What is Condi hiding?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 7:53am

Why won't she testify under oath?

What could she possibly be hiding?

I certainly hope the 9-11 comission does'nt cave in to her mealy-mouthed requests that "I'll do it but only in private!"

My, my Condi...I thought you were a BIG girl!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 8:32am

Good points, Master. As perhaps befits a theatrical board, I find myself stepping back, thinking of her as a chararacter, wondering ... who *is* this woman? What drives her, makes her tick? Has this brilliant cold war expert, a renowned Sovietologist, found herself part of the wrong regime at the wrong time? When I see her around the Camp David table, clad in her tasteul Talbots Weekend Wear, amid the sea of bald pates and butch windbreakers, I wonder .. where does this abject loyalty to a passel of white male powerbrokers -- the type of guys who might've ignored her when she was younger -- come from? Does she truly believe in the "vision" of this rich boy from Texas? I don't mean this cynically, but is is about her faith?

She's as ariculate as GWB is not (read Frank Rich's piece in tomorrow's Times, delivered this a.m.) She fascinates me. I watched her move from network to network this week, cool, unflappable, consistent to the point of predictability. But what's behind the pearl earrings, the 1957 coif, and pristine manners? When she writes her book, as she no doubt will after leaving her position in December, will it tell us anymore than her polished Meet the Press demeanor suggested? Sometimes, when I watch her, I think of Holly Hunter's character in Broadcast News. I picture her sitting at home, next to her grand piano, eating a meager late night snack -- say, a bowl of rice pudding -- and just sobbing. When you look back over the past few years ... what's been in all of this ... for her?

Updated On: 3/27/04 at 08:32 AM

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 8:48am

The closet does funny things to people.

Updated On: 3/27/04 at 08:48 AM

[HunterFosterIsMyGod]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 9:22am

how dare you call her condi....

:)

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 9:47am

Her refusal to testify before the Commission in a televised hearing siting privilige looks especially bad in light of her willingness to talk to the press, at length, in multiple venues. And the there's her OpEd piece, a carefully crafted defense against charges not yet levied. Clarke's book and his testimony this week was pretty damaging in terms of this administration's dismissal of strong warnings about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda. As the national security advisor, failure to recognize the significance of that threat lands squarely on her doorstep. So what we are being treated to this weekend (60 Minutes being the piece de resistance) is a spinfest of rationalizing lapses in judgement that had catastrophic consequences. If more attention had been paid to the threat Al Qaeda posed pre 9/11, I doubt it would have prevented the WTC attack, but the perception that the administration was asleep at the wheel is disturbing none-the-less.

PS, Aug, your optimistic prediction of regime change...subtle, vintage Auggie ("when she writes her book, as she no doubt will after leaving her position in December...") did not fly past unnoticed.

Updated On: 3/27/04 at 09:47 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 11:54am

Iflit: I love being called subtle ...but actually, didn't I read that Dr. Rice is leaving her post one way or another in December??

Who will replace her? Margaret Thatcher?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 11:54am

Updated On: 3/27/04 at 11:54 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 1:18pm

Maybe she has social anxiety disorder and wants to talk in private because of that?

Or maybe she has ADD like those people on the commercials where it's like TV channels changing? "In Hollywood tonight... mommy!... trees in bloom and... Stop! In the name of love before you... screech... boom... hey now, you're a rock star... thunk thunk bang.... " "Condi? CONDI? What do you think about the war on terror?"

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 1:28pm

Nah, it's clearly a borderline personality disorder.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/27/04 at 1:32pm

For full disclosure, I must admit that this is what my brain does sound like: "In Hollywood tonight... mommy!... trees in bloom and... Stop! In the name of love before you... screech... boom... hey now, you're a rock star... thunk thunk bang.... "

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 12:35pm

FYI: Ed Bradley interviews Condoleezza Rice on 60 Minutes tonight on CBS at 7 pm Eastern. It should be interesting...Clarke was last week's guest; now Condi.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 12:52pm

Did anyone see MEET THE PRESS this morning? Clarke met every challenge put out by the Bushies, and smilngly said that he has no problem whatsoever in releasing his classified files and Emails, noting that, in turn, that Condi release hers.

He also mentioned that he was donating some of his royalties from his book to the 9-11 victims fund.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Poor Condi....

Updated On: 3/28/04 at 12:52 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 2:43pm

The man was more than credible with Russert. Articulate, unflappable, and honestly aiming to rise above the nastiness of this week. (Personally, I find that prissy, lip-pursing, holier than thou Frist the most odious of the attack dogs. And the idea of a Republican scoffing at someone doing something with profit as a motive is really, you should excuse the expression, rich).

But I'd already found Pat Buchannan's take on his "contradictory" answers the most revealing. He clearly stated what everyone inside the beltway knows, that anyone who works for a President issues public statements in sync with policy direction--it's the very definition of spin. For the Bush regime to now call his earlier, loyal answers -- that propped up GWB's team and strategy -- contradictory flies in the face of what they damn well know about all White House edicts during employment. So big shock, now ex Cathedra he's more critical.

But even a right wing pundit like David Brooks thinks the Bushies made a strategic mistake taking the bait. By not rising above,they now have made Dr. Rice the focus, not Mr. Clarke. Stay tuned. I keep wondering ... whether she weeps, turns bullimic, or destroys her baby grand piano with an ax ... will she crack? (And did anyone ever read that New York piece on her?)

Updated On: 3/28/04 at 02:43 PM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 2:43pm

Glad to see Clarke standing up to the pressure and not folding like a cheap deck of cards a al O'Neill.

And I can't for the life of me shake off the Holly Hunter/Broadcast News image of Condi that Auggie painted so graphically. I don't want to be feeling sympathy here. I prefer to stay polarized and pissed.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 3:10pm

when you scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle. condi's not gonna crack now or ever. she's been at this game since she was a kid and she was recognized when she was young by the white men in power at the time, that was reagan, 'member him? good because he doesn't. heck she was in her 30's and playing games with the joint chiefs. she's a brilliant mind and she's unflappable and she's a person of good conscience who believes in what she is doing.

as fas as her testifying, she's the nsa director. they don't testify. especially not in front of a media circus in an election cycle. much of what she knows is not for public consumption as it relates to national security (you do remember what that is too, right?). so she gets in there and the first time she declines to answer a question that could jeopardize people's lives in the field she looks like she has something deep and dark to hide (other than her fine, fine, shapely self). so no matter what she does she fuels speculation for the foil hat division of the "we want bush dead, but impeached or castrated might sate us" wing of the americans for sharia law in the united islamic empire of the americas also known as the party of the donkey (a polite word for ass and a most appropos icon indeed).

what is it that most upsets people about her? that she's a woman of color whose beliefs put her on the other side of all of the pc arguments? is it threatening to see that a person who is so clearly supposed to be a standard bearer for the left spouting conservastive values that she's espoused all her adult life? so she's in the closet, yep, that's it. so she's psychotic, yep that must be it. because it cannot be that she is a person of conscience who's beliefs are at odds with yours. nope there must be something more. so let's all sit together and speculate and find all the things that we can come up with to scandalize her with. because that's what the other side does so it's ok, it's politics after all and as everyone knows everything is fair in politics.

she won't crack under this. this isn't pressure. having to make a decision based on insufficient intelligence, that you know will be second guessed in the media until it's time to move on to something else without ever apologizing if it turns out that the decision was the right one after all, that's a bit of pressure. when the lives of the citizens of the united states rest upon those decisions, that's even more pressure. having to face a buncha whiny little liberal cry babies who wanna scream and yell about how france is mad at us and the germans don't wanna play in our sandbox anymore? that's a walk in he park for condi. when the record of history is written in a few decades, the funny thing is that there won't be much mention of the cry babies or the media. but they will remember condi rice and the decisions that she helped make that changed the course of history and set the course for a world that valued freedom above tyranny.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 3:45pm

I love you, papa, even when you're talkin' trash...

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 4:03pm

Ahh, papa, I was wondering when you'd show up! You're late!

Nice arguements you've made there.

But your arguments that "she's the head of nasa so she has all sorts of classified information' doesn't quite wash, and I was delighted to hear that the 9-11 comission isn't buying her "I'm SPECIAL so I don't have to testify in public" excuse either.

And right now the folks who are doing all the hysterical screaming are the Rovians. Clarke's been unflappable. While the GOP trash machine has worked themselves into a lather in overtime in throwing mud on Clarke, he's happy to make all his past statements on this situation public. Thanks to his candor, the survivors and families of 9-11 victims are incresingly behind Clarke (even before his generous donation). He has nothing to hide. Any time they have tried to knock Clarke down, he's come back with evidence to diffuse their blustering.


But the more Rice waffles, it increasingly looks like she DOES have something to hide - big time. Clarke has been one of the few Republicans to show a moral responsibility to tell the truth even if it makes him and others look bad. Moral and ethical responsibility are totally lost in the Rove-directed world.

To paraphrase Harry Belafonte: "Condi smart. Clarke smarter."

Updated On: 3/28/04 at 04:03 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 5:42pm

"she's the head of nasa"

nah, nasa, i got no trouble hauling before a public committee, let's find out who the aliens really are. and my argument is not that she has secrets so she can't testify, it's that she's not going to walk into a hornet's nest of what is a lose/lose proposition. and folks, let's be serious here, he's credible and forthright and such because he's sying what you want to hear. if he'd come out and said anything to support the administration, you'd have never heard of him or you'd be talking about why he's lying. let's see what clarke's testimony in the way back machine says. i have a feeling he's a little too confident they won't make it public. remember, pride goeth before a fall.

in the meantime, rovey and i are playing doubles against martina and goolagong, any bets?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 5:45pm

My bet's on Martina, papa.

Even though I know'd you'd rather go one-on one with Capriati. :)

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 6:06pm

not until i'm in better shape, master. but man was i ever in hog heaven watching her take the australian and french in 2001...whew, i still get chills.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 7:53pm

Well, there you have it.. she voiced the party line...Saddam was dangerous...the administration has always been focused on the threat of terrorism...yada yada yada.

Mr. Iflit and I had a spirited discussion on the phone a couple of hours ago about Ms. Rice (He's in San Jose' for the week, and won't know he was wrong for a couple more hours.) He is of the opinion that Condi will be the next VP once Cheney bows out (or at least the VP candidate...he is, after all, a card-carrying member of the ABB crowd). Anyway, he predicted that she would go on 60 Minutes, be disarmingly charming (not a frequently associated adjective), and would turn the whole negative momentum of the past few days around. Now, Mr. Iflit's a smart guy and his predictions tend to come true with an astonishing frequency, but not today. I thought Condi seemed defensive and I sensed seething under the calm exterior.

I don't think this interview went in her favor, but I'll be interested in hearing papa's take on it.

Updated On: 3/28/04 at 07:53 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/28/04 at 8:37pm

iflit, like so many of my democratic friends, with your ability to see what's really going on and understand the unsaid and the unseen and the not quite there, i will extend a standing invitation to vegas and question why you have not chosen to use this power for your own profit.

i think any seething you might have seen was due to the fact that unlike mike wallace with charles pickering (who looks more and more like another good guy sacrificed on the altar of politics, bork, bork, bork), ed bradley was not even listening to her responses or even giving her time to respond. i too was seething after having heard him say yet again, "well, i know what you say was being done and the facts support that, but the perception is..." in other words, "no matter what you say condi, not what facts emerge to support your side of the story, i'm going to continue to perpetuate the 'perception.'" well, gee, ed, you just said it all, it's perception vs. reality. one sells, the other doesn't.

Updated On: 3/28/04 at 08:37 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/30/04 at 11:55am

Rice to testify in public, under oath
Bush, Cheney to meet in private with full commission
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 Posted: 11:49 AM EST (1649 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After days of intense pressure, the White House on Tuesday agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

In a letter to the commission, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said the commission must agree in writing that Rice's appearance would not set a precedent for testimony by White House staff -- and that the commission "will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."

Commissioners said they accepted those terms and would work to schedule a session "promptly."

The White House had resisted letting Rice testify in public, arguing that it would be a violation of executive privilege.

Calls to waive that privilege have mounted since last week's testimony by former counterterrorism deputy, Richard Clarke, who said the Bush administration did not put enough focus on the threat of terrorism prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (Clarke book a bestseller)

Rice has blasted Clarke in numerous interviews, but said her refusal to appear under oath and in public -- as Clarke did -- was a matter of principle. (Interactive: Bush and terrorism)

Earlier, the White House had offered a compromise, proposing to have Rice give a private, unsworn rebuttal. But several commissioners said Rice should give public, sworn testimony if she wanted to rebut Clarke's criticism.

"A major part of our duty is to see to it that everything possible is released to the general public, and no compromise on a private visit by Condoleezza Rice is going to satisfy that need," former Sen. Slade Gorton, one of the commissioners, told CNN.

And Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle called on the White House to end what he called a campaign of "character assassination and retribution" by its supporters against Clarke, whose allegations are also detailed in a new book.

"The commission should declassify Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony -- all of it, not just the parts the White House wants -- and Dr. Rice should testify before the 9/11 commission, and she should be under oath and in public," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.

The White House also said the full commission will be allowed to meet privately with both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on similar conditions.

Earlier, the administration had agreed to let only the commission's chairman and vice chairman meet with Bush and Cheney.

In February, Rice spoke privately with commissioners for several hours.

During her earlier testimony, Rice was not under oath, and there are no transcripts of her session. The only records of the session are notes taken by commissioners and White House staffers, sources said.

Getting to agreement
White House lawyers and officials have had several conversations with the commission. As of late Monday, no agreement had been reached, according to two sources. Earlier in the day, a commission official said the panel was still hopeful that the White House would relent and allow public testimony from Rice.

Spokesmen for both the 9/11 commission and the National Security Council would not confirm that discussions were taking place between the White House and the commission to release portions of Rice's previous statement.

Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said Rice's February comments would remain classified unless that status was changed by a government classification committee. Her original, private interview would be treated in the same way as those of more than 1,000 people who have met with the commission in private sessions, he said.

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the NSC, said the classification committee is made up of full-time government employees who are called upon to conduct reviews. While Rice would have no role in the process, NSC staffers would be involved, he said.

"Whenever Dr. Rice talks to the commission, both in the past and the present, we want her input reflected in the public report, certainly within the bounds of the classification system," McCormack said.

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts had planned to introduce a resolution calling on the White House to let Rice testify publicly before the commission, saying it is "essential" for "a full accounting of the events preceding and following" 9/11.

Senate Republicans had said they were confident they could block that resolution from coming to a vote.

The 9/11 commission is scheduled to issue a public report outlining its findings by late July.

CNN's Dana Bash, Suzanne Malveaux, John King and Steve Turnham contributed to this report.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/30/04 at 12:11pm

The Rice as VP rumor does surface repeatedly (along with the Rudy G to the rescue buzz). I do think dumping Cheney remains an option, under the Rove table, since Dick's infamously infirm ticker provides a handy excuse and no one loses face. But if Bush continues to climb back in the polls, they will feel confident again, and perhaps not require Draconian measures.

Folks, it's still early. Everyone knew Kerry would get a bump, and that bump has ebbed. But there's a dead heat in the battleground states, and there's much to come.

I try to be optimistic, and don't want to commit to computer space any dark prognostications, but it feels like we have gone from a post 9/11 world to a post-Madrid world. This will be an election year unlike any other, and I'm more frightened of the next 9 months than any other era since the autumn of 01.

[Lorelai]

Posted: 4/3/04 at 8:42pm

I've been sick lately so not really keeping up on the news, so I did miss her on, well, pretty much every news show. But I did read a bit of the article that Time Magazine did on her (she is on the cover on the current issue). I'm going to make a point to try to catch up on all I missed, but I just wanted respond partially.

I am guessing that the borderline personality was a joke, right? (see below) I do not agree with that at all. There is no way she could be with her job.
"An individual trait that reflects ingrained, inflexible, and maladaptive patterns of behavior characterized by impulsive and unpredictable actions, mood instability, and unstable interpersonal relationships."

I did see her on Meet the Press a few months ago and I was very impressed with how she handled the interview. No doubt that she is extremely intelligent and I think I read somewhere that she had/has her eyes set to become the Defense Secretary??

Anyway, she's getting it from all sides, Bush pretty much waived her Executive privilege, making her fair game for all sorts of awful things. One article said the White House is granting this waiver with the understanding that "no more public testimony from any White House official would be requested." It feels like she's become the a sacrificial lamb for this administration, so to speak.

I've heard, through friands, that she always gives 110% when it comes to her job, she's just very focused and "all about the job". Whatever political views I may have, I give her credit because she seems to be handling things well when it comes to this topic. It takes a strong person to deal with all of this.

I do not envy her in the days to come. Either she will brilliantly survive this or ir will ruin her career..I just don't think this is going to reach any kind of a middle ground, but that's just me.