Rice to Give Testimony.........

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Rice to Give Testimony.........
93
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 10:05am
Bush aide gives 9/11 testimony.

 



President George W Bush understood the threat from al-Qaeda well before 11 September, his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice has said.

Ms Rice is appearing before the body looking into the 2001 attacks.

"President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance," she told the commission.

Ms Rice is testifying in public about policy in the months before the attacks after Mr Bush reversed a decision to refuse the commission's request.


In her opening statement she said: "(President Bush) made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaeda one attack at a time.

"He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'"


Ms Rice told the commission: "There was no silver bullet that could have prevented" the devastating attacks on New York and Washington.


The US "simply was not on a war footing", she said.

"For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat was growing, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient," Ms Rice said.

Observers say Mr Rice's evidence could be vital for Mr Bush's re-election chances.

It is also being seen as a key moment in her own political career, with some tipping her as a future secretary of state or even president.

Her testimony is being covered by all the main US television networks.

She is expected to face intense questioning by the 9/11 commission - a panel of Republicans and Democrats charged with examining all the circumstances of the 2001 attacks, and setting out the lessons to be learned.

They will put to her accusations made by the former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke two weeks ago.

In his testimony - and in a book on the George Bush presidency - he accused the administration of ignoring his warnings about al-Qaeda, and of being fixated with Iraq.

When he appeared before the commission he made a dramatic apology.

"Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said.

Ms Rice did not offer an apology as the White House said the administration felt it had done all it could to prevent the attacks, based on the information available.

But she said: "As an officer of government on duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I felt."


The White House had originally refused to let Ms Rice testify, arguing that she was in a privileged position as a presidential adviser and that it would set the wrong precedent.


However it relented after a political row.

The White House has also hinted it may change course and release a speech Miss Rice was due to give on 11 September 2001, but which was never made because of the atrocities.

The speech apparently stressed the need for missile defence, rather than a war on terrorism.

Mr Bush's national security credentials, which are central to his re-election campaign, may depend on Miss Rice's testimony.

Patty Casazza of New Jersey, whose husband died in the World Trade Center attacks, said she hoped the appearance would make things much clearer.

"Her testimony will either undermine our confidence in this administration or bolster it," she told the Associated Press news agency.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 10:19am
Are you watching this? Richard Ben-Viste is being incredibly disrespectful to her, talking over her, not letting her finish her answers. I wonder if he would have more respect if she were not a black woman.
Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 1:24pm
Patronizing at it's best. Coni is not on trial here, she is to answer the questions given her as she sees fit. He's an a$$, and I know I've encountered many like him in my life. Talk about flashbacks!
Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 1:26pm
All I know is Executive Priviledge is being challanged here. I can't imagine having an administration in which I want honest, confidential answers and not knowing that someday, my staff would be "on trial".
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 1:49pm
He was trying to get her to answer HIS question. He did not want her to go on a spill about how wonderful the president and his administration are. She did not want to answer his question so she tried to throw him off. She kept going on and on so that the clock would run down. She may be a liar but she is not stupid. She has been drilled for the past week so she knew which talking points to White House wanted her to get out there... Oh and I can't believe you even suggested that he went after her because of her race? And I guess the Republicans on that commission went after Clarke because of his race too?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 2:02pm
He was trying to get a sound bite. He wanted her to answer his loaded question with a yes or no for the evening news with nothing to put it into context. She handled herself with dignity and didn't let him get away with his partisan tantrum, so he was disrespectful, interrupted her and spoke OVER her in an effort to keep the public from hearing the entire story. I wish you would have heard it. It was unbelievable.

I don't think he would have behaved this way if he were speaking to a white man. The disrespect was intollerable..

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 2:27pm
I saw this too. I was appalled. This just makes the committee look partisan. He didn't want the whole story, just the part that he thought would help the democrats in their trashing of President Bush.

Condi has proven that she is the smartest, classiest woman in Washington D.C. I thought she was brilliant!!

Oh, and that applause. Everyone now knows that the applause came from the few politically motivated 9/11 victims familes. I was embarrased for them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 2:41pm
I love how even though he was being disrespectful, she put him in his place, with dignity and poise. Condi knew what he was up to, and beat him at his own game.
Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 2:50pm
Do you really believe that questions posed concerning 9/11 should be answered as a "yes" or "no"? This is a complicated issue that requires complicated answers.

This wasn't a court of law.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 2:55pm
A woman in her position, I'm sure, has wrestled with guys like him a gazillion times.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2003
Thu, 04-08-2004 - 3:14pm
I was disappointed in the testimony hearings.

While the public had a rare opportunity to get some detailed informtion of how prepared the US was before and after 9/11, it can down to party lines again with the dems badgering and only using only leading questions for a simply yes or no, instead of answers with """""""full detailed answers""""""" as the public wanted.

During any normal court hearing, this type of questioning would not be allowed.

I for one wanted """""full detailed answers"""" but all I saw and heard was pointed jabs and of course don't forget the penny arcade with the applause for each jab during a public hearing. I wonder if those people had a que card telling them when to applaud?

In the end, I really didn't hear much of anything that hasn't already been stated.

It did however, show that Condi is educated, was well prepared, able to stand her ground and was able to respond to the questions.

IMHO, I don't think anybody will change their opinions because of this so called kangaroo court hearing.

I do wonder who picked the all white board?

Of the USA population, blacks are 12%,latins 13% and females over 50% where were any of them on the board??

Pages