I've been watching it. Dr. Rice intellectually makes me feel like an idiot. The woman's IQ must be about 340. Most of the questioning is a mix of several questions, several points, and at times, several accusations. Regardless of whether I would agree or disagree with all her answers (since they are still being asked as I am watching) The fact that she can keep all these points in her brain while answering is to me, and addressing each appropriately is quite admirable to me.
I mean we do similar things in our debates here on this board at times. (When that occasional glimmer of truly thought provoking debate occurs) However we all have the ability to look back on what we are addressing, and even to quote it. We can open multiple browser tabs or windows with full resources to look at and source. Even with all that at the disposal of most here, the level of discussion is often quite low. She is essentually doing what I have watched entire teams of lawyers do, straight out of her head. I know it is her job and asking her to address events where she was a full participant. However she still strikes me an quite competent, and highly intelligent.
On top of this, her answers are just amazingly detailed, comprehensive, and clear with regard to the background philosophy. They don't strike me as something someone could be drilled on, memorized, or even make up. We can argue and debate the plans, philosophies, and actions that make up her answers about what was done before 9/11 for example and whether they were right. But it appears, at least to me, that there were attempts to change the focus and means of acquiring our intelligence, how it was shared, and how it was acted on.
The debate can of course occur as to whether these things could have happened sooner, should have happened prior to 9/11, prior to Bush or already occured with Clinton, blame/buck passing, were the threats specific/unspecific/credible, etc. However Dr. Rice appears quite credible to me.
Another staffer speaks out about Rice and the Bush admin overall:
Quote:
In January 2002, Rice launched a serious effort to restart the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. She hired Flynt Leverett, who was a professional foreign service officer on the policy planning staff of the State Department, as director of the initiative on the National Security Council.
...."[George Bush] said that Condi would ride herd on this process. She never even saddled up," said Leverett. Six months earlier, Rice had appointed neoconservative Elliott Abrams as her Middle East coordinator on the NSC, and he threw up obstacles to prevent the road map from going forward. Bush, for his part, never followed up on his own rhetoric and was utterly absent from the policymaking.
So Leverett decided [in 2003] he must quit. "When they wouldn't put the road map out in 2002 and brought in someone like Abrams, that meant they weren't going to be serious. I didn't want to stick around for a charade. I say this as someone who voted for Bush in 2000 and was genuinely committed to see him succeed."
I've been watching it. Dr. Rice intellectually makes me feel like an idiot. The woman's IQ must be about 340. Most of the questioning is a mix of several questions, several points, and at times, several accusations. Regardless of whether I would agree or disagree with all her answers (since they are still being asked as I am watching) The fact that she can keep all these points in her brain while answering is to me, and addressing each appropriately is quite admirable to me.
I mean we do similar things in our debates here on this board at times. (When that occasional glimmer of truly thought provoking debate occurs) However we all have the ability to look back on what we are addressing, and even to quote it. We can open multiple browser tabs or windows with full resources to look at and source. Even with all that at the disposal of most here, the level of discussion is often quite low. She is essentually doing what I have watched entire teams of lawyers do, straight out of her head. I know it is her job and asking her to address events where she was a full participant. However she still strikes me an quite competent, and highly intelligent.
On top of this, her answers are just amazingly detailed, comprehensive, and clear with regard to the background philosophy. They don't strike me as something someone could be drilled on, memorized, or even make up. We can argue and debate the plans, philosophies, and actions that make up her answers about what was done before 9/11 for example and whether they were right. But it appears, at least to me, that there were attempts to change the focus and means of acquiring our intelligence, how it was shared, and how it was acted on.
The debate can of course occur as to whether these things could have happened sooner, should have happened prior to 9/11, prior to Bush or already occured with Clinton, blame/buck passing, were the threats specific/unspecific/credible, etc. However Dr. Rice appears quite credible to me.
Nick
Are you serious? I didn't think she was doign well at all, and many of her detailed answes seemed like filabustering to me.
Interesting. I was disappointed actually. She was stuttering continuously...she didn't answer many questions directly until the "yes or no" questions in the end. She also contradicted herself on a number of ocassions.
One interesting thing is the amount of praise, direct but most indirect towards the much maligned Dick Clarke. She basically contradicted what the "attack dogs" and the local Bush-is-my-hero fans have been saying about "out of the loop" Clarke.
And that August 6th memo...would have been juicy, but it's not gonna get de-classified. I expected much more from her especially since she had so much time to prepare for this.
They were simultaneously taken off guard and paying attention to al-Qaeda.
It reminds me a great deal of asking what "is" means.
If only it were as simple as that to which you try to reduce it. Paying attention to threats abroad while being caught off-guard about threats domestically. She then spoke at length about the impediments to agencies sharing information regarding criminal versus security matters, different agencies addressing different needs and not sharing and legally not being allowed to share information, the level of reform they had begun formulating and attempting, and also what level of reform could only be motivated or pushed along by a catastrophic event.
What she suggested was nothing like parsing a word to twist away from a previous statement that boxed the speaker into a corner for wrong doing. Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. His parsing was an attempt to get out of that perjury.
Also, it bothers me greatly that with all her denial, especially after confronted about her statement that "they could never have imagined planes being hijacked to be used as missiles" with all the precedent the years before, with anti aircraft batteries in Geneva(for the Summit), and the newly known(to us) August 6th memo, and all the chatter about something spectacular.... she still played dumb.Come on. You're smarter than that Dr. Rice.
Did she need a memo with the dates and times of the attacks to get on with her job?? L-A-M-E.
I find Dr. Rice to be a very intelligent person as Nick pointed out. That given I am humbled by the fact that the US with very capable people in powerful posts are still very weak in the face of possible terrorism. We are but humans and even with good organization and well funded departments of varying kinds to combat the forces of terrorism the fact remains that we are still very open to attacks.
As Dr. Rice touched on in her testimony I believe American policy needs carry with it an understanding of values in future to hold integrity in the face of world scrutiny.
I am not a "Blame America First" kind of person but I will say that many problems could have been prevented in this world if American policy was geared a little differently over the years.
Her refusal to take any responsibility for the "grave structural problems" within the US is also extremely disappointing.
Furthermore, she said that those 7 months they were in office(before 9/11) hadn't been enough to make the required structural changes between the CIA and the FBI ....only to immediately say "that those changes were done IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11. WTF? Hello?
Without specific threats, and only vague chatter, what should she have suggested to Bush to prevent 9/11? Perhaps, pre-9/11 they could have implemented the Patriot Act. It is so beloved now, after the attacks, surely American would have swallowed it then. Or, perhaps they could have gone into Afganistan, pre-9/11. Yup, preventative attacks against ass-backward countries that threaten the US would surely have been accepted, right?
The whole 'well you knew something was maybe going to happen, so you should have been able to prevent it' arguement makes no sense. Yes, there was chatter, yes there were the same threats from extremists. Any move on the part of the Admin to counter these threats would have been argued against by the Left, in exactly the same way they have against Iraq and the Patriot Act, except without the backdrop of 9/11. The Left would still have accused Bush of encouraging Islamic extremists, perhaps even more, if he'd moved against the Taliban pre-9/11. Bush would still have been condemned for Patriot Act-like measures, especialy pre-9/11.
So, there was chatter. So There were vague threats. Without specifics, what preventative actions could have been taken, that wouldn't have faced condemnation? And as Rice testified, there were barriers to gathering more acurate information.
Comments
Originally posted by Jubelum
Next stop, Bush Bashing Thread. Alllllll aboard!
This thread is about the subject at hand. Bush bashing is not welcome in this thread for the record.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
Bush bashing is not welcome in this thread for the record.
How about shrub thumping?
These people are GOOOOOOOOOOD!
parry
thrust
parry
thrust
I mean we do similar things in our debates here on this board at times. (When that occasional glimmer of truly thought provoking debate occurs) However we all have the ability to look back on what we are addressing, and even to quote it. We can open multiple browser tabs or windows with full resources to look at and source. Even with all that at the disposal of most here, the level of discussion is often quite low. She is essentually doing what I have watched entire teams of lawyers do, straight out of her head. I know it is her job and asking her to address events where she was a full participant. However she still strikes me an quite competent, and highly intelligent.
On top of this, her answers are just amazingly detailed, comprehensive, and clear with regard to the background philosophy. They don't strike me as something someone could be drilled on, memorized, or even make up. We can argue and debate the plans, philosophies, and actions that make up her answers about what was done before 9/11 for example and whether they were right. But it appears, at least to me, that there were attempts to change the focus and means of acquiring our intelligence, how it was shared, and how it was acted on.
The debate can of course occur as to whether these things could have happened sooner, should have happened prior to 9/11, prior to Bush or already occured with Clinton, blame/buck passing, were the threats specific/unspecific/credible, etc. However Dr. Rice appears quite credible to me.
Nick
Masterful politics---and Condi pirouettes right through.
It will be fascinating to see what the liberal media junta uses to smear her.
It reminds me a great deal of asking what "is" means.
In January 2002, Rice launched a serious effort to restart the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. She hired Flynt Leverett, who was a professional foreign service officer on the policy planning staff of the State Department, as director of the initiative on the National Security Council.
...."[George Bush] said that Condi would ride herd on this process. She never even saddled up," said Leverett. Six months earlier, Rice had appointed neoconservative Elliott Abrams as her Middle East coordinator on the NSC, and he threw up obstacles to prevent the road map from going forward. Bush, for his part, never followed up on his own rhetoric and was utterly absent from the policymaking.
So Leverett decided [in 2003] he must quit. "When they wouldn't put the road map out in 2002 and brought in someone like Abrams, that meant they weren't going to be serious. I didn't want to stick around for a charade. I say this as someone who voted for Bush in 2000 and was genuinely committed to see him succeed."
From Salon via Drum
How many does this make now?
Originally posted by dmz
It will be fascinating to see what the liberal media junta uses to smear her.
Her own CYA wording of everything she says seems more than sufficient.
Originally posted by trumptman
I've been watching it. Dr. Rice intellectually makes me feel like an idiot. The woman's IQ must be about 340. Most of the questioning is a mix of several questions, several points, and at times, several accusations. Regardless of whether I would agree or disagree with all her answers (since they are still being asked as I am watching) The fact that she can keep all these points in her brain while answering is to me, and addressing each appropriately is quite admirable to me.
I mean we do similar things in our debates here on this board at times. (When that occasional glimmer of truly thought provoking debate occurs) However we all have the ability to look back on what we are addressing, and even to quote it. We can open multiple browser tabs or windows with full resources to look at and source. Even with all that at the disposal of most here, the level of discussion is often quite low. She is essentually doing what I have watched entire teams of lawyers do, straight out of her head. I know it is her job and asking her to address events where she was a full participant. However she still strikes me an quite competent, and highly intelligent.
On top of this, her answers are just amazingly detailed, comprehensive, and clear with regard to the background philosophy. They don't strike me as something someone could be drilled on, memorized, or even make up. We can argue and debate the plans, philosophies, and actions that make up her answers about what was done before 9/11 for example and whether they were right. But it appears, at least to me, that there were attempts to change the focus and means of acquiring our intelligence, how it was shared, and how it was acted on.
The debate can of course occur as to whether these things could have happened sooner, should have happened prior to 9/11, prior to Bush or already occured with Clinton, blame/buck passing, were the threats specific/unspecific/credible, etc. However Dr. Rice appears quite credible to me.
Nick
Are you serious? I didn't think she was doign well at all, and many of her detailed answes seemed like filabustering to me.
America 0, Bush Administration 2,749
One interesting thing is the amount of praise, direct but most indirect towards the much maligned Dick Clarke. She basically contradicted what the "attack dogs" and the local Bush-is-my-hero fans have been saying about "out of the loop" Clarke.
And that August 6th memo...would have been juicy, but it's not gonna get de-classified. I expected much more from her especially since she had so much time to prepare for this.
Originally posted by groverat
They were simultaneously taken off guard and paying attention to al-Qaeda.
It reminds me a great deal of asking what "is" means.
If only it were as simple as that to which you try to reduce it. Paying attention to threats abroad while being caught off-guard about threats domestically. She then spoke at length about the impediments to agencies sharing information regarding criminal versus security matters, different agencies addressing different needs and not sharing and legally not being allowed to share information, the level of reform they had begun formulating and attempting, and also what level of reform could only be motivated or pushed along by a catastrophic event.
What she suggested was nothing like parsing a word to twist away from a previous statement that boxed the speaker into a corner for wrong doing. Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. His parsing was an attempt to get out of that perjury.
Nick
Did she need a memo with the dates and times of the attacks to get on with her job?? L-A-M-E.
Originally posted by Gilsch
and times of the attacks to get on with her job?? L-A-M-E.
No kidding.
There were times there where the only rational response would have been, "Look, we screwed up big time."
The reasons behind why we will never hear that kind of response are the same reasons why it is stupid to take her comments at face value.
I find Dr. Rice to be a very intelligent person as Nick pointed out. That given I am humbled by the fact that the US with very capable people in powerful posts are still very weak in the face of possible terrorism. We are but humans and even with good organization and well funded departments of varying kinds to combat the forces of terrorism the fact remains that we are still very open to attacks.
As Dr. Rice touched on in her testimony I believe American policy needs carry with it an understanding of values in future to hold integrity in the face of world scrutiny.
I am not a "Blame America First" kind of person but I will say that many problems could have been prevented in this world if American policy was geared a little differently over the years.
Fellowship
Furthermore, she said that those 7 months they were in office(before 9/11) hadn't been enough to make the required structural changes between the CIA and the FBI ....only to immediately say "that those changes were done IMMEDIATELY" after 9/11. WTF? Hello?
The whole 'well you knew something was maybe going to happen, so you should have been able to prevent it' arguement makes no sense. Yes, there was chatter, yes there were the same threats from extremists. Any move on the part of the Admin to counter these threats would have been argued against by the Left, in exactly the same way they have against Iraq and the Patriot Act, except without the backdrop of 9/11. The Left would still have accused Bush of encouraging Islamic extremists, perhaps even more, if he'd moved against the Taliban pre-9/11. Bush would still have been condemned for Patriot Act-like measures, especialy pre-9/11.
So, there was chatter. So There were vague threats. Without specifics, what preventative actions could have been taken, that wouldn't have faced condemnation? And as Rice testified, there were barriers to gathering more acurate information.