouth or before she even took the stand but that was a rather absurd interpretation of what happened regardless.

I just can't imagine what life looks like through your eyes, I really don't

[Adex_Xeda]

I read the entire transcript and heard Fox and NPR soundbites.

I also found it funny that the Demo's hauled in their liberal 9/11 group to applaud on queue. tacky tacky tacky

[Kelshara]

The familes of 9/11 casualties have been to every hearing. Not like they were brought in especially for this one.

Oh, and it's not like Clarke got off easy when he was questioned either. I remember I was surprised at how harsh some of the questions were then.

[Voronwë]

I also found it funny that the Demo's hauled in their liberal 9/11 group to applaud on queue. tacky tacky tacky

i agree that applause wasn't necessary, but that is a pretty nefarious way to characterize the families of individuals who lost family members on 9/11.

I caught parts of it. I can say that on some counts i thought she availed herself well.

I think the bottom line is that there was a lot that a lot of governmental agncies could have done better that may have increased the probability of this thing being stopped ahead of time. And the culpability spreads to both parties, over 20+ years.

Nothing that has been said by anybody has discredited Richard Clarke. As stated above, Rice, under oath, recognized his expertise on the subject. She just did not agree with his characterization of some situations. That doesn't mean either of them are being deceptive.

2 things stick out at me.

the title of the Aug 6th memo and the fact that the principles had 100 meetings on various subjects before the subject of terrorism was broached.

i'm not sure how you can say terrorism and Al Queda is a major priority if it is not in the top 100. Few people anticipated that something like 9/11 would really happen, and i don't think it is "Bush's fault" or anything crazy like that. In truth, it was a very elegantly designed and executed plan.

What is worth considering from all of this going forward is that Bush tends to listen to Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., and they have a very different strategic approach than many of the so-called experts. To this point, that advice (missile defense, going to Iraq over Afghanistan, post-war Iraq strategy) has been - in a word - misguided.

Hopefully going forward, more upper level executives will think to give more credence to the true experts in these various security fields. I'm not trying to suggest Richard Clarke had the magic solution and was the genious who was ignored, etc etc. All i'm saying is that both persons in the Bush and Clinton administrations would have been well served to have followed up on more of his (and probably many of his colleagues') advice.

there is a reason people like that are retained from administration to administration - they know their shit.

[Adex_Xeda]

Rice said the president came into office determined to develop a "more robust" policy to combat al-Qaida. "He made clear to me that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies'," she told the commission delving into the attacks that killed nearly 3,000, destroyed the twin World Trade Center towers in New York and blasted a hole in the Pentagon.

But she also said, "Tragically, for all the language of war spoken before Sept. 11, this country simply was not on a war footing."

Her comment about swatting flies drew a sharp response from former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted the administration made no military response to a 2000 attack on the USS Cole that took place before Bush took office.

"Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once ... How the hell could he (Bush) be tired," Kerrey asked. That was a reference to a 1998 missile strike Clinton ordered against suspected terror training camps.

"I think it's only a figure of speech," she replied, adding that Bush felt that the CIA was "going after individual terrorists."

She later said a further "tit for tat" attack may have emboldened the perpetrators, and American interests were better served by a broader response designed to undermine al-Qaida.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040408/D81QOJS01.html

Rice was emphatic on one point - that the threat of terrorism had been building for years, and the administration was only in office 233 days before al-Qaida struck.

"The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them," she said.

"For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Rice acknowledged.

"In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States, something made difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies," she said.

[Adex_Xeda]

Clarke claimed that Bush didn't have AQ as a serious priority.

Yet Rice highlighted that it was one of his top tier security foci.

Notice that when she made that statement, no one disputed it.

In her prepared testimony, Rice said confronting terrorists competed with other foreign policy concerns when the president came into office, but added that the administration's top national security advisers completed work on the first major national security policy directive of the administration on Sept. 4. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida."

[Voronwë]

so asking why the principles had 100 meetings before they discussed this is not contesting that it was a core focus?

[Adex_Xeda]

Asked to rebut Clarke's claim that Bush pressed him to find an Iraq connection to the suicide hijackings, Rice said she did not recall such a discussion but that "I'm quite certain the president never pushed anybody to twist the facts."

She added, "It is not surprising that the president would say 'What about Iraq?'" But she said that when Bush's top advisers met after Sept. 11, none recommended action against Iraq before taking military action against Afghanistan.

[Adex_Xeda]

She addressed your question.

At first AQ competed with other security issues, but soon ended up being a top priority, and an actionable plan that didn't just "swat at flies" was implemented shortly before the attacks.

This shows that they were being premptive and not reactive to 9/11.

Clarke and his gang dropped the ball. Bush got tired of our half assed efforts and stepped up effort before 9/11.

[Adex_Xeda]

FYI here's a transcript:

http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html

[Voronwë]

Adex, i dont think that is an accurate conclusion to draw at all. "half assed efforts". in fact that is a joke.

a half-assed effort is Dick Cheney's Terrorism Task Force NEVER meeting. that is half-assed.

"And I should just make one other point, Mr. Hamilton, if you don't mind, which is that we also moved forward on some of the specific ideas that Dick Clarke had put forward prior to completing the strategy review. We increased assistance to Uzbekistan, for instance, which had been one of the recommendations. We moved along the armed Predator, the development of the armed Predator. We increased counterterrorism funding."

Rice never said that Clarke's ideas were inadequate. She stated that the Bush administration was simply reviewing their counterterrorism strategy. Upon review, they perhaps were ready to roll out a new plan as suggested by a 9/4 document. But the impetus of the 9/4 document was not that the administration believed all efforts to this point had been "half-assed". I think you know that is an intentional and blatant mischaracterization.

I think her biggest point was that the US was not on a "war footing" prior to 9/11. now we are, and as such we are better prepared to handle various facets of the counter-terrorism agenda. And that is extremely valid.

[Kelshara]

But she said that when Bush's top advisers met after Sept. 11, none recommended action against Iraq before taking military action against Afghanistan.

That is funny, considering Rumsfeld has been quoted at ordering plans for an attack on Iraq right away.

I must admit I am a bit envious of you Adex. The world you see seems a lot better than the one I see

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I read the entire transcript and heard Fox and NPR soundbites.

I also found it funny that the Demo's hauled in their liberal 9/11 group to applaud on queue. tacky tacky tacky

Very disgusting indeed. But it's us who are fucked up.

[Krimson Klaw]

I only caught part of it, but I thought the Dems were more concerned with trying to pin something on someone than trying to get a problem resolved. At some points they would ask her a question, then start shaking their heads or talking to someone else during her answer. I also got annoyed at Rice repeating the same things over and over to waste time. I was not impressed by either side and thought it was a waste of time and money.

[Adex_Xeda]

Kel, what's amazing is that you and I can take the same information and interpret it so differently. This isn't a fluke. Many people think like me. (daresay a majority) and many people think similar to you.

I remember Bush as a governor. He was a practical guy who made sound decisions for the state. My impression of him as govenor carried through to his presidency.

I still have some reservations about Bush.

I still wonder if he didn't push the limit of honesty when selling the Iraq war.

We'll know in a year or two.


One thing I do belive, is that Bush's motivations to go into Iraq were not minded in some personal gain, but rather in the interests of American safety. And yes that's partially speculative on my part being as I'm not Ms. Cleo.

[Winnow]

She did fine. Democrats in an election year are trying whatever they can to stir the pot.

Anything she said would be ripped in some way or form by single minded people that aren't asking questions about Clinton's decisions leading up to 2001. She answered the questions. Put yourself up on the stand and see how well you do with election year freaks trying whatever they can to screw with you.

[Krimson Klaw]

I like Rice, I thought her answers were adequate. I just started to get annoyed when she would repeat them over and over.

[Siji]

One thing I do belive, is that Bush's motivations to go into Iraq were not minded in some personal gain, but rather in the interests of American safety. And yes that's partially speculative on my part being as I'm not Ms. Cleo.

Give one valid provable reason that Iraq was a threat to American safety. Just one will do.

[nobody]

i will grant that they were not an immediate threat. but they had the potential to be one and they weren't exactly forthcoming about what they had. i'm not saying that justified an invasion but the UN wasn't exactly helpful in finding out either.

[Siji]

i will grant that they were not an immediate threat. but they had the potential to be one and they weren't exactly forthcoming about what they had. i'm not saying that justified an invasion but the UN wasn't exactly helpful in finding out either.

No offense to you, but I'm really annoyed with that explanation from the 'administration'.

Bush: "They're a huge threat!!"
Everyone: No they're not..
Bush: "Well, they might be a huge threat!!"
Everyone: No, they're not.
Bush: "Well, they could be someday!!"
Republicans: You're right! Bombs away!

How many other countries in the world have the potential to be a threat that we should put on the list to attack? Let's bomb Africa and make sure they don't sneak some funky monkey with a virus over here. Monkeys of mass destruction!

Ed: And before someone responds about Iraq needing 'liberated', we don't have the capacity to go around solving every other problem foreign countries have. We have enough of our own to worry about. The money spent on the 'conflict' in Iraq could do wonders elsewhere within our own country.

[Skogen]

Hehe, that's funny, I thought she shut down every democrat attack and managed to discredit Richard Clarke.

It was a slam dunk.

Did you do a few bong hits before you watched, or something?

[Adex_Xeda]

You know I never tried weed.


Siji,

2nd or third page of this thread:
http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8899

It pretty much lays out honest reasons why Bush saw Iraq as a threat.

It also includes the standard counter-arguements by Tanc and the gang.

[Kaldaur]

Actually Winnow, to refute your statement...

Anything she said would be ripped in some way or form by single minded people that aren't asking questions about Clinton's decisions leading up to 2001.

Clinton had his meeting with the committee that afternoon, just a few hours after Rice met with the panel. This bipartisan group stated to the press that Clinton was extremely helpful and answered all their questions to the best of his ability. I'm sorry that I do not have a link, as I read it on the front page of the Chicago Tribune this morning. It appeared to me that these are not single-minded people worried about putting a Democrat in office. They asked tough questions of Rice and Clinton, one in public and private. The bipartisan commission said that Clinton answered many and Rice left many unanswered. While there are politics involved, I would not chalk her evasiveness up to Democratic attack dogs on camera. It's too bad we don't get to watch Bush on his leash when he is walked into the interview by Cheney. It's also a shame we didn't get to see Clinton. National security aside, they should have opened most of these proceeding to the public. This just reinforces the idea of insider politics.

[Aaeamdar]

Rice's uneasiness with pointed questions is most likely the result of being part of an administration that does not deliberate policy issues after research. They make purely political decisions and then back them up later with scripted events. This includes, apparently, internal policy meetings.

a half-assed effort is Dick Cheney's Terrorism Task Force NEVER meeting. that is half-assed.

That is not half-assed. That is fully assed.

[Arundel Pajo]

I read the entire transcript and heard Fox and NPR soundbites.

I also found it funny that the Demo's hauled in their liberal 9/11 group to applaud on queue. tacky tacky tacky

The Repubs got applause, too, on occasion. And one of the Dem questioners, obviously annoyed by the audience, told them to stop applauding. I suggest C-Span instead of Fox.

[Chidoro]

The applause on both sides is deplorable quite frankly as is the questioning approach ala "A Few Good Men".

Personally, my only beef is saying she somehow discredited Clarke's expertise. That is a truly stupid statement made by someone who doesn't even realize that WASN'T her intention.

What should be pulled away from the proceedings is that not everything that could have been done to anticipate the strike was done, that there was little chance that at least the first plane hit could have been avoided, and that Iraq was far too high up on the queue with regards to imminent terroristic threats.

[Metanis]

I caught some of Rice's opening statement live on NPR on my way to work. It didn't sound very rehearsed, indeed the audible delivery wasn't impressive at all. I'm talking Style.

The substance of what she said was dead on target.

This thread is wonderful proof that the "Hate Bush at all costs" camp just cannot deal with objective reality.

[Kelshara]

Or it can be perfect example that the "I love to take it up the ass from Bush" camp can't deal with objective reality.

[Arundel Pajo]

caught some of Rice's opening statement...on NPR

Great! Feel free to join at the table when you've seen the rest, then!

[archeiron]

Gah, I just read the Associated Press' transcript. Midnyte or Adex, with reference to that transcript could you please point me to the areas where ANY Senator was disrespectful or particularly partisan? It seems to me that the questions were somewhat uncomfortable at times, but certainly there appeared to be hints of respect in their commentary prior to each question.

I got the sense from the transcript that their words were chosen very carefully to pay respect to someone who is clearly a very, very clever public servant.

On a related note, I think that Rice is an incredibly bright woman. I have often said that I would love to see a Rice/Powell or Powell/Rice ticket for President. I would vote for that pair any day.

[Truant]

I remember Bush as a governor. He was a practical guy who made sound decisions for the state. My impression of him as govenor carried through to his presidency.

Adex, seriously...what do you specifically remember about Bush being a governor? I really want to know.

I was living there at the time. The guy got zero media time as governor, because he did nearly nothing.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say there hasn't been a Texas governor worth mentioning since Richards.

[Arundel Pajo]

Love how partisan those Dems are...

[archeiron]

Love how partisan those Dems are...

I think that what this link shows is that politicians are more akin to rabid dogs: they will snap at anything, even other rabid dogs.

[archeiron]

I just spoke to my wife (a British national, with no American party ties). Her feeling was that the Republicans and Democrats were equally polite in the comments that they made, but she felt that the Democratic senators were somewhat more aggressive in their tone of voice. I will take her opinion at face value and assume that it is just the way of things. We both agreed that the substance of the questions was considered and reasonable.

[Adex_Xeda]

Here's a poll about Rice from Dick Morris's (a former Clinton advisor) site.

http://www.vote.com/vResults/index.phtml

[Aaeamdar]

Error Page
Error code: 0002
Error type: error
Error severity: 2

Thanks Adex. I had not realized Rice was such a huge error that she actually had an error type.