Rice to Give Testimony.........
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 04-08-2004 - 10:05am |
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.


Pages
Quite honestly I found her passive attitude toward her job was inconsistent with the postition. Academics take in information and think; people in powerful positions take in information and act. For example, "they didn't tell me to do anything"--IMO, in that position people give you memos to provide background it should be your job to decide what to do. While she tasked the FBI and CIA to do something, she didn't follow up to find out the outcomes. I don't know about your, but this is what people in responsibile jobs do.
Edited 4/10/2004 2:19 pm ET ET by hayashig
This is in agreement with my understanding. I think it should be pointed out that observation of body languages informs what the person is saying. Japanese say its not what the person says that's important it's what they don't say. This is why there if often long pauses in the discussion so conversants can assess what is being conveyed. This pause often makes American's uncomfortable.
Note,
I can see how she would see it as "historical information" because the facts presented were in the recent past. However, the fact that she didn't/couldn't read this as an indication that more vigilance/action was necessary--is another indication she was in the wrong job.
That's an important distinction. I hope the commission won't have a fight to get this memo released. Not good news. This is why it was so important that BV get the title into the record.
How come nobody was there or had interest to listen on what he had to say?
How come nobody was there or had interest to listen on what he had to say?"<
It was in private, as was Gore's, as will the Bush/Cheney's joint question/answer session.
I guess we'll have to wait.
I don't think the color of Ms Rice has anything to do with her competence. She is obviously very intelligent, everyone who I have see says "she's bright". So I don't think her smarts or her color is the problem. I see the problem as being her academic mindset. She absorbed but did act or follow-through.
Pages