Condolezza Rice testimony=Did she performed great or not?
Moderator: S2k Moderators
- cycloneye
- Admin
- Posts: 146145
- Age: 69
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:54 am
- Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico
I dont know the rest of you here but I see Dr Rice as a potential 2008 candidate for president as she is a very articulated woman who knows what she is talking about and has the nerves to sit in front of that commision to take all the questions that they made to her for almost 3 hours.
0 likes
Visit the Caribbean-Central America Weather Thread where you can find at first post web cams,radars
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
and observations from Caribbean basin members Click Here
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
cycloneye wrote:I dont know the rest of you here but I see Dr Rice as a potential 2008 candidate for president as she is a very articulated woman who knows what she is talking about and has the nerves to sit in front of that commision to take all the questions that they made to her for almost 3 hours.
and not one question was actually substantive, designed to help us be victorious. she had alot of patience putting up with such drivel.
and boortz says it better than me:
KEEP IT UP, TED
And just why do I love it so when Teddy Kennedy goes out there campaigning for John sKerry? Because he may well be one of the best weapons President Bush has. Earlier this week Kennedy was saying that Iraq was going to be George Bush's Vietnam. Today that pudgy little radical Islamic "cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr was saying the same thing. This stuff is priceless folks. Kennedy launches a broadside against Bush, and the people who are trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq parrot it the next day. Kerry then follows up the statements of Kennedy and al-Sadr by calling al-Sadr a "legitimate voice" in Iraq. Only 1% of the Iraqi people consider al-Sadr to be their voice, but Kerry has decided to give him the patina of a legitimate voice for all of Iraq. And, of course, we already know just how legitimate Kerry thinks Kennedy is. Now we just add the America-hating terrorist Muqtada al-Sadr to that list. Kennedy and al-Sadr, campaign point men for John Kerry. And none of this costs the Bush campaign a dime.
http://www.boortz.com
0 likes
I'd vote for her in a second
cycloneye wrote:I dont know the rest of you here but I see Dr Rice as a potential 2008 candidate for president as she is a very articulated woman who knows what she is talking about and has the nerves to sit in front of that commision to take all the questions that they made to her for almost 3 hours.
0 likes
C. Rice testimony--
How could any of the questions addressed by the commission to C. Rice 'help us to be victorious?' The commission is trying to find out what was going on in the way of terrorism awareness and actions taken or not taken before 9/11. .
0 likes
- petal*pusher
- Category 2
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:56 am
- Location: Adrian, Mi
vbhoutex, I'm joining you in that standing ovation!
I was very impressed by the straightforward answers (when allowed to do so) and dignity Dr. Rice demonstrated. She easily overlooked the blinking lights, interuptions of those wandering both in front of and behind her, and the obvious attempts to make her look as though she had not been effective in her job. Her demeanor thruout that long 3 hours was very professional and admiring! At the end of her testimony, I was also impressed by the compassion she demonstrated towards those in the audience that approached her..............p
I was very impressed by the straightforward answers (when allowed to do so) and dignity Dr. Rice demonstrated. She easily overlooked the blinking lights, interuptions of those wandering both in front of and behind her, and the obvious attempts to make her look as though she had not been effective in her job. Her demeanor thruout that long 3 hours was very professional and admiring! At the end of her testimony, I was also impressed by the compassion she demonstrated towards those in the audience that approached her..............p

0 likes
- Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
Re: C. Rice testimony--
sunnyday wrote:How could any of the questions addressed by the commission to C. Rice 'help us to be victorious?' The commission is trying to find out what was going on in the way of terrorism awareness and actions taken or not taken before 9/11. .
Hopefully, it will make us learn for the future and help us be victorius then. That's the best we can accomplish with the commission.
As I am reading the transcipts that were provided by DT in another thread I found it interesting to read that the current Administration was pretty much following what the previous administration had put in place to try and handle the terrorist issues prior to 9/11. Secondly, that August 6 memo NEEDS TO BE DECLASSIFIED so that the commission has a full understanding as to what was discussed prior to the tragedy. The heading of the memo reads; "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" and this memo was written at the request of the President for fact-finding purposes. Dr. Rice had said that it was a historical memo and mainly discussed the attacks in 1993 and 1998. I haven't finished reading the transcript yet, but to me, if the President is asking for a fact-finding memo and it is titled as such, I would assume it would be about CURRENT threats. Until we know the exact contents of the memo, there's still alot of questions to be answered. Again, I have not finished reading the transcript.
0 likes
Lindaloo wrote:Why does it need to be declassified? Heck they all read it. What is the big deal now?
They didn't read the complete memo. The Commission saw a very small portion of the redacted document. They may eventually see it in closed session but it will not be made public as it was the daily PDB which are never public documents.
I watched the hearings in detail and yes, she was grilled pretty heartily, but she provided a strong Bush defense and held up pretty well in the hot seat. What became very apparent after three hours of testimony and questioning is that there were/are two large problems: communications and processes. The former processes (and sometimes the law) precluded the intelligence agencies from sharing information about certain items. That does not mean they didn't talk to each other because they did often - especially in Dick Clarke's office. But some key information nuggets did not 'bubble up' though the hierachy to make it into reports that went even farther up. [You can say it was like was a communications condom, information fluids did not co-mingle]. The second problem is that there is a matter of differences in symantecs: a 'threat report' is not a "warning". A "memo" is not a "warning" etc. They are referring to the same documents as different things although the document (both will admit) contains the same information. If it's not an 'official warning', then it won't be handled as a warning even if it contained material that could have been in a warning. It's a wording thing. That's the contention now - what these documents are called and how they were handled (and Rice said, if it's not an official 'warning', it won't be handled as such, ie forget the content). Clarke on the other hand is saying who cares what it's officially called, the information contained within is what is important. See how they are splitting hairs here? I understand both sides here, but the Commission has until the end of July to finish with their interviews, hold their own discussions, come to consensus on recommendations and determinations, then write and release the report. They have much work ahead. And I don't think they are at the point where they will care if a document was called a 'briefing', a 'memo', a 'threat report' or a 'warning'. If it contained information that was not shared or acted upon, that will end up as a Commission finding. Think of this as a type of audit, but instead of April 15, the Commission is 'auditing' pre-9/11 processes and actions.
0 likes
- Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
I didn't finish reading the transcript last night (I'm up to Fielding's questions to Dr. Rice). Corona - Excellent explanation!
From what I saw on the news this morning, the memo will be declassified and shared with the commission. I agree with what Corona said, due to the processes and laws in place at the time, the lines of communication were disrrupted. I think that some of the changes now being made to the intelligence areas of the government are a good start, and I agree with Dr. Rice that there is still alot to do.
From what I saw on the news this morning, the memo will be declassified and shared with the commission. I agree with what Corona said, due to the processes and laws in place at the time, the lines of communication were disrrupted. I think that some of the changes now being made to the intelligence areas of the government are a good start, and I agree with Dr. Rice that there is still alot to do.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests