1
   

RICE'S TESTIMONY: CLAIM vs. FACT

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:02 pm
The truth is the light sayeth the lord. To bad the republicans turned it off. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:07 pm
"The truth is the light sayeth the lord. To bad the republicans turned it off." au1929

Some creatures can only exist in the dark.

For them, "the light" is lethal.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:14 pm
Yes, I've always thought that about people who won't even consider that the Bush adminisration has done anything good at all Smile

Rice backs Bush
By Hope Yen
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Under contentious questioning, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testified today "there was no silver bullet that could have prevented" the deadly terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and disputed suggestions that President Bush failed to focus on the threat of strikes in advance.

Bush "understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she told a national commission investigating the worst terror attacks in the nation's history.

In nearly three hours in the witness chair, Rice stoutly defended Bush when Democrats on the commission raised questions about the administration's attentiveness to terrorism, and implicitly and explicitly rebutted a series of charges made two weeks ago by former terrorism aide Richard Clarke.

In widely anticipated testimony, Rice offered no apology for the failure to prevent the attacks - as Clarke did two weeks ago. Instead, she said, "as an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt."

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 September 11, this country simply was not on a war footing."

She 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, 2001. The subject, she said, was "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida."

Her comment about swatting flies drew a sharp response from former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, who noted the administration made no military response to an attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

"Dr. Rice, we only swatted a fly once . . . How the hell could he (Bush) be tired?" Kerrey asked.

"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, similar attack may have emboldened the perpetrators, and American interests were better served by a broader response designed to undermine al-Qaida.

Rice also clashed with Richard Ben Veniste and former Democratic Rep. Tim Roemer when they pressed her to say how much the president had been informed of the threat of terror activity.

She said a classified briefing paper prepared for the president on Aug. 6, 2001, was a "historical" document despite its title: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." She said it contained no "actionable" intelligence, meaning it lacked information that would have alerted agencies to the imminent threat.

Thomas Kean, the commission Republican chairman, said at hearing's end that he would ask the White House to declassify the document.

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.

Rice's testimony, under oath and on live national television, came after weeks of White House resistance. Bush yielded in response to repeated public requests from members of the commission - as well as quiet proddings of Republicans in Congress - that an on-the-record rebuttal was needed in response to Clarke's explosive charges.

The former White House aide testified last month that the Bush administration gave a lower priority to combating terrorism than had former President Clinton, and that the decision to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror. In addition to raising questions about administration attention to the threat of terrorism, his remarks implicitly challenged a key underpinning of Bush's campaign for re-election.

Rice's appearance was businesslike for the most part, first turning contentious when Ben-Veniste pressed her on what was known about the terrorist threat in advance of the Sept. 11 attacks. They interrupted one another repeatedly, the interrogator and the witness.

"I would like to finish my point," she said when he began speaking while she was.

"I didn't know there was a point," he replied.

Under questioning, Rice acknowledged that she had spoken too broadly once when she said that no one had ever envisioned terrorists using planes and crashing them into buildings. She said that aides came to her within days and said there had been reports or memos about that possibility, but that she hadn't seen them.

Pointing a finger of blame, she said that senior officials "have to depend on intelligence agencies to tell you what is relevant."

She also directly challenged one of the claims made by Clarke, who said earlier that the administration had moved slowly on some of the recommendations he and others made before the attacks.

"I'm now convinced that while nothing in this strategy would have done anything about 9-11, if we had in fact moved on the things that were in the original memos that we got from our counterterrorism people, we might have even gone off course," she said.

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.

In her prepared testimony, Rice neither criticized Clarke nor offered a point by point rebuttal of his appearance.

She said she made the unusual decision to retain him when the new administration came into office, saying, he was an "expert in his field, as well as an experienced crisis manager."
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2004 09:56 pm
No light -- natural or artificial, can reach the world the Bush loyalists inhabit.

*************************************************************
On Rice and Getting it Right
The Iraqi Uprising will drive Home the Forgotten Lessons of Empire

by Laura Flanders

Don't expect Condoleezza Rice to apologize for messing up on 9-11. She hasn't apologized yet for getting it wrong on the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When the National Security Advisor takes her stand before the Independent Commission Thursday, she will bring with her into that camera-filled hearing room, her treasured reputation as a foreign policy expert to two successive Bush presidents. But Rice who claims an expertise in nothing less than the high-stakes world of global power, has failed spectacularly -- not once but twice - failing to anticipate the most critical shifts of her time.

Today Dr. Rice is known as George W.'s foreign policy guru, the woman who "interprets" current events for the President. It was the same with Bush's father. In 1989, Rice joined the first President Bush's national security staff, becoming Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs. Those were heady days for US-Soviet politics. Rice traveled with the President to Poland to celebrate Polish independence and to Germany to mark the fall of the Berlin wall. She attended the Malta summit in December 1989, where Bush met for the first time with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Bush introduced Rice as the woman who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."(Gorbachev is said to have responded, "I hope she knows a lot.")

In public, then as now, Rice was a big success, appearing on television, speaking to the press, getting written up in Cosmopolitan magazine as one of the "New Women of Washington." Inside the White House, it was a different story. The foreign policy staff were split, and most of the men who worked with her then and now work with her again today, have good reason to remember Rice as the "expert" who was doggedly, disastrously wrong on the most important development in her area of expertise.

At issue was the U.S. relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. In broad strokes, the President, Rice, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, James Baker (then Secretary of State) and then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell approved supporting the Soviet leader and his vision of a reformed Soviet Union. Dick Cheney (then Secretary of Defense,) Paul Wolfowitz, (his deputy) and Lewis "Scooter" Libbey (now Cheney's Chief of Staff ) foresaw the break up of the USSR and wanted to speed it along. "Regime change" in Europe and Asia was what the Cheney crew were after -- with resulting opportunities for American corporate interests if the US got in on the action early.

As it turned out, Bush and Rice prevailed. In one famous incident, Rice physically blocked the door to the Oval Office to prevent Russian leader Boris Yeltsin from meeting with the President. The Bush team were slow to grasp the scope of the changes that were seizing Europe, slow to encourage the unification of Germany, and slow to give up on the Soviet Union. A speech Bush gave with Rice's assistance in Kiev became notorious as the "Chicken Kiev" speech because in it, the US urged the people of the Ukraine, (then clamoring for independence,) to remain loyal to Moscow. At the same time, the President balked at giving Gorbachev what he needed -- either at arms talks, or in terms of foreign aid - and the Soviet leader's domestic currency made a nose-dive. Within months, the Gorbachev era was at over. The new post-soviet Republics broke away one by one and in Russia, Yeltsin rose to power.

Cheney and Wolfowitz left the Bush administration with a silent victory - their radical world view had been right - and Rice, who claimed expertise in just this area --was wrong. Fast forward to 2000 and the almost exactly the same team are back together again. Like Powell, Rice entered the second Bush presidency with her premier quality being not her know-how but her loyalty. "Rice? She was wrong, but she was loyal, and her views didn't seem to be too rigid," says American Enterprise fellow Anders Aslund who spent much time on Capitol Hill in the Gorbachev years.

After she left Washington to resume her position at Stanford in March 1991, (and to take up a position on the Board of Directors of Chevron,) Rice continued her service to the Bush administration in the media, appearing on ABC's Nightline and elsewhere defending her colleague, Robert Gates (Bush's National Security Council Director) who was just then facing stiff grilling during his confirmation to become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI.)

Rice defended Gates, who was accused of preparing false testimony for former CIA director Bill Casey on the Iran-Contra scandal. Senator after Senator complained that Bush's National Security team had completely missed the boat on the collapse of the USSR. Most damaging of all, the Bush NSC stood accused of skewing intelligence to mislead Congress into permitting arms sales and loans to Saddam Hussein's Iraq for two years after the gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds. Indeed under the first Bush administration, Iraq's access to US agricultural products and biological agents including anthrax and botulinium toxins was first cut off on August 2, 1990, the day Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.

"Gates is the best man for the job in all its dimensions and ought to be confirmed without delay… We could not ask for a better CIA director," Condoleezza Rice wrote in Time Magazine in September 1991.

Thirteen years ago, Rice defended a policy that included misleading Congress into strengthening Saddam Hussein. Today she'll defend a policy that includes manipulating Congress into invading Iraq at disasterous cost to human life, and simultaneously failing to grapple with the post-soviet terror threat.

Don't judge Rice too harshly. The National Security Advisor's expertise has never been in serving the nation, it has been in serving the house of Bush. At the first job, she has been a disaster. At the second, she is the best.

0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 08:06 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What she didn't say out loud






Condoleeza Rice

Gerard Nierenberg, author of "How to Read a Person Like a Book," and Sonya Hamlin, author of "How to Talk So People Listen," comment on Rice's body language:

Hands: "She was supposed to be giving information, but her hand gestures revealed her job was to hold back information. ... She folded her hands 20 times during her opening statement. Whenever she gave an answer, she returned to her position of control by folding her hands. When she was questioned harshly, she folded her hands." -Gerard Nierenberg


Head: "She has very hooded eyes and an almost arrogant expression when her face is in repose. So she smiled a lot to be ingratiating. But you don't smile in that kind of situation unless you're manipulating someone." -Sonya Hamlin

"The only time she appeared to be rattled was when they asked her why there was no retaliation for the attack on the [U.S. destroyer] Cole. At that point she touched her nose, which is how humans signal doubt. At another point, after she gave an answer that she was satisfied with, she brushed back her hair. That's a preening gesture."-Gerard Nierenberg
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 08:08 am
au1929:

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 12:30 pm
'Damn, Condi just made a jackass out of me on national television'
http://lucianne.com/routine/images/04-09-04.jpg
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 02:44 pm
Brand X
You got the caption wrong. It should read. "Does she really expect us to believe this fairytale?"
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 02:53 pm
For those who get their validation from polls, here's one.

Rice: 50% Favorable 24% Unfavorable

Clarke 27% Favorable 42% Unfavorable


April 8, 2004--In the wake of Condoleezza Rice's testimony before a national television audience, 50% of American voters have a favorable view of the nation's National Security Advisor. Just 24% have an unfavorable view, while 26% are not sure or do not know who she is.
Following the Rice testimony, President Bush recorded his best single night of polling in over a week.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans said they followed news stories of the Rice testimony somewhat or very closely.

Among those who were following the story closely, Rice was viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 28%.

Rice's numbers are far better than those for Richard Clarke, the former Clinton and Bush official whose testimony two weeks ago kicked off a media frenzy. Following yesterday's testimony, Clarke is viewed favorably by just 27% of voters and unfavorably by 42%.

An earlier survey found that half of all Americans thought Clarke made his accusations against President Bush to help sell books or help the Kerry campaign.

Republicans, by a 70% to 12% margin, have a favorable opinion of Rice. Democrats are evenly divided, with 35% holding a favorable opinion and 37% an unfavorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either major party have a generally positive view of Rice--44% favorable, 26% unfavorable.

As for Clarke, Democrats are divided--36% have a favorable opinion of him and 28% hold an unfavorable view. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Clarke while just 10% have a favorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either party hold views similar to Democrats--37% favorable, 28% unfavorable.

The national telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 8, 2004. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. (see Methodology)

RasmussenReports.com
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 03:10 pm
CNN/Time Poll

Majority: Administration had no al Qaeda strategy before 9/11

Compared with two weeks ago, fewer Americans now think the Bush administration failed to do all it could to prevent the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, but nearly two-thirds think the White House had no strategy to take out al Qaeda prior to the attacks, according to a poll released Friday.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/09/rice.poll/index.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 03:53 pm
.

9/11 Documents Show Hijacking Warnings
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. government agencies issued repeated warnings in the summer of 2001 about potential terrorist plots against the United States masterminded by Osama bin Laden, including a possible plan to hijack commercial aircraft, documents show. While there were no specific targets mentioned in the United States, there was intelligence indicating al-Qaida might attempt to crash a plane into the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. And other reports said Islamic extremists might try to hijack a plane to gain release of comrades.

And Rice plays dumb. She seems to complement Bush perfectly.
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2004 10:19 pm
au1929:

While Le Rice had the Bush loyalists chortling, the latest poll shows a dangerous 2/3rd (65%) now think Bush is hiding something.

Bush is in deep bandini.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 07:40 am
Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID E. SANGER
President Bush was told on Aug. 6, 2001, that supporters of
Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the U.S. and
wanted to hijack airplanes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/politics/10PANE.html?th


Despite Rice's and the administrations pointing fingers in every direction but their own someone should remind them of the plaque on President Truman's desk.
" THE BUCK STOPS HERE" Ultimately the responsibility lies with the person in charge. The hue and cry of Rice and through Rice our president that it was a systemic problem cuts no ice. Excuses are for losers. Something we have an abundance of in this administration.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 09:36 am
BBB
I'm so disappointed in the reaction of much of the public who couldn't look beyond Condi Rice's style and presence instead of anything new and revealing that she said.

The public, and much of the Media as usual, is impressed with style over content.

BBB Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 09:52 am
BBB
I wonder how many in the "public" even bothered to watch or read the transcripts of the commission sessions. I remember seeing the results of a poll which questioned peoples opinions regarding her appearance. I was astounded to see the percentage that said they knew very little about it and Rice. These are the "well informed" voters who vote based upon who has the best 30 second attack ads.
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 11:16 am
I saw neither style, or substance.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 11:50 am
Titus
Titus, I saw lots of style, aggressive persistence, and intelligent articulation from Dr. Rice. That was her strong suit.

I also saw her evade having to lie under oath by saying she didn't recall, etc. I saw her spin the bad news and dominate the questioners' limited time with excessively long answers that often were not responsive to the question. A neat tactic that she handled well with great style. Again, image over substance. I guess that is why Bush likes Dr. Rice so much.

Sadly, the public seems to be impressed about style. But the Media is finally comming to life a little bit and starting to challenge the image presidency of George W. Bush.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Apr, 2004 05:27 pm
BBB
Read text of 8/6 PDB

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22576&highlight=
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2004 09:26 am
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/top.rice.wh.memo.jpg

Would you buy a used car from this women?
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Apr, 2004 11:41 am
"I also saw her evade having to lie under oath by saying she didn't recall...." Bumble Bee

Reminded me of that scumbag Kennyboy Lay taking the "5th" repeatedly before the US Senate.

Le Rice would've fit in nicely at ENRON.
[/color]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 05/12/2025 at 06:27:03