Rice 9/11 testimony thread

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-04-08 09:32am

Who is watching Rice? What do you think so far? So far she is just giving her prepared briefing. Blah blah blah....bring on the questions!!! Let the grilling begin!!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-08 09:43am

Right now the chairman is throwing some softballs- until the difficult questions come, we won't have any way to judge her performance, but I might as well comment on her speaking skills:

- she's smiling too much, while at the same time, her voice is quivering as if she's about to cry.

Oh, and I'm editing the title.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-04-08 09:45am

And i guess the questions will be filtered to the Pro-Bush option

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-04-08 09:53am

Was it me or did she NOT answer the her very first question thrown at her.

Q. (paraphrasing) What did you tell/talk to the President about terrorist threats apon gaining the White House.

A. Blah Blah Blah Blah...about 5 minutes worth.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-04-08 09:58am

TWICE now she has brought up the idea/fact that Americas own Laws protecting privicy and anti/Domestic Intelligence was one of the main causes for not knowing about what was going to happen.

whoops make that THREE times now.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-04-08 10:09am

Shes getting Raked over the coals NOW!! The adendants applauded when the questioner told her just to ANSWER THE QUESTION and not to Blah Blah Blah.

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-04-08 10:35am

She said that prior to the attacks, the United States "simply was not on a war footing."

Let's see how those detractors of Clinton will go around this one. They seem to retroactively blame Clinton for this shit.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-04-08 10:44am

Dargos wrote:Shes getting Raked over the coals NOW!! The adendants applauded when the questioner told her just to ANSWER THE QUESTION and not to Blah Blah Blah.

Richard Ben-Veniste who is the lead trial attorney on my case in Philly. He's been chomping at the bit to get to her since Clarke was on.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-04-08 10:53am

She has yet to attack Clark. So far all I've seen is "he was doing all he could do", "he was doing his job". Strange...I was expecting an offensive against the points raised by Clark. Perhaps she is trying to avoid bad press?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-08 11:02am

Dargos wrote:She has yet to attack Clark. So far all I've seen is "he was doing all he could do", "he was doing his job". Strange...I was expecting an offensive against the points raised by Clark. Perhaps she is trying to avoid bad press?

Maybe she's picturing what Jon Stewart will say about her testimony.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-08 11:33am

Dargos, please keep the live updates coming!

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-04-08 01:09pm

Foxnews has a nauseating spin campaign going on right now. I can understand where some right wingers can be comforted by what she said but she dodged some questions and filibustered others to limit the commission members from asking too many questions.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-08 01:36pm

From what I heard over the radio (I'm at work and I haven't been able to give it my full attention), her performance was fair. She did clarify some things and came out and admitted that the United States was not taking terrorism as seriously as it should prior to 9-11 ("not on a war footing"), but the filibustering got old. She defended the PATRIOT Act--which was disappointing, if not unexpected--and it's going to be interesting to see how the parts where she directly contradicts Clarke shake out. The Pakistan angle was one I hadn't considered before, and it's interesting to hear Musharrif wasn't interested in leaning on his Taliban clients until after the attacks. If he didn't change his tune on September 12, I wonder what the exact result would have been (joint Indian-American invasion of Pakistan? Fun, and the aftermath would make Iraq look like a playground).

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-09 12:48am

I didn't see much of this, but going by the AP's transcript, Rice made fools out of her inquistors.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, did you not _ you have indicated here that this was some historical document. And I am asking you whether it is not the case that you learned in the PDB memo of August 6th that the FBI was saying that it had information suggesting that preparations _ not historically, but ongoing, along with these numerous full field investigations against al-Qaida cells, that preparations were being made consistent with hijackings within the United States?

RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you...

BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title.

(APPLAUSE)

RICE: I believe, Mr. Ben-Veniste, that you've had access to this PDB. But let me just...

BEN-VENISTE: But we have not had it declassified so that it can be shown publicly, as you know.

RICE: I believe you've had access to this PDB _ exceptional access. But let me address your question.

BEN-VENISTE: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

RICE: May I address the question, sir?

The fact is that this August 6th PDB was in response to the president's questions about whether or not something might happen or something might be planned by al-Qaida inside the United States. He asked because all of the threat reporting or the threat reporting that was actionable was about the threats abroad, not about the United States.

This particular PDB had a long section on what bin Laden had wanted to do _ speculative, much of it _ in '97, '98; that he had, in fact, liked the results of the 1993 bombing.

RICE: It had a number of discussions of _ it had a discussion of whether or not they might use hijacking to try and free a prisoner who was being held in the United States _ Ressam. It reported that the FBI had full field investigations under way.

And we checked on the issue of whether or not there was something going on with surveillance of buildings, and we were told, I believe, that the issue was the courthouse in which this might take place.

Commissioner, this was not a warning. This was a historic memo -- historical memo prepared by the agency because the president was asking questions about what we knew about the inside.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, if you are willing ...

RICE: Now, we had already taken ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you are willing to declassify that document, then others can make up their minds about it.

Let me ask you a general matter, beyond the fact that this memorandum provided information, not speculative, but based on intelligence information, that bin Laden had threatened to attack the United States and specifically Washington, D.C.

There was nothing reassuring, was there, in that PDB?

RICE: Certainly not. There was nothing reassuring.

But I can also tell you that there was nothing in this memo that suggested that an attack was coming on New York or Washington, D.C. There was nothing in this memo as to time, place, how or where. This was not a threat report to the president or a threat report to me.

BEN-VENISTE: We agree that there were no specifics. Let me move on, if I may.

RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the country had already taken steps through the FAA to warn of potential hijackings. The country had already taken steps through the FBI to task their 56 field offices to increase their activity. The country had taken the steps that it could given that there was no threat reporting about what might happen inside the United States.

Ben-Veniste's tactic is asking a long, multipart, convoluted question in when there are ultimately many questions being asked. Then he interrupts the the witness when they answer one part of the question but not the other. The whole purpose is to fluster the witness and gain the upper hand.

Dr. Rice was ready for it and made him look like a jackass in the transcript.

Bob Kerrey didn't fare much better:

RICE: I'm aware, Mr. Kerrey, of a speech that you gave at that time that said that perhaps the best thing that we could do to respond to the Cole and to the memories was to do something about the threat of Saddam Hussein.

That's a strategic view...

(APPLAUSE)

And we took a strategic view. We didn't take a tactical view. I mean, it was really _ quite frankly, I was blown away when I read the speech, because it's a brilliant speech. It talks about really...

(LAUGHTER)

... an asymmetric...

KERREY: I presume you read it in the last few days?

RICE: Oh no, I read it quite a bit before that. It's an asymmetric approach.

Now, you can decide that every time Al Qaida...

KERREY: So you're saying that you didn't have a military response against the Cole because of my speech?

RICE: I'm saying, I'm saying...

(LAUGHTER)

RICE: No.

KERREY: That had I not given that speech you would have attacked them?

RICE: No, I'm just saying that I think it was a brilliant way to think about it.

KERREY: I think it's...

RICE: It was a way of thinking about it strategically, not tactically. But if I may answer the question that you've asked me.

The issue of whether to respond _ or how to respond to the Cole _ I think Don Rumsfeld has also talked about this.

Yes, the Cole had happened. We received, I think on January 25th, the same assessment _ or roughly the same assessment _ of who was responsible for the Cole that Sandy Berger talked to you about.

It was preliminary. It was not clear. But that was not the reason that we felt that we did not want to, quote, respond to the Cole.

We knew that the options that had been employed by the Clinton administration had been standoff options. The president had _ meaning missile strikes or perhaps bombers would have been possible, long-range bombers. Although getting in place the apparatus to use long-range bombers is even a matter of whether you have basing in the region.

RICE: We knew that Osama Bin Laden had been, in something that was provided to me, bragging that he was going to withstand any response and then he was going to emerge and come out stronger.

KERREY: But you're figuring this out. You've got to give a very long answer.

RICE: We simply believed that the best approach was to put in place a plan that was going to eliminate this threat, not respond to an attack.

KERREY: Let me say, I think you would have come in there if you said, We screwed up. We made a lot of mistakes. You obviously don't want to use the M-word in here. And I would say fine, it's game, set, match. I understand that.

But this strategic and tactical, I mean, I just _ it sounds like something from a seminar. It doesn't...

RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have.

And with all due respect to Dick Clarke, if you're speaking about the Delenda plan, my understanding is that it was, A, never adopted, and that Dick Clarke himself has said that the military portion of this was not taken up by the Clinton administration.

KERREY: Let me move into another area.

Kerrey also took the time to make a comment about Iraq during the hearings

Let me say at the beginning I'm very impressed, and indeed I'd go as far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished. It's quite extraordinary.

And I want to say at the outset that, notwithstanding perhaps the tone of some of my questions, I'm not sure had I been in your position or Sandy Berger's position or President Bush or President Clinton's position that I would have done things differently. I simply don't know.

But the line of questioning will suggest that I'm trying to ascertain why things weren't done differently.

Let me ask a question that _ well, actually, let me say _ I can't pass this up. I know it'll take into my 10-minute time. But as somebody who supported the war in Iraq, I'm not going to get the national security adviser 30 feet away from me very often over the next 90 days, and I've got to tell you, I believe a number of things.

I believe, first of all, that we underestimate that this war on terrorism is really a war against radical Islam. Terrorism is a tactic. It's not a war itself.

Secondly, let me say that I don't think we understand how the Muslim world views us, and I'm terribly worried that the military tactics in Iraq are going to do a number of things, and they're all bad. One is...

(APPLAUSE)

No, please don't _ please do not do that. Do not applaud.

I think we're going to end up with civil war if we continue down the military operation strategies that we have in place. I say that sincerely as someone that supported the war in the first place.

And this has what to do with the hearings about the WTC attacks?

Of course not all of the Democratic members tried to score political points. Jamie Gorelick, Lee Hamilton, and Tim Roemer came off as people who wanted to get to the truth of the matter.

On the whole, there seemed to be little new material, but I agree with RedImperator that the Pakistan angle was interesting.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-09 12:53am

Kerrey's "fly swatting" comment was funny.

"The President told me he was tired of swatting flies."

"He didn't swat any flies. How the hell could he be tired of it?"

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-09 01:01am

From what I heard of it I believe she did well. I'm sure the main stream media is quite sad she didn't fuck it up so they could harp on it for the next month or so.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-09 01:03am

It's funny, but wasn't the 'swatting flies' line used when GWB said that he wasn't going to waste a $2 million cruise missile to take out a $10 empty tent?

Of course I could be wrong.

Anyway, later on she made Kerry look like an idiot.

And with all due respect to Dick Clarke, if you're speaking about the Delenda plan, my understanding is that it was, A, never adopted, and that Dick Clarke himself has said that the military portion of this was not taken up by the Clinton administration.

KERREY: Let me move into another area.

RICE: So we were not presented _ I just want to be very clear on this, because it's been a source of controversy _ we were not presented with a plan.

KERREY: Well, that's not true. It is not...

RICE: We were not presented. We were presented with...

KERREY: I've heard you say that, Dr. Clarke, that 25 January, 2001, memo was declassified, I don't believe...

RICE: That January 25 memo has a series of actionable items having to do with Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance.

KERREY: Let me move to another area.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-09 01:05am

Glocksman wrote: Anyway, later on she made Kerry look like an idiot.

That should read 'Kerrey', not 'Kerry'.
Typo.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-09 01:28am

Glocksman wrote:I didn't see much of this, but going by the AP's transcript, Rice made fools out of her inquistors.

BEN-VENISTE: snip

You bought that line of word parsing bullshit? She was splitting hairs. They knew that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US, did they not?

Bob Kerrey didn't fare much better:

What transcript are you reading, seriously? He asked her why she didn't do something about the Cole, and she comes up with that? That impresseses you?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-09 02:04am

Veniste was clearly asking those multiple part questions in order to fluster her and she was ready for it. He was obviously trying to play to the crowd and get political soundbites out of his time. Cheap courtroom theatrics don't impress me all that much.

And as far as Kerrey goes:

KERREY: Well, I think it's an unfortunate figure of speech because I think, especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of October, 2000, it would not have been swatting a fly. It would not have been _ we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan.

Dick Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations. He turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration _ military plans in the Clinton administration.

In fact, since we're in the mood to declassify stuff, there was _ he included in his January 25th memo two appendices _ Appendix A:

Strategy for the elimination of the jihadist threat of Al Qaida, Appendix B: Political military plan for Al Qaida.

So I just _ why didn't we respond to the Cole?

Rice's reply

<long verbal exchange snipped>

RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have.

And with all due respect to Dick Clarke, if you're speaking about the Delenda plan, my understanding is that it was, A, never adopted, and that Dick Clarke himself has said that the military portion of this was not taken up by the Clinton administration.

She answered his question.
If he wasn't referring to the Delenda plan, why did he so obviously want to change the subject so fast?

The commissioner who impressed me was Gorelick and her line of questioning on the structural problems in the government that prevented the available intelligence from being properly utilized.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-04-09 02:23am

I didn't catch the whole thing - just bits and pieces from a lobby's television. Someone asked her a question, and she just advertised for Bush for three minutes.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-04-09 02:29am

I dunno...a lot of her responses seemed...generic. Lots of vauge and open ended and definately lots of indirect resposnes. I would've like to have seen her rebute Clarke but didn't see to much of that.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-04-09 02:39am

Of course she was "ready" for those sort of multi-part questions designed to throw a person off balance! You think she went into this, this, unprepared?
If she'd sounded unpolished or amatuerish, I'd be shitting bricks more about what's going on this country than I already am!

The fact remains that Ben-Veniste got answers and admittals beyond my expectations.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-04-09 03:04am

I just saw here spiel from the BBC (24min long) no questions, but I particularly liked how she basically said that more civil liberties need to go in order to provide protection (about 19th min) ...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-09 03:20am

Crown wrote:I just saw here spiel from the BBC (24min long) no questions, but I particularly liked how she basically said that more civil liberties need to go in order to provide protection (about 19th min) ...

You mean her backing of the PATRIOT act?

Yeah, that sticks in my craw.

All in all, her performance was 'adequate'.

She handled Ben-Veniste and Kerrey well, but she didn't volunteer anything new and could have been more forthcoming.