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: 03-26-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 8:33am
Véry true!!

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 8:47am
Did Clinton apologize to the families of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the USS Cole bombing or the bombing of the embassies in Africa? I have done a search, and nowhere could I find any apologizies for any of these terrorist acts. So, why should Rice or Bush have to apologize for what Al Qaeda did? This is the double standard that I find on these boards.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 8:48am

ITA!


I posted the pic. The reason was that the pic must have been taken when she was questioned, nót during her own opening testimony.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 10:54am

Lighten-up. Did you not notice the wink icon? Although there is some truth to to what I posted. (No

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2004
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 10:58am
I agree strongly with you on that....he apologized for the pain they felt and had, and expressed sympathy, but if I run up and slap my sister, why should my brother have to apologize?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 11:42am

This is why it was so disengenious of Ben Vaniste to ONLY want her to disclose the title of the memo with no explanation.


Ummm...she couldn't discuss the contents of the memo because it


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 12:10pm

From: MEET THE PRESS Sunday, April 4, 2004 (quote below about the Bush/Cheney questioning)


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4663767/


>"MR. RUSSERT: But they will appear together. Why?

MR. KEAN: That's their request, and we didn't see any problem. We're going to ask the same questions, whether we get them together or apart. So that was a White House request and part of a package deal we put together to get the testimony and allow all 10 commissioners to come in, and we didn't see any problem with it.

MR. RUSSERT: Will President Clinton and Vice President Gore appear together?

MR. KEAN: No. No, they're appearing separately.

MR. RUSSERT: Why a different standard for them?

MR. KEAN: Because we had already scheduled our appearances with former President Clinton, and all our other witnesses have appeared separately. But this was the White House request, and we didn't have any problem with it.

MR. RUSSERT: Clinton-Gore in the next few weeks as well?

MR. KEAN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Isn't it better to have people separately so that you can judge them independently as to their veracity?

MR. KEAN: I think it's a matter of judgment. All things considered, maybe we would have rather had them one at a time, but we don't see any problem with it, really. We'll ask each of them individual questions. They've promised us to give us the time we needed to get our questions answered, and if we have any problems, as you do, we'll have follow-ups.

MR. RUSSERT: And one last question on this: Why won't President Bush, Vice President Cheney, former President Clinton, former Vice President Gore be put under oath?

MR. KEAN: It's, I gather, sort of a tradition, practice. No president, I gather, has ever been put under oath. And so, because of precedent in this town, we're not putting them under oath. "<

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 1:40pm
Fly on the wall hmmm. If I could morph, I would probably fall asleep and fall off the wall. I can't imagine that these two will be strenuously briefed. Is that what Bush is doing in Crawford while the war is heating up?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 1:46pm
<< instead of making an assessment for yourself >>

Did you read the first paragraph? That was my assessment. The article was posted for anyone interested, it certainly didn't inform my opinion. Are you projecting?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 04-10-2004 - 1:51pm
<>

How did you read the memo? As of last night it hadn't been declassified.

Pages