Condi Rice testimony transcript here...

[needtoknow]

A lot to comment on here.
Rice did a good job in her opening speech if you like Bush Election speeches. She figured out the ground rules pretty well and made sure she gave long winded generalized answers to questions that would eat up the 10 minutes so as to filibuster further questions. This of course was different when one of the Republican commissioners presented friendly "get me off the hook" questions which she answered with no, no, no .... I know this was more stage than anything else but this whole commission has been hampered, stonewalled and not supported by the Bush Admin. As for the so called 2001 Presidential Briefing Paper well the title was just declassified (Al Quada Attacks in U.S.)and all the commission has been able to see of it so far is about 2" of type. As well Rice did not present any hard evidence as to her actions, memos, phone logs, etc. just talk, opinion and references to history. Honest people with clear consciences who did all they could do not suppress investigation and evidence. As for Clinton, why would the press make a big deal out of a closed hearing. They didn't make a big deal out of Rice's closed hearing either. At least Clinton did it by himself, he doesn't need a baby sitter as Bush needs for his testimony (**** Chaney). The comments about media bias do not take into consideration all of the conservative right wing think tanks, foundations, institutes and talk radio that churn out talking points, opinions, falsehoods, designed to muddy the water. From all of the info so far it appears at minimum that the opinion that Republicans can protect Americans better than Democrats is a myth. I still think that the Bush Admin., HW's old administration, (Will GW ever leave home) wanted an incident to justify an invasion of Iraq. They saw the threat warnings but did as little as possible so as to make an incident possible. There's a difference between crisis management and crisis creation. I will put more weight into the final report of the commission then any public testimony so far.

 

[Pablo]

dang Al well said................

 

[Eric]

Needtoknow:
"The comments about media bias do not take into consideration all of the conservative right wing think tanks, foundations, institutes and talk radio that churn out talking points, opinions, falsehoods, designed to muddy the water."
Funny, the Democrats don't do "talking points"?? Please, don't make me laugh.

From the NYT of all places... pay attention to the last paragraph.

April 9, 2004
TV WATCH
Testimony Provides Breath of Racial Reality for TV
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

here was absolutely nothing in Condoleezza Rice's neutral-toned suit, primly folded hands or calm demeanor to draw attention to her sex or race. Her answers, guarded, prosaic and a bit pedantic, were typical of any high-level Washington official.

But the last time the major networks interrupted regular programming to provide live coverage of a black woman testifying under oath in Washington was years ago when Anita Hill spoke out against Clarence Thomas in 1991.

And at least one former senator intent on confronting Ms. Rice seemed sensitive to her background.

"Let me say at the beginning I'm very impressed, indeed, I'd go so far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished," Bob Kerrey, a commission member and former Democratic senator from Nebraska, told Ms. Rice, referring to her early childhood in segregated Birmingham, Ala. "It's quite extraordinary."

Actually, Ms. Rice has said in interviews that there is nothing unusual about her success given her upbringing by parents and grandparents who were college educated and who prodded her to excel.

It was Mr. Kerrey who brought a touch of the extraordinary to a mostly tepid, inconclusive televised hearing. His wild-card questioning and difficulty remembering Ms. Rice's name gave the starchy national security adviser a chance to show, live on every network and cable news show, a flash of personality so often missing from her public persona. "I don't think I look like **** Clarke," she said with a patient smile after Mr. Kerrey repeatedly called her "Dr. Clarke." Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief, testified before the panel last month.

CNN and other news outlets had hyped her appearance as a kind of showdown, but as it turned out, Ms. Rice's much-anticipated moment in the spotlight did not shed new light on the administration's handling of terrorist threats before Sept. 11. If anything, her measured performance brought a breath of reality to a television universe too often clotted with distorted images of black women, most notably the angry Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth making her vengeful comeback on the NBC show "The Apprentice."

The fact that Ms. Rice is a black woman is rarely mentioned in Washington — she is so much a part of the establishment and blends so smoothly into the buttoned-down Bush White House that her heritage is usually invisible.

As the administration's national security policy has come under fierce scrutiny, however, it has been raised along the margins.

The liberal political satirist Garry Trudeau had Mr. Bush calling her "Brown Sugar," in a Doonesbury cartoon strip this week. On "Crossfire" last month, the conservative columnist Robert Novak asked whether Mr. Clarke might have had "a problem with this African-American woman, Condoleezza Rice."

And after her testimony, Lee H. Hamilton, a commissioner and a former Democratic House member from Indiana, told reporters that he found Ms. Rice "articulate," an adjective that even she has dismissed as condescending.

Mostly, Ms. Rice spoke as fast as she could to throw a protective cordon around the president. In an administration in which the president is rarely described as "articulate" and the taciturn vice president spends much time in undisclosed locations, Ms. Rice is one of the most familiar faces on television.

Yet even the camera-savvy Ms. Rice looked a little nervous while reading her opening statement, a text that steered clear of any apology or admission of error. She smiled a little too often, perhaps to avoid looking angry or defensive, but her geniality was at times jarring in the context of Sept. 11. She also looked small and unprotected, seated alone at a conference table with roaming photographers shooting at her back.

And Ms. Rice looked most uncomfortable when Richard Ben-Veniste, a Washington lawyer and commissioner, asked her the title of the Aug. 6 document that she said carried no warning about an imminent terrorist attack in the United States. "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' " she replied stonily.

She got her groove back after a bracing exchange with Mr. Kerrey.

Mr. Kerrey scored a sound bite by challenging a Bush comment about "swatting flies," but his reference to the bombing of the destroyer Cole in 2000 gave Ms. Rice a chance to swat back. "I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein. That's a strategic view," she said slyly as some in the room applauded and laughed. "And we took the strategic view."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/p...400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

 

[JohnnyO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystic:
The Democrats really wanted for Condi Rice to testify. Maybe they thought they were going to steamroll her. It did not happen. They picked the wrong target. She is smart and tough and probably would make a good president of the United States.

---

Where is the outrage from NOW over those nasty men asking a woman tough questions, especially one from an oppressed minority? Not to mention Doonesbury. Oh wait, that was Anita Hill testfying against a GOP nominee.

I'd like to see her run as VP but I don't think the country will vote for a woman yet of any color, even Hillary (see also Geraldine Ferraro). I'd vote for a GOP ticket of Condi Rice and Alan Keyes in either order in a heartbeat. (Keyes is a brilliant economic mind but somehow focused his last campaign almost soley on abortion as I recall.

)

Point is, I don't think anybody could have done anything before 9/11 because this is not East Germany where we have people watching everybody, reading all the mail, and tapping all the phones.

[ April 09, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]

 

[needtoknow]

Eric,
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make? Is the NYT liberal biasd but not in this article? Is Alessandra Stanley liberal biased but not in this article? Does the last paragraph prove anything except tit for tat? She did get a good one back at Kerrey though. I don't think that was the point of the whole hearing anyway, just a little entertainment. Article seems to be more about Condi as a person than the credibility of her testimony. It's easy to defend when you don't have to present evidence. Like I said the final report will involve all the testimony.

 

[TC]

Funny how, now that's been a couple years since 9/11, it was only yesterday that the White House released the title of a presidential brief discussed with Bush a month before the attack: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." And it turns out the brief SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AL QAEDA HIJACKING AIRLINERS.

And this is the administration that all along has insisted "We never had any indications this could happen." What a bunch of pathetic liars.

 

[Eric]

My point about the last paragraph was that there are Democrats who called for dealing with Saddam. About the only way to deal with Saddam at this point(and then) is to remove him.

 

[GSV]

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," Clinton insisted in a 2002 speech to a New York business group. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

 

[TC]

Hey, more faked photos from the Right! Just like faked Kerry next to faked Fonda. Please, please keep up these shenanigans, conservatives. Every time you do, Bush's approval rating drops another 5 points, now down to 43% and careening towards the 30's!!! Following the "Character Assassinate Richard Clarke" blitz, that alone was worth a couple points due to the public's strained tolerance of such dirty tricks.

PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR RUSH LIMBAUGH WAYS THROUGH NOVEMBER!! I WANNA SEE A 39% APPROVAL RATING FOR DUBYA!!!!

Oh, and by the way..."He had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Yes, that would be an entirely correct reading of U.S. federal law regarding Bin Laden's status back in 1996. But what's perplexing is Condi Rice's explanation that, following the determination during the Bush term that Al Qaeda was involved with the Cole bombing, that we didn't go after them since that event was "past," whatever that gibberish is supposed to mean.

[ April 09, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: TC ]

 

[Mystic]

The American people probably would not be willing to vote for a woman or a black person for president of the United States. Although the Democrats seem pretty willing to vote for Hillary.

Condi Rice would be an excellent president. Hillary is much less of a talent compared to Rice. Rice or Powell both would be great choices for president.

 

[needtoknow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric:
My point about the last paragraph was that there are Democrats who called for dealing with Saddam. About the only way to deal with Saddam at this point(and then) is to remove him.

---

If I had thought and believed this war was only about Saddam I would have supported it. This war carrys a much wider swath, much of it misguided, phony and self serving. Wasn't the capture of Saddam supposed to make us and the world safer? As for Democratic support, a lot of it was to appear patriotic while taking the politically safe road of support, knowing if Bush failed it was his fault alone and if he succeeded then they were on the right bandwagon. As well, Democrats and others were relying on the administrations honest intensions and accurate intelligence, both of which are proving not correct.

[ April 10, 2004, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]

 

[Eric]

Needtoknow, I've provided countless quotes from Democratic party and Clinton admin members saying what a WMD threat Saddam was. Intelligence failures started with the Clinton administration. Nobody knows for sure til there are boots on the ground so this comment from you is just the "Big Lie" repeated endlessly:

"As well, Democrats and others were relying on the administrations honest intensions and accurate intelligence, both of which are proving not correct."

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GSV:
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," Clinton insisted in a 2002 speech to a New York business group. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

---

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAHA!!!!

Oh man, I'm having a heart attack!!

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
Hey, more faked photos from the Right! Just like faked Kerry next to faked Fonda. Please, please keep up these shenanigans, conservatives. Every time you do, Bush's approval rating drops another 5 points, now down to 43% and careening towards the 30's!!! Following the "Character Assassinate Richard Clarke" blitz, that alone was worth a couple points due to the public's strained tolerance of such dirty tricks.

PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR RUSH LIMBAUGH WAYS THROUGH NOVEMBER!! I WANNA SEE A 39% APPROVAL RATING FOR DUBYA!!!!

Oh, and by the way..."He had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Yes, that would be an entirely correct reading of U.S. federal law regarding Bin Laden's status back in 1996. But what's perplexing is Condi Rice's explanation that, following the determination during the Bush term that Al Qaeda was involved with the Cole bombing, that we didn't go after them since that event was "past," whatever that gibberish is supposed to mean.

---

I think TC is having a heart attack too!

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
Hey, more faked photos from the Right! Just like faked Kerry next to faked Fonda.

---

Gee do ya think..I thought that pic was real

 

[needtoknow]

Originally posted by Eric:
[QB] Nobody knows for sure til there are boots on the ground so this comment from you is just the "Big Lie" repeated endlessly:

We had boots on the ground, it was called UN Weapons Inspections. No WMD found. We had Saddam boxed in and control of his air space. The generals all knew he was a paper tiger and have admitted so. Bush was so intent on invasion he couldn't (and didn't want to) see the trees for the forest (reverse saying on purpose). If we go by your contention then the only way to confirm intelligence is spend 100's of billions of dollars, kill 100s of American soldiers and 1000's of civilians and risk any shred of credibility we might have left. After it's all over we get off the hook by saying "oops, just checking". I don't think Republicans are in any position to be using the "L" word every time someone disagrees with their position.

 

[PRRPILL]

And then when he did nothing, and WMD's were deployed in the USA, you would have blamed him. F----d if he did, and F----d if he didn't. I know one thing. There is a **** of lot less chance we will get hit by Saddam now.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

At least Clinton did it by himself, he doesn't need a baby sitter as Bush needs for his testimony (**** Chaney).

---

And do you think we will ever see Clinton's remarks or his comments in public or on the Telly??

Last week on PBS, a conservative and liberal commisioner stated that even with Cheney and Bush together, they think they will obtain the information they need.

I think if everyone will examine more closely commisioner Lehman's questions and remarks, you will see how a huge set of government and beuracratic impediments guranteed a loss of critical information.

[ April 12, 2004, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[GSV]

This bozo would have us all doing a french style surrender.

 

[Eric]

Sorry, Needtoknow,I wouldn't trust the UN to try and catch a cold. They are to corrupt. The Oil for food program proves that in spades. Get used to seeing this alot:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003