Is Rice the new Ollie North?

[El Barto]

I am conflicted as to what the truth of everything leading up to 9-11 is, but one thing seems clear:

Condoleezza Rice gave a solid performance that will likely over time be remembered like Ollie North's performance before Congress during Iran-Contra. They were both witnesses standing up to manipulative prosecutorial committee members (or counsels) more concerned with scoring points than getting to the truth.

Rice clearly comes out looking better than her prosecutors here. Agree?

[Chris Alger]

It's hardly surprising that the dittohead crowd became enamored by Oliver North's brutally candid contempt for democracy and rule of law. People with a visceral need to worship a maximum leader love guys like North.

Rice testified that, five weeks before 9/11, and following months of previous reports warning of an al Qaeda attack, Bush received a briefing report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." The report specifically mentioned the possibility of al Qaeda hijacking planes in a domestic attack against the U.S. This is the report that the White House has been trying to withhold from the 9/11 Committee for months.

If Bush had acted on that report by issuing pertinent warnings, a host of processes could have been put into action. After all, "By last summer, many of those in the know-the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries-were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent." Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html) And now the President himself was given a specific warning of a domestic hijacking by al-Qaeda five weeks before it happened.

Bush could have directed his officials to warn the FBI, Air Force, FAA and airport security officials with the following likely effects: (1) the stalled FBI investigations of the hijacking suspects would have been re-examined, leading to the arrest of several hijackers before the attacks, for immigration violations if nothing else; (2) the hijackers' weapons could have been intercepted at the gate; (3) air traffic controllers could have issued a hijacking warning as soon as the planes drifted off course and out of radio contact; and (4) Air Force jets could have been scrambled and shot down the plane that destroyed the second tower.

Instead, Bush did nothing. He literally went on vacation.

In short, Rice confirmed that if Bush had done his job, all or much of the 9/11 carnage would have been prevented.

Let's say that Richard Clarke or George Tenet was given the same Aug. 6 briefing instead of Bush, and that they failed to pass the word to relevant agencies or to the President. In that case, should they be reappointed to their positions? Should we pat them on the back for "a good job well done?"

[jdl22]

I disagree. I think she seemed to be evasive. Every time the democratic committee members asked her anything (some of the questions were certainly valid though not all) she talked and talked and talked rarely actually answering their questions. It seemed clear with them that she was stalling for time so that she would have to answer fewer of their questions. With the less critical republican questions she was much more direct.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Rice clearly comes out looking better than her prosecutors here. Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Cyrus]

Who knows? For the American TV viewer, Rice just might be a conveniently heroic new icon.

TV tends to glamorize people more than anything. Come on to Jerry Springer in your dirty overalls and confess to sleeping with your sister - no matter! You are a celebrity.

As to the truly relevant issues of Rice's appearance before the commission, well, the tough questions were not asked, so the easy answers were given. She should have been made to sweat, but she wasn't. End of episode.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Who knows? For the American TV viewer, Rice just might be a conveniently heroic new icon.

As to the truly relevant issues of Rice's appearance before the commission, well, the tough questions were not asked, so the easy answers were given. She should have been made to sweat, but she wasn't. End of episode.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tough questions weren't asked because the questioners were more interested in making debating points. (and because deep down I think they know Rice et al did nothing wrong) The commission is failing in its job as an objective seeker of truth.

[Cyrus]

"The tough questions weren't asked because the questioners were more interested in making debating points. (and because deep down I think they know Rice et al did nothing wrong)."

Yeah, right.

The truth about what the government did right and what it did wrong (and, more importantly, what it omitted to do completely) is already out there (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/fallows.htm).

Seems to me that you want so much to convince yourself that "Rice et al" did nothing wrong that you are not willing to examine any evidence to the contrary.

"The Commission is failing in its job as an objective seeker of truth."

I agree 100%. The members are pussy-whipped, pun intented.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Scapegoating is one of the oldest and most highly used political strategies. Heck, if I run against you in four years, I'm going to blame you for all the bad stuff that happened in the last 3 years 11 months. And maybe the fall of the roman empire, the sinking of the titanic, and the collapse of the Tacoma narrows bridge....

Every presidency sees some dumb-ass bunch of political fools have an "independent commission" to investigate something. It's always the same thing tho, political BS, posturing by one side to try and scapegoat the other.

Gimme a FKing break. Like our leaders knew all about 9/11 and did nothing about it.

Rice is a long way from being the next ollie north. For one thing, she didn't say "I have no clear memory of that" a bzillion times in her questioning. For another thing, she doesn't have her own TV show.

al