Rice's Testimony

[Maine Finn]

A bunch of students were watching CNN in the Dining Hall today, and they were covering Rice's 9/11 Panel testimony. I didn't see the whole thing, but what I did see bothered me. It was the bit about the "tit-for-tat response" to the Cole.

Anyway, opinions on her testimony? I'd like to know more about how it all went.

~Emily

[Seoulstriker]

Richard Clark is absolutely minimized. His testimony was refuted. She said that Al Qaeda was a top priority under Bush before 9/11. Terrorist threat has been on for 20+ years, yet administrations did nothing.

Very interesting testimony and i'll try to find a transcript eventually.

[Tane Angle]

Well, Clarke has more credibility than Rice. He's an old hat, been there longer. She's covering for the administration, just as Clarke did when he was in office. Now here's the real question: if Clarke is a liar with no credibility, what was the administration doing hiring him? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Red]

Well, Clarke has more credibility than Rice. He's an old hat, been there longer. She's covering for the administration, just as Clarke did when he was in office. Now here's the real question: if Clarke is a liar with no credibility, what was the administration doing hiring him? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
Tane where the heck did they find you? :D You are one of the most intellectual individuals i know. As for the testimony,i felt she was just going round in circles,i learnt nothing new

[JiJoMacLE45]

My $.02: I only saw her testimony to questions asked by Lehman, Roemer, and Thompson but from what I saw I thought Rice did a good job. I'm just skeptical that this is going to turn into a huge witch-hunt. I see some of the committee members trying to shift blame on one administration or the other. That is not what the intention of forming a committee was about, it is to examine what went wrong and what can be done to change those things to assure we never have another 9/11. It does not take a genius to figure out that there were mistakes made in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but pointing the finger, while it may appease some, will do nothing to strengthen our security apparatus.

[Seoulstriker]

Well, Clarke has more credibility than Rice. He's an old hat, been there longer. She's covering for the administration, just as Clarke did when he was in office. Now here's the real question: if Clarke is a liar with no credibility, what was the administration doing hiring him? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

why does clark have more credibility? he has flip-flopped several times (as is evidenced in his press-brief, his testimony to congress in 2002, etc). his attitude is why he didn't get hired for the #2 homeland security position. clark's credibility is **** now that everything he has said before has come out.

[The Walrus]

It always seems to me that in American politics, if someone has raised serious allegations about the conduct of the administration, the knee-jerk reaction is to attack the credibility of the accuser rather than the claims they are making.

[Truthsayer]

Old debate-tactics.

Let the occuser spend all his time defending his personal moral and no-one will have time to think about the questions or allegations they have raised.

"He cannot accuse anyone of stealing - he is a thief himself!"

"A hooker cannot be raped!"

[Merik]

Well, Clarke has more credibility than Rice. He's an old hat, been there longer. She's covering for the administration, just as Clarke did when he was in office. Now here's the real question: if Clarke is a liar with no credibility, what was the administration doing hiring him? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

why does clark have more credibility? he has flip-flopped several times (as is evidenced in his press-brief, his testimony to congress in 2002, etc). his attitude is why he didn't get hired for the #2 homeland security position. clark's credibility is **** now that everything he has said before has come out.

Thats exactly what I was going to say Seoul. Exactly how does he have credibility when everyone knows he is two-faced? He has changed his position and his comments on things many different times to the public and Congress.

[HELEX]

So someone who changes his Opinion when better Information is availible has lower credibility than someone who sticks on his opinion even when it is proven wrong? We have a word for such People: "Erkenntnisresistent"

I doubt that :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

So someone who changes his Opinion when better Information is availible has lower credibility than someone who sticks on his opinion even when it is proven wrong? We have a word for such People: "Erkenntnisresistent"

I doubt that :roll:

stay the f*** out of this, tool. you don't have any clue what's going on, so i'm not going to address this.

[t*BoNe]

Well, Clarke has more credibility than Rice. He's an old hat, been there longer.

Consistency determines credibility not tenure. Its Clarke who lacks the former.


She's covering for the administration, just as Clarke did when he was in office.

I agree here. One point that bothered me was Rice's assertion that culpability lied in the lack of a proper organizational structure and not in a person.


Now here's the real question: if Clarke is a liar with no credibility, what was the administration doing hiring him? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

For one consistency and continuity in the critical areas of gov't like CT were important in the transition period for administrations in general. However in all fairness, his credibilty didn't come into question until after his resignation from government and release of his book.

[Fox2]

My $.02: I only saw her testimony to questions asked by Lehman, Roemer, and Thompson but from what I saw I thought Rice did a good job. I'm just skeptical that this is going to turn into a huge witch-hunt. I see some of the committee members trying to shift blame on one administration or the other. That is not what the intention of forming a committee was about, it is to examine what went wrong and what can be done to change those things to assure we never have another 9/11. It does not take a genius to figure out that there were mistakes made in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, but pointing the finger, while it may appease some, will do nothing to strengthen our security apparatus.

Words of the wise.

This isn't supposed to point fingers. That's not the point. Unfortunately, that's what it is becoming.

I caught some of it. When Bob Kerrey questioned her, he brought all of this stuff up about Iraq, with absolutely zero relevance. He asked questions about the current military situation and fighting in Iraq going on RIGHT NOW. Then he doesn't let her get a word in edge-wise, practically answering his own questions. It was way out of line and inappropriate.

What ever happened to the time where the people in office were treated with respect?

[ibstolidude]

Old debate-tactics.

Let the occuser spend all his time defending his personal moral and no-one will have time to think about the questions or allegations they have raised.

"He cannot accuse anyone of stealing - he is a thief himself!"

"A hooker cannot be raped!"
there are no part-time liars.

[Truthsayer]

So I guess no-one can be trusted then.

[venture160]

I've been watching the public hearings from day one. I think the administration since the day 9/11 happened has been saying all along, there is no possible way we could have prevented it, but now if you really carefully look at it, it could have been prevented, and in a number of ways. Now this blame does not fall on the shoulders of one administration, rather than all the way back to clinton and reagon, who are equally quitly of failing to act, but the way the bush administration is demanding that they are not guilty of letting their guard down of any fualt is troubling. The fact is, Bush when he came into office wanted to throw everything out that was clintonian, but by odds, some of those policies might have had some relevence, they just didn't see terrorism as the biggest problem facing the United States, their administration was more focused on the "cold war" threats of rogue regimes, missile defense, and china, which are easier to define and combat, one could say they took the easy way out. What we have learned is that during the clinton administration in the period before the millenium there were massive attacks planned on the United States and they were all stopped. Why were we successfull, we have known since day one that the FBI and CIA do not get along, so clinton had to "literally shake the FBI upside down" to get the details, and it worked, they also held a number of "principal meetings" in which all the heads of the cabinet, NSC, FBI, CIA got together to talk about the threat, and ordered action to its lower authorities. This simply did not happen during the threat spike in the summer of 2001, there was no tree shaking, no principles meetings, nothing. The question needs to be asked, why didn't we see this as a threat? We need to work to remove the barriers between the FBI and the CIA, because nothing has been done about it to this day. While we can blame clinton for failing to take real decisive action during his presidency, what could he really have done? any invasion into afghanistan would have been seen as an attempt to outshine the Lewinsky scandal. The FBI was too pre-occupied with numerous high profile cases, where the director was personally involved, including whitewater and the lewinsky case. I think if Bush had really recognized the threat, held principles meetings, shook the FBI, we WOULD have been able to "connect the dots" so to speak, the fact that we didn't even try to put the dots together is mind boggling, if we had pushed the FBI to pursue terrorist cells, actually convey a warning to the FAA and the american public something could have been done.

[California Joe]

Clarke was the recognized expert in his field under several presidents. He prepared a voluminous report under the Clinton administration naming Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda the #1 threat to this country. That report was dropped on the desk of the Bush Administration as soon as they took office. It is a fact that the Clinton administration damaged our nation's credibility with his weak or innefectual responses in places like Somalia. It is also a fact that there was no popular support in Congress or in the country for an extended war on terror at that time. Congress authorized the pull out from Mogadishu in case you don't remember.

You can not rationally argue that the stated reasons for going into Iraq have proven true. None have been proven remotely correct. I am also continually amazed that there is still a widespread belief in this country that Osama was somehow linked with Saddam. That shows incredible ignorance of the facts.

As for Clarke's credibility, apparently none of you have worked for a government agency, career civil servants do not often give briefings where they call their current boss ignorant for not listening to their advice, even on matters like these. Especially if he's the President. You talk about what they want you to talk about. Or your career is gone. Period. If you don't think that type of amazingly petty **** goes on in the government you're dreaming. Do you think you might have a hard on for your boss if he ignored 5 years worth of your work when you knew you were right and then it was proved true in a most disasterous fashion?

Do you also believe logically that Condi Rice would ever get up in front on Congress and go "yeah, gee sorry we didn't really give a **** about that Clarke report because frankly he's pushy and kind of annoying and we didn't really think he was all that bright."

[venture160]

excellent post california joe, I 100% agree with you. Something is terriby wrony with the way we handle our national security, and mark my words, because we haven't fixed it, something worse is BOUND to happen.