**Official** Condoleezza Rice - 9/11 Testimony Thread (CkG-Approved)

[conjur]

Now speaking: Slade Gorton

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Now speaking: Slade Gorton

Slade Gorton

Jamie Gorelick

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

And why the FSCK are people clapping?

CkG

Hehe - I guess Kerrey didn't like that either.

Oh, and Bob Kerrey is speaking

CkG

 

[conjur]

bah....I keep losing the C-SPAN stream

 

[conjur]

What speech was she just talking about??

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
People who like congressional fact finding and sausage should not watch either being made. This is exactly what everyone goes through. They aren't going to be "nice" to Rice because she is a woman or a Republican or anything else. Do really believe the Starr commission was a kinder gentler one? Hardly. This is a hearing about 9/11 which was bad enough on it own, and served as the trigger for the Iraqi war. If she or any other high level official cannot take the heat, they should never have taken the position.

Nobody expects them to be "nice". I do however expect them to be civil. The purpose of an investigative panel is to find answers, not to make political points. If someone goes into new testimony ASSUMING answers to questions which were not yet asked because it fits one's political viewpoints, that person has no business being on such a panel. He's not looking for answers, he's looking for what he wants to find.

It would be nice of lawyers are civil in criminal cases or civil investigations if you or I were the target of them. It doesnt work that way. It would be nice if they used rubber bullets in war. They don't.

The objective fact is that any politically charged and important issue has both Democrats and Republicans weighing in on it. The party supporting the witness will generally play nice and give him or her a chance to give considered answers. That's nice and all, however that is based on the premise that a witness (any witness) has nothing to conceil or spin. When a witness goes before Congress and represents the President, the formost thought in their head to to protect that President. Democrat or Republican does not matter. These people are selected because they can be trusted by the Executive office. One could go through an entire hearing and learn almost nothing. Fortunately she will get her chance to answer as she chooses, and will be shook on occasion. This is as it should be. That way the facts are more likely to come out.

We do not vote into Congress those who serve the President or his agenda. They are there to represent our interests. They are doing exactly what they should, and like a soldiers duty, it is not always pretty.

That's fine, sounds great. But you do realize that the purpose of this commission is to find facts, not to make political points. If one is really interested in finding facts then one should listen to a complete answer in context, not just wait for one word and then assume something other than the answer which is being given. Someone who is just on a witchhunt, looking to knock Dr. Rice in anyway possible, has no business being on this panel.

 

[conjur]

Wait a minute...she said they weren't presented with a plan but then she said they were given the "Delenda plan".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wait a minute...she said they weren't presented with a plan but then she said they were given the "Delenda plan".

The Clinton Admin never adopted that "plan" - like she said.

CkG

 

[conjur]

It was never formally adopted but Clinton told Clarke to go ahead and work based upon that plan. The only thing that wasn't fully implemented was Clarke's military recommendations.

That PLAN was presented to Rice on Jan. 25, 2001. Therefore, Rice was presented with a PLAN, which is counter to her statement that NO PLAN was presented.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
It was never formally adopted but Clinton told Clarke to go ahead and work based upon that plan. The only thing that wasn't fully implemented was Clarke's military recommendations.

That PLAN was presented to Rice on Jan. 25, 2001. Therefore, Rice was presented with a PLAN, which is counter to her statement that NO PLAN was presented.

I believe looking at it that simplistically is incorrect. I'll have to read the transcripts but I think you are misunderstanding what the context of this is.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Now speaking: Tim Roemer

 

[conjur]

Ah....best question asked yet!!!

"Why didn't Dick Clarke debrief the President?"

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah....best question asked yet!!!

"Why didn't Dick Clarke debrief the President?"

What was her answer? Summarize please (I can't see or hear it here at work)!!! I know I can see it later in transcripts, but I want to hear NOW!

 

[conjur]

I missed it...I'm now listening to the feed from NPR....more stable connection.

 

[conjur]

I did catch something about Clarke never asked her...and something about an open-door policy

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah....best question asked yet!!!

"Why didn't Dick Clarke debrief the President?"

What was her answer? Summarize please (I can't see or hear it here at work)!!! I know I can see it later in transcripts, but I want to hear NOW!

Her answer was that in the Bush administration, any senior pesron who feels he has something that the President needs to hear just has to say that they have to speak to the President and they get a meeting. Clarke never asked for a meeting with the President. Apparently he didn;t think he had something important enough for the President to hear.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah....best question asked yet!!!

"Why didn't Dick Clarke debrief the President?"

What was her answer? Summarize please (I can't see or hear it here at work)!!! I know I can see it later in transcripts, but I want to hear NOW!

Her answer was that in the Bush administration, any senior pesron who feels he has something that the President needs to hear just has to say that they have to speak to the President and they get a meeting. Clarke never asked for a meeting with the President. Apparently he didn;t think he had something important enough for the President to hear.

Clarke also wasn't a senior person. His position had been changed to one of reporting to deputy-level personnel...not Principals.

 

[alphatarget1]

holy crap she got grillled...

 

[chess9]

I know RBV from the 1980's. He is a complete a++hole. In person he is abrasive, abrupt, impatient, and intolerant.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
People who like congressional fact finding and sausage should not watch either being made. This is exactly what everyone goes through. They aren't going to be "nice" to Rice because she is a woman or a Republican or anything else. Do really believe the Starr commission was a kinder gentler one? Hardly. This is a hearing about 9/11 which was bad enough on it own, and served as the trigger for the Iraqi war. If she or any other high level official cannot take the heat, they should never have taken the position.

Nobody expects them to be "nice". I do however expect them to be civil. The purpose of an investigative panel is to find answers, not to make political points. If someone goes into new testimony ASSUMING answers to questions which were not yet asked because it fits one's political viewpoints, that person has no business being on such a panel. He's not looking for answers, he's looking for what he wants to find.

It would be nice of lawyers are civil in criminal cases or civil investigations if you or I were the target of them. It doesnt work that way. It would be nice if they used rubber bullets in war. They don't.

The objective fact is that any politically charged and important issue has both Democrats and Republicans weighing in on it. The party supporting the witness will generally play nice and give him or her a chance to give considered answers. That's nice and all, however that is based on the premise that a witness (any witness) has nothing to conceil or spin. When a witness goes before Congress and represents the President, the formost thought in their head to to protect that President. Democrat or Republican does not matter. These people are selected because they can be trusted by the Executive office. One could go through an entire hearing and learn almost nothing. Fortunately she will get her chance to answer as she chooses, and will be shook on occasion. This is as it should be. That way the facts are more likely to come out.

We do not vote into Congress those who serve the President or his agenda. They are there to represent our interests. They are doing exactly what they should, and like a soldiers duty, it is not always pretty.

That's fine, sounds great. But you do realize that the purpose of this commission is to find facts, not to make political points. If one is really interested in finding facts then one should listen to a complete answer in context, not just wait for one word and then assume something other than the answer which is being given. Someone who is just on a witchhunt, looking to knock Dr. Rice in anyway possible, has no business being on this panel.

I really DO wish there was a more civil way to do this. I DO understand that it is rude, and in fact some questioners do go too far. I thinking that we are arguing about a thing as it should be as opposed to how it is.

Let me drag Clinton into this. CkG will love it

When Starr had his commission, lots of feathers got ruffled. The purpose of it was to find "facts" Well, yes and no. Facts were going to come out, but the cost of that was a pound of Democratic flesh. Was it worth the price paid for those facts? Perhaps. I think so. Likewise, the Democrats will act the same way. Is it worth the price? Again I think so. In the world of real politic, this is how things must happen. It does offer the advantage of shaking up the witness. I do agree they should allow her to finish her questions, but alas no. Given the choice between the two I chose the rude approach though. For sake of argument, suppose she DOES have something to hide. Will she divulge that if given the chance to collect herself? Hardly. This is a smart woman, make no mistake.

BTW, I did not get to see the Clarke testimony. Was he treated harshly at all? I would bet there were some nasty moments, and he was a cooperative witness. Should we remove those who gave him a tough time as well? If we do, it's going to be hard to find enough bodies to populate a panel.

Rice as you recall has not been exactly willing. If not for pressure from above she would not be testifying now. Those in power by nature usually have big egos. Dissing them will get you slapped down hard if they get the chance. Again it may not be nice, or even right, however the purpose of this commission will be fulfilled. Just not as attractively in the best of possible worlds.

 

[conjur]

I get the feeling she's relaying the thoughts of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush to minimize the threat of Al Qaeda...that they underestimated the threat and were looking for more information on Iraq.


Now speaking: Gov. Jim Thompson

 

[Kerouactivist]

Funny how the republicans are asking her questions,whoops, I mean feeding her answers......Pretty weak......
I hate how this country is ran by two parties, a multiparty system is so much democratic. Grrrrrr

 

[conjur]

Didn't want a tit-for-tat response to the USS Cole. Instead, doing nothing gives Al Qaeda the impression we are weak and won't respond to attacks.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: bthorny
Funny how the republicans are asking her questions,whoops, I mean feeding her answers......Pretty weak......
I hate how this country is ran by two parties, a multiparty system is so much democratic. Grrrrrr

Thats what they do best, donkey blame elephant, elephant blame donkey, circle continues for ages to come while countries slowly decaying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Didn't want a tit-for-tat response to the USS Cole. Instead, doing nothing gives Al Qaeda the impression we are weak and won't respond to attacks.

Might want to put that in the context of what will it accomplish. Will it just be a punishment thing or will it actually remove/destroy the group/issue. Tit for tat may not get to the root.

CkG