Condi Rice thread

[Senator]

Who is watching? Who could care less?

[Samdari]

She's not hot. Not hot at all.

Why can't congress grill, say, Natalie Portman?

[Butter]

Who could care less?

Me. I know it gets my liberal friends in a lather to hear about this whole business, but nothing's going to come of it. It often seems we just pay the folks in Washington to lay about and bicker.

[HornedFrog Purple]

She is a very bright woman. It's a shame she and Powell are associated with the current administration.

[sachmo71]

Elections seem more important than progress.

[CamEdwards]

I'm trying to watch, but I've got a million things to do. It's a damn shame I was able to watch Clarke and I can't watch Condi.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Too much going on this morning, combined with very little interest in her testimony nor the "panel" overall = not watching, not likely to watch.

[Ryche]

I really don't like having people clapping in the background. It makes it sound like a political debate. (I know that's really what it is, but they could at least pretend)

[wig]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Elections seem more important than progress.

Well said.

[oykib]

I'm a little out of touch with politics back home-- seeing as how I live in Japan.

But isn't the main purpose of her appearance before the commision to determine if the administration screwed the pooch on 9/11?

In light of that, is anyone else distubed by the fact that she answered the question about whether the President met with the director of the CIA met between 8/6 and 9/11 that she had to get back to the commisioner because she didn't know?

I mean, she had to know the question was coming. Every pundit been talking about this for weeks. Maybe I misheard it because I was washing dishes when the question was asked. I'll check the transcript later to make sure.

[Young Drachma]

I wanted to make a thread that said: Condi Rice tells Congress, "I ain't never scar'd"

I have little interest, think the hoopla over her was overblown. But part of me finds ironic pleasure in the fact that she's not scared, backing down and goes in there confident like she owns the joint.

[Scholes]

Originally Posted by Senator

Who is watching? Who could care less?

I believe that's couldn't care less...

[stevew]

I watched parts of it, and I definately think she held her own.

[Senator]

I believe that's couldn't care less...

That is what you are focusing on?

Good job.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Senator

That is what you are focusing on?

Good job.

We leave the politics to the Senator...

[sabotai]

I couldn't care less..I'd be very surprised if any good came out of the commision.

[Leonidas]

What kills me is she already testified to these guys in private several weeks ago. They already know how she is going to answer everything, but they are acting like this is all new testimony just because the cameras are on. What I saw was really belligerant and disrespectful. Why treat someone like that when you already had their testinmony and knew what they were going to say? And to top it off they are making a big deal about declassifying this report to the President when the panel has already seen it. If there really was something damning in that report don't ya think they would have already made a stink over it, or at least alluded to the bad stuff by now? It's all a public show when the real information has already been reviewed. More typical beltline BS.

[BishopMVP]

I lost respect for Bob Kerrey today.

[Young Drachma]

I've read some sites that have suspected that Democrats are trying to destroy any shread of political capital Condi Rice has, so the GOP can't use her as a candidate for Senate/Veep or something.

I dunno what I think...that's just what I've heard tho.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I've read some sites that have suspected that Democrats are trying to destroy any shread of political capital Condi Rice has, so the GOP can't use her as a candidate for Senate/Veep or something.

I dunno what I think...that's just what I've heard tho.

I don't think they need to have a plan for partisan bickering. The Republican response to Clarke and Democratic response to Rice have shown the whole panel to be utterly devoid of people solely looking to get to the truth.

[tucker342]

well does that surprise you? Truth usually takes a back seat in politics....

[kcchief19]

Here's the thing that bothers me -- the party line from Rice and the White House is that there was nothing that could be done to prevent 9/11. Here's the conundrum -- if there is nothing that could have been done, then isn't the "war on terror" and "homeland security" a fraud? If nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11, then it would seem by logic that invading Afgahnistan and Iraq, would also do nothing to prevent future terrorism.

I understand that when Rice and the White House say there is nothing could be done, there are implying that there is nothing that could have been done given what they knew. However, the question the commission is trying to answer is, why didn't we know what we needed to know?

That is why Richard Clarke played so well and why the White House is coming off poorly. Clarke essentially said, "We should have know more, and I'm sorry that we didn't know more." Rice is essentially saying, "We should have known more, but it's nobody's fault that we didn't know more."

It would be refreshing to see public accountability, but I suppose that is a foolish dream.

[sabotai]

Truth usually takes a back seat in politics....

one more notch above "usually" and this statement would be correct.

[Ryche]

We may have been able to prevent 911, but the I don't think the public would have accepted the necessary methods. What would have been the response before 911 if Bush had announced we're invading Afghanistan to take out Al Queda? He would have had his head handed to him by the Dems and the general public. And judging by the response to the Patriot Act in the current political climate, people would have screamed bloody murder if we had taken the necessary steps domestically to stop 911.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Here's the thing that bothers me -- the party line from Rice and the White House is that there was nothing that could be done to prevent 9/11. Here's the conundrum -- if there is nothing that could have been done, then isn't the "war on terror" and "homeland security" a fraud? If nothing could have been done to prevent 9/11, then it would seem by logic that invading Afgahnistan and Iraq, would also do nothing to prevent future terrorism.

I understand that when Rice and the White House say there is nothing could be done, there are implying that there is nothing that could have been done given what they knew. However, the question the commission is trying to answer is, why didn't we know what we needed to know?

That is why Richard Clarke played so well and why the White House is coming off poorly. Clarke essentially said, "We should have know more, and I'm sorry that we didn't know more." Rice is essentially saying, "We should have known more, but it's nobody's fault that we didn't know more."

Rice has always seemed a little bit disengenous with her 'nobody could have imagined this before it had happened' statements, because it was a very remote possiblility that people had thought of (Tom Clancy) before, but the steps to actually improve it were pretty mush impossible before it actually happened. When she says that it couldn't have been prevented she may have had a point though. The Y2K guy, Rassin, was stopped because someone was alert and noticed it, but as for any systematic changes that could have ensured we stopped 9/11, it wasn't possible. Imagine the response if Bush had invaded Afgfhanistan prior to 9/11. Not only the "He's doing it all for Oil" crowd, but you'd also get people saying that the 9/11 attacks were in response to his actions. So seeing some Democrats say he should have done that while they simultaneously say he shouldn't have invaded Iraq a year ago is kind of funny.

With Clarke playing off better than the White House, I'm going to disagree. I am probably different than your normal person because I get a lot of news off the internet and thus saw a lot of how Clarke's statements now are different than what he said two or three years ago, but he just seemed to take as true statement, (nobody did enough to prevent 9/11, we're all at fault) into a partisan one (Clinton was doing everybody he could to stop bin Laden, but then Bush was elected and stopped our efforts.)

[Vegas Vic]

The one constant in the Bush/Cheney administration is the marriage to big oil, and Condy Rice is no exception. Chevron named one of its oil tankers after her, but quietly renamed it the "Altair Voyager" after she became a part of the administration.

[Senator]

then isn't the "war on terror" and "homeland security" a fraud?

God, I hope not. Otherwise, I am working my ass off for nothing.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

She is a very bright woman. It's a shame she and Powell are associated with the current administration.

I definitely agree on the Powell point. Colin Powell is a man that seemed to have wide appeal and respect, and stands to lose the most over what has gone on.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I am probably different than your normal person because I get a lot of news off the internet and thus saw a lot of how Clarke's statements now are different than what he said two or three years ago, but he just seemed to take as true statement, (nobody did enough to prevent 9/11, we're all at fault) into a partisan one (Clinton was doing everybody he could to stop bin Laden, but then Bush was elected and stopped our efforts.)

I have not seen him saying that Clinton had done enough. Clinton never did everything Clarke asked for. Clarke has repeatedly stated that. He has said that he feels strongly that if Clinton had done what he asked for in 1998 it may have really destroyed Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that Clinton actually was 'shaking the tree' and making the FBI, CIA, etc, report everyday about what they are doing regarding these concerns. He says that Dubya did not have similar types of meetings every morning the way that Clinton did. As far as I have read, this is a claim that even the White House does not really refute. They refute Clarke's impression that they weren't doing much of anything, but they don't say they were having meetings every morning about it the way that Clinton did.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I have not seen him saying that Clinton had done enough. Clinton never did everything Clarke asked for. Clarke has repeatedly stated that. He has said that he feels strongly that if Clinton had done what he asked for in 1998 it may have really destroyed Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that Clinton actually was 'shaking the tree' and making the FBI, CIA, etc, report everyday about what they are doing regarding these concerns. He says that Dubya did not have similar types of meetings every morning the way that Clinton did. As far as I have read, this is a claim that even the White House does not really refute. They refute Clarke's impression that they weren't doing much of anything, but they don't say they were having meetings every morning about it the way that Clinton did.

He HAS changed his tune on Clinton -- from he did next to nothing -- to he did a great job, but when Bush got in all that progress we made was put on the back-burner.

Plain and simple, Clark had an axe to grind against the Bush team (for not getting the position he wanted in the admin), plus he wants to sale lots of books (looks like its working too, at least for now).

[Tekneek]

He has said Clinton did a great job? Maybe, but I must have missed that one. I've heard him say that Clinton did a lot more than Bush, but at the same time said that Clinton did not do enough. As of a few weeks ago, on Charlie Rose, he was still talking about how Clinton did not do enough and how he could potentially have eliminated Al-Qaeda if he had taken stronger action back then. He also wanted Bush to go full blast into Afghanistan and put a stop to it all. Instead, they held troops back for a potential Iraq invasion and so many Al-Qaeda operatives were able to escape and continue to run operations around the globe, as well as the top leadership still continuing to avoid capture.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Here's the conundrum -- if there is nothing that could have been done, then isn't the "war on terror" and "homeland security" a fraud?

Actually, I don't believe you can make that "If A, then B" leap ... at least not if you insert some missing, but critical, words into a revised sentence.

Before 9/11, there was nothing that could be done that the general public would understand or accept.

The "war on terror" and "homeland security" programs were always possible in theory,always an option on paper, but they weren't a realistic option politically until an event finally woke the sleeping masses to the sort of threats that are out there.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I definitely agree on the Powell point. Colin Powell is a man that seemed to have wide appeal and respect, and stands to lose the most over what has gone on.

As I had posted here when it actually occured, there was a reason Powell presented the case to the UN. He is the odd man out in the President's cabinet and was made the sacrificial lamb, all of this concocted by Rumsfeld. That is a small part of the reason I refer to Rumsfeld as McNamara Jr. for McNamara himself was notorious for this kind of thing.

In my opinion, Powell fully believed the documentation and photographs given him by Rumsfeld for the presentation.

You noticed how Powell has answered the charges of "what's up with this lack of evidence?" On the other hand Rumsfeld and friends have gotten away with little public scrutiny other than the soundbite on Face the Nation.

If you look at Powell's ideals and philosophies on government and compare it to the rest of the inner cabinet, they just don't mesh.

Ms. Rice is truly a bright woman and was an extremely good ambassador for this country before joining this cabinet. I had hoped that she would not have not to be the one to take it on the chin so to speak, though I thought she handled herself quite well.

Not to mention this puts a dent into minorities leadership with political power because these two were very highly regarded.

[wig]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Not to mention this puts a dent into minorities leadership with political power because these two were very highly regarded.

"were"?

I don't know about you, but their performance during this situation makes me respect them even more.

It's too bad we'll never see either of them in politics again when this is all over.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by wig

"were"?

I don't know about you, but their performance during this situation makes me respect them even more.

It's too bad we'll never see either of them in politics again when this is all over.

good point wig. I am jumping the gun there, I hope more people feel the same way as you do and thus save their political careers because I believe they could do a lot of good.

[wig]

I was hoping to see Powell on the ticket last election, but I heard that he has no desire to run for office.

Such a shame.

[Anthony]

i have no interest in the Rice "trial". i do tend to agree with her - if it wasn't 9/11 it would have been 10/2, or 5/18...doesn't matter - it would have happened. i just don't like this going back in history to piece all the steps together to ultimately see who dropped the ball. it does nothing. not to sound hokey but the only thing we should be doing is reviewing how we dropped the ball to make sure it doesn't happen again.

but what is going to come out of this Q & A with Rice? is this just for informational purposes or is there going to be some action taken as a result of anything that is going to be revealed? just all pointless. 9/11 happened, it woke us up out of our naive "everyone loves us and wishes us no harm" view of the world, and now we're doing something about it (albeit going about it the wrong way, but actions are being taken nonetheless).

it's just a shame that we have a year long witchhunt for Clinton for something as silly as fellatio and infidelity when you have our current president who took us to war, cost 600 americans their lives and has cost us our good standing relations with the other side of the globe and he he feeds his underlings to the media wolves while he sits in his office trying to decide how he's gonna tell us how the troops won't be leaving come June on top of adding additional forces after making a point that we will in fact be leaving at that time. why is Rice sitting in the hotseat and not George Bush? after the whole Clinton bj scandal we actually have a reason to get worked up and i don't see the right people getting in front of the camera. there were no WMD's! the greatest army in the world has yet to defeat a pitchfork carrying miltia and comes 4 or 5 years down the road we'll turn back and say "i thought we learned something from Nam?".

[Tekneek]

I think there is a good reason to find out the who, what, when, where, why, and how to 'dropping the ball' in this instance. If you don't find out all the answers, you cannot prevent it from happening again. Will they find the answers? No, they won't. Will this kind of thing happen again? Most assuredly, because they don't want to come clean and learn from it.

This commission is just 'garbage in, garbage out.' If you aren't putting all the information into it, you aren't going to get the answers out of it. The only reason I can guess you don't want to correct those mistakes would be if you did not consider them to be mistakes to begin with. To me, having any kind of intelligence and not putting it together in time to have a chance at stopping any part of the 9/11 operations is a failure. To that point, there should be a clear postmortem done to determine why such a failure occurred, determine what changes need to be made to prevent another one, and then put that new plan into production. If anybody is holding back during the postmortem, it is flawed and future mistakes/failures of the same nature are a virtual guarantee.

[HornedFrog Purple]

They already have the answers or what the administration has already told them. This discussion was already done behind closed doors. This is just a public display to appeal to the masses.

What I believe will happen around election time is the sudden capture of Osama Bin Laden to make it all hunky-dory again.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

They already have the answers or what the administration has already told them. This discussion was already done behind closed doors. This is just a public display to appeal to the masses.

Hmmm. It is sort of a tricky issue. We are supposed to have faith that the government is addressing these issues, although we are not privledged enough to know what they may actually be and cannot check to make sure the right changes are actually made. At the same time, you can't tell your enemies precisely how the defense of your nation is supposed to work.

From not being able to put the pieces together about 9/11 to them telling the world about these WMDs that nobody can find, there is a real intelligence problem with the U.S. government. Somewhere there is a segment (or multiple ones) that is not working the best that it can/should. They had better be fixing that yesterday, rather than tomorrow, at this point.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Well I don't have an answer either. I should be optimistic with the idea that changes if necessary will be made. But I believe as in the cases with Vietnam and some aspects of Korea that when the bare truth comes out it will have already been well decided and no one will really care because at that time there will be another crisis.

Some of this can be traced back to Hoover. What he created and suggested to a number of presidents has changed how this country has behaved in regards to international and internal affairs, some for the better and some for the worse. It will be interesting to see how he is perceived 50 years from now.

[Senator]

I feel compelled to respond. I usually agree totally with my other side of my FOFC brain - HFP. But, he has said a few things that I am concerned about, and will now respond to. I am not an Bush administration apologist. I think there are some exceptionally talented people invovled and some real out of touch assclowns.

In my opinion, Powell fully believed the documentation and photographs given him by Rumsfeld for the presentation.

No doubt. But you make Powell appear as a puppet for the administration, whereas there is hardly anyone with his breadth of experience in the White House. He is super bright, and I cannot fathom him not doing his own research and believing within himself that what he was saying was accurate. If you blame the others, you have to blame Powell as well. You can't divide down race lines here, and that is what I am most uneasy about. I never see Powell and Rice as black. I really feel that most intelligent people, this is not even an issue or a even a passing thought. Everytime I see them, I am thankful they are there, as I have tremendous respect for both of them, and their race never even has a blip on my radar.

Not to mention this puts a dent into minorities leadership with political power because these two were very highly regarded.

No way. This is just part of politics. Whatever race you belong to. This will not hurt either one of them and it will not hurt any minority leadership. HFP, you have to get beyond the minority thing. Powell and Condi are in another hemisphere now politically. They are beyond race and everthing else. They are making decisions for everyone. Pigeon holing them is unfair to what they have achieved.

Does any part of my argument make sense? This is not a race thing. They represent the leadership of our nation. They are our leaders. Ability, performance, trustworthiness, courage, these are the things that matter. I would follow Powell into hell itself, and I never once would stop and ask him if he was my leader or a minority leader only.

But just to let you know what kind of homer I have been for Powell, and for how long, I took some heat locally in 96 when the executive party committee I was on wanted a unanimous vote of confidence for Dole. This would be part of an official record and would be sent off to the Presidential candidates and delegates representing locally. I didn't think Dole could win. I thought Powell could. Even though he wasn't running (it was still TBD at that time) I voted for him, upsetting the local kingmakers. So, per rules, he was sent my EXComm vote, and he was gracious enough to respond.

[HornedFrog Purple]

No doubt. But you make Powell appear as a puppet for the administration, whereas there is hardly anyone with his breadth of experience in the White House. He is super bright, and I cannot fathom him not doing his own research and believing within himself that what he was saying was accurate. If you blame the others, you have to blame Powell as well. You can't divide down race lines here, and that is what I am most uneasy about. I never see Powell and Rice as black. I really feel that most intelligent people, this is not even an issue or a even a passing thought. Everytime I see them, I am thankful they are there, as I have tremendous respect for both of them, and their race never even has a blip on my radar.

Sen, I'll just ask you to step over to the other side for just a second. Maybe you can see where I am coming from. Most people when you say "black political leadership" instantly come up with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (in fact this very board mentions them quite a lot). Now there was a time many moons ago when these two were good people. As you know, I am not a big fan of either now.

Now what does this have to do with anything? Well for every Sharpton and Jackson, I counter that there is a Powell and Rice. But this fiasco taints them no matter its outcome. As you know, JC Watts was another I thought would make big strides. Sadly, he was politically destroyed most of which had absolultely nothing to do with him but his family. He did have some financial things but nothing that should have made him leave.

Basically I am saddened that two people that my nephews could actually look up to instead of the (insert any athlete that screws up) were drug through the mud.

Powell is no dummy, but something doesn't add up in the whole affair. He had been given information by US and other world intelligence by Rumsfeld and not much of it has been accurate as of now. Will this inquiry fill in the missing pieces? Doubtful.

It is just frustrating that the guy who should be answering this inquiry is not, and that is Rumsfeld.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Sen, I'll just ask you to step over to the other side for just a second. Maybe you can see where I am coming from. Most people when you say "black political leadership" instantly come up with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (in fact this very board mentions them quite a lot). Now there was a time many moons ago when these two were good people. As you know, I am not a big fan of either now.

Some good news there is it appears likely that there will agains be a black Senator after this fall's elections. Barrett Obama in Illinois is the Democratic candidate and is young (40's) but has a very impressive backround. If he wins, maybe he can start to move control away from the older guys who have lost most of the respect they once held. I don't understand why someone like Al Sharpton is considered a leader of the black community, but someone like Colin Powell isn't, even before he was a part of this administration.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't understand why someone like Al Sharpton is considered a leader of the black community, but someone like Colin Powell isn't, even before he was a part of this administration.

I'm probably going to regret even getting near this particular minefield, but something you said is just too darned sincere for me to ignore it. In other words, I truly believe you don't understand it, when the answer is so simple.

IMO, Powell doesn't spring to mind as a leader of "the black community" because there are relatively few people who think of him as being "black".
If anything, I'd think of him as being "green" (as in Army). As was mentioned earlier in the thread, Powell has largely transcended consideration of race. (I'm purposely omitting Rice because I don't believe she's reached anywhere near the same level with the general public).

Meanwhile, as long as blacks continue to vote for one party in such high percentages, nobody associated with the other party is likely to be regarded as a "black leader" either, if for nothing more complicated than the simple notion that they aren't exactly leading a whole lot of people in the same demographic along with them. If you see a swing of black voters from the Dem's to the GOP, I'd bet my last nickel that you'd see Powell & others replace Sharpton & Co. as the most frequently cited "leaders".

{edited to add} -- When I mentioned your "sincerity" earlier, I want to make it clear that there was nothing negative meant by it at all. I just meant that you seemed to be overlooking the obvious, perhaps because you manage to set aside race so willingly that it makes it hard to remember that the rest of the country doesn't do that so readily. Crap, I still don't know if that explains it very well, what I'm trying to say is that I meant it as a compliment, not any sort of insult.

[HornedFrog Purple]

no minefield here Jon, I am the one who brought it up and your analysis is pretty spot on at least to me. I would just like to add that Powell doesn't use his race as a crutch or to an advantage. He pretty much is who he is. The problem is Sharpton & Jackson continue to play the same song and the same people buy it every election. But that same song got them to where they are now, so they keep singing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

no minefield here Jon, I am the one who brought it up and your analysis is pretty spot on at least to me. I would just like to add that Powell doesn't use his race as a crutch or to an advantage. He pretty much is who he is. The problem is Sharpton & Jackson continue to play the same song and the same people buy it every election. But that same song got them to where they are now, so they keep singing it.

I appreciate that, although whether it becomes a minefield at some point remains to be seen (sorry, but this is one white, native Southerner, who tries to avoid most conversations with race as a key component. I've been accused of enough absurd things to last me a lifetime, usually by people who don't know me at all).

Your mention of the "no-crutch" factor is right in line with my take too. In fact, I'd point to that as one of the most significant reasons Powell has transceded racial considerations so broadly.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

...while he sits in his office trying to decide how he's gonna tell us how the troops won't be leaving come June on top of adding additional forces after making a point that we will in fact be leaving at that time...

I know we were going to hand over the reigns to the new Iraqui government in June, but were there ever solid dates, or even educated guesses on when the troops were coming home?

[Senator]

I totally see where you are coming from HFP. I really have a burr up my butt about designations.
He is good but he is black.
She is smart but ya know she is a woman, so that hurts her.
He is a southern white guy, so you know he is a racist.

I get really turned off when people use anything else but their abilities to shine. Powell does not use his race as a "crutch". He does not use his military background to "overbear" others not in the military, he seems to be a good, honest man and nothing that can happen here can sully that. If he is in high level politics, he is going to get a bloody nose sometimes, it is the price of admission. I wouldn't worry much about the legacy of Rummy, he is hurting pretty bad. And I think you and I are both on the same side, I am just seeing what is happening as a choice that they made, to be involved with this administration, and they have to take the good with the bad.

Personally, I still think highly of both.

[BishopMVP]

I understand the explanation for it (I even had the word sell out describing Powell at first), I just don't understand why people still have that mindset. "The system" was out to get minorities 40 or 50 years ago, but while most of the problems have been corrected, it seems every person who is considered to speak for the black community is saying the same exact things. Here at UMass we just had a guy win the student presidency election basically by getting every black and hispanic student to vote for him and he has written some crazy editorials about how the tuition hikes are aimed at poor minorities when the only people who actually pay the full amount are kids from wealthy families. I just don't see the overwhelming racism around me that would justify what these people are saying.