Condoleezza Testifies!

It held top spot for years until the advent of Condi, Rummy and the guys

Lusitania, liner under British registration, sunk off the Irish coast by a German submarine on May 7, 1915. In the sinking, 1,198 persons lost their lives, 128 of whom were U.S. citizens. A warning to Americans against taking passage on British vessels, signed by the Imperial German Embassy, appeared in morning papers on the day the vessel was scheduled to sail from New York, but too late to accomplish its purpose. The vessel was unarmed, though the Germans made a point of the fact that it carried munitions for the Allies. The considerable sympathy for Germany that had previously existed in the United States to a large extent disappeared after the disaster, and there were demands from many for an immediate declaration of war. President Wilson chose the course of diplomacy and sent Germany a strong note asking for “reparation so far as reparation is possible.” Germany refused to accept responsibility for the act in an argumentative reply, but issued secret orders to submarine commanders not to attack passenger ships without warning. After prolonged negotiations, Germany finally conceded its liability for the sinking of the Lusitania and agreed to make reparations and to discontinue sinking passenger ships without warning. The immediate crisis between the United States and Germany subsided. The incident, however, contributed to the rise of American sentiment for the entry of the United States into World War I, with recruitment posters two years later urging potential enlistees to “Remember the Lusitania!”

My bold, which is obviously the point she's trying to make. But the point that Tracer brings up is the involuntary self expression bit...

...or pretty much anything but looking cross or scowling.

here's one -- not too flattering

I like this one. looks like a teaser poster for an Exorcist movie starring her, like she's fully aware of the unholy task ahead of her.

Obie would hit it.

Also, her voice keeps wavering. She's nervous. She's going down!

etc.

Her position: "There's nothing we could have done. The plans for 9/11 were already in place, and there was nothing specific enough for us to act on".

Their position: "But what were you doing, given the information you did have (provided by the Clinton administration). Why the lag time in activity?

I'll check the fact-checking of the fact-checking when I get a chance later.

On the other hand, clearly the Bush administration didn't come into office hell-bent on shaping up our anti-terrorism efforts. Their priorities were things like breaking the ABS treaty with Russia so we could do Star Wars testing and figuring out some way to go after Saddam. If they had really knocked heads together and forced greater intelligence cooperation, it's just conceivable that 9/11 could have been foiled. (After all, some of the terrorists came into the country after their names were already on known-terrorist watch lists.) However, it's debatable whether their failure to do that is especially blameworthy in comparison with the behaviour of previous administrations. Their failures with respect to pre-9/11 anti-terrorism were most likely systemic - matters of priorities - and not a case of overlooking a specific piece of intelligence.

I have no problem with him doing this.

Again, what I have a problem with is his (and others') grandstanding.

He did not need to tell her that he was impressed with the life she's led. He did not need to validate his line of questioning by saying that he support an invasion of Iraq. None of that was relevant, nor did it do anything to reveal her intentions. Her words revealed her intentions, not his. He only said that shit because he ego was having an erection in front of the cameras (and he wasn't the only one--the same goes for the shameless posturing by nearly everyone else.) I liked his questions (as my first post in this thread indicated.)

As for the fact-checking of the fact-checking, it's probably a bit of a yellow stream war.

Your pal the television-less one, scott

Your pal the television-less one, scott

The segment ends with a little montage of Condi shifting responsibility to various departments and agencies, and then Stewart wistfully mutters: "Damn... other people."

I was happy that they managed to deal with the footage the same day, rather than waiting till Monday.

Sounds like one might have

That's quite a stretch gabb... but an interesting one, I'll grant you. "Look babe, it's not that you're ugly, it's just your size is challenging my gender role paradigm."

I don't understand. Americans should be held accountable for creating Al Qaeda? Which ones? How is this relevant to the work of the 9/11 Commission?

I'm just saying that ignoring the roots of Al Qaeda, as something U.S. policy helped give birth to, seems relevant when we are looking to cast blame, or more importantly, watching who we 'arm' in the future. Given, it might be otside the scope of the commission, but I'd count giving arms to bin Laden as an intelligence failure of sorts.

again, I'm not sure I understand. "media conspiracy"?

Okay, let's try: the implication that the Bush administration is causing or hyping another story in order to push down negative headlines sounds quite similar to things said about the Clinton administration. Both strike me as partisanship gone looney.

yeah, Kerrey is a fuckhead for being so stridently anti-union (for gods' sake, his anti-union lawyers are from the same firm that represented the Boy Scouts when they tried to ban gays!). however i like him more than a lot of my fellow students. his heart is in the right place, as his passionate cross-examination of Condi showed.

true he did fuck up a bunch of people in 'nam, but i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt insofar as such a thing is possible

but yeah.. New School rocks.. true NYU owns EVERYTHING around us the motherfuckers.. but is THEIR president working on a federal subcommittee to discover the darkest truth in our nation's recent history? i think not..

sorry.. intoxicated post writing = bads. but yeah. Condi is not a bad person per se but she was certainly fucked in this examination. BushCo has a lot to answer for...

go New School

Hmm.

Also noteworthy - Rasmussen is a Republican pollster. Though its Prez tracking poll has been roughly accurate as to trends. I think they may push Bush leaners harder than Kerry leaners. And I read (but haven't verified) that the respondents in one of these polls (this isn't the only one showing people trusting Condi over Clarke) were 73% Republican, more than twice their representation among registered voters. Though if Rasmussen polled their Presidential tracking people, that's definitely not this one.

I also believe that 71% of respondents (who probably are registered or likely voters, not Americans, though I haven't checked) paid attention to the testimony. Supposedly 60% of Americans are following the election closely.

Polling is rather unscientific to begin with--drawing conclusions is, anyway. I have no idea what sort of reputation that company has. According to the information they provided, the polling procedure looks believable, but I didn't notice the questions anywhere. The questions themselves are pretty vital to drawing conclusions, so I'm suspicious.

I'm suspicious of polling as a source of news, and given that a vast majority of Americans do not know who Rice is, or what her role in government is, or what her role was pre-9/11, I really don't see this kind of popularity poll as having relevance to anyone other than those who hungrily devour scorecards in the name of partisan conquest.

Clarke is very subtle in both his speech and his writing

Are you saying that only smart people understand Clarke? The dummies believe Rice because they understand what she says and what she writes?

My favorite thing about the "people are easily misled" argument is the implicit "except for me!" This is why I use it so much.

(xpost)
I really don't see this kind of popularity poll as having relevance to anyone other than those who hungrily devour scorecards in the name of partisan conquest.

That was exactly my thought when I looked at the link.

I think that Clarke says many things implicitly, and that it's easier to get his point if you are sensitive to this form of speech. I'm not saying that "smart" people are more sensitive to it, but they may be. Many "smart" people probably don't get it. I also think that people who don't parse words are more likely to believe Rice. Most people, including "smart" people, don't. Those who do may include "dummies". Being predisposed to disbelieve her, or being predisposed to believe Clarke, of course, increases the likelihood that one will parse her words or be sensitive to the implications in his. Sometime later I'll come up with an example of his dryness.

Still, you're making a very broad assumption in this statement, and it seems a bit tied towards who you believe in the matter. Which is fine.

The debate over Ressam's capture encapsulates the controversy between Clarke and the Bush administration over which president — Clinton or Bush — took the threat of al-Qaida more seriously, and whether either administration did enough before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Disputing Clarke's claim, Rice testified customs agents "weren't actually on alert."

At least one of the agents who helped apprehend Ressam sides with Rice's version of events.

Moreover, others involved in the Ressam case say Clarke's book contains factual errors and wrongly implies national-security officials knew of Ressam's plan to set a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport long before they actually did.

Maybe some of the things Clarke says implicitly aren't so hard to understand. Maybe some of them are just wrong.

Rice: I believe you've had access to this PDB--exceptional access. But let me address your question.
Ben-Veniste: Nor could we, prior to today, reveal the title of that PDB.

The title of that PDB, and most of the details that Rice rehashed last week, were published by the WaPost on May 19, 2002. Are we supposed to take this commission's findings seriously when they apparently don't even read the newspaper or do their homework?

Was it "shaking trees" or shaking knees that led to the arrest of convicted millennium terrorist Ahmed Ressam?

Clarke has never said that "shaking the trees" led to Ressam's capture. "Shaking the trees" refers to shaking out the pieces of intelligence collected in the branches of CIA, FBI, etc., that have not been passed up through their respective directors to each other and to the administration. He wanted the Bush admin to shake the trees so that, for instance, Mueller and Tenet would have reported back what each knew about Khalid Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, and that Mueller would report back on Moussaoui and the Phoenix memo. Clarke says that Clinton's shaking the trees led to the disruption of the millenium bomb plot (referring not to LAX but to all of the multiple millenium targets, some of which were discovered and thwarted, thus thwarting the whole plot), but he has made clear in interviews that this shaking of the trees occurred after Ressam was captured, not before.

Additionally, the article deserves some parsing...

Disputing Clarke's claim, Rice testified customs agents "weren't actually on alert."

I don't know what Clarke's claim is. His book can certainly be read to give the impression that the customs agent in question had received the alert put out by the administration. But it can also be read to give the opposite impression. It may depend on how carefully you read. Before describing the capture, he says that the "message went overseas, but also to all federal law enforcement agents, as well as many county sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, and city cops." Are customs agents on that list? I'm not sure. Immediately thereafter, he says, "[t]he break came in an unlikely location." Is Washington State unlikely? A ferry terminal? Or is a customs office unlikely because a customs officer was not warned by the admin?

Additionally, Rice's testimony - "[not] on alert" - is a characterization. I treat it with as much weight as another characterization she made - "historical".

At least one of the agents who helped apprehend Ressam sides with Rice's version of events.

He's reporting from one source? Someone whose job may be on the line right now?

Moreover, others involved in the Ressam case say Clarke's book contains factual errors and wrongly implies national-security officials knew of Ressam's plan to set a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport long before they actually did.

The article, written by one of the guys who covered the Ressam capture in a multiple-part series for the Seattle Times, does point out some factual errors in Clarke's account of the capture, and they are worthy of note. Perhaps he has made other errors in the book. But, as Carter says of those errors, "[s]ome of them are minor." Nevertheless, those who don't like Clarke's message would like us to infer from the fact that Clarke got wrong whether Ressam's car was on the ferry or on the dock when he ran that he is not credible on his central accusation that the administration didn't take Al Qaeda seriously before 9/11, because it regarded only state sponsors of terrorism as dangerous, or his accusation that the administration has largely continued to follow this model after 9/11, attacking people who don't threaten us but failing to take out those who do. This despite the fact that mainstream media has reported that members of the intelligence community and the administration itself largely concede the accuracy of his narrative.

Are we supposed to take this commission's findings seriously when they apparently don't even read the newspaper or do their homework?

This does sound like an error (which is it - a failure to "do [his] homework" or a "lie"?) on Ben-Veniste's part, but I'm not so sure - are you certain that the Commissioners were allowed to reveal the title of the still-classified PDB, even if it had previously been published? Do you have the relevant statute? Am I really supposed to infer from the fact that he's unaware of the press coverage of the PDB that he hasn't done his "homework" about, for instance, what intelligence there was at the time?

This is void of logic. Any Commissioner at any time could cite published information. I have no idea of a relevant statute, but I am confident that published information is indicative of whether or not the title of the PDB was releaseable or not. Are you intimating that Woodward and the WaPo didn't have permission to release the title of that PDB?

Am I really supposed to infer from the fact that he's unaware of the press coverage of the PDB that he hasn't done his "homework" about, for instance, what intelligence there was at the time?

If Ben-Veniste was not aware of that press coverage, then he's not doing his job. And if he can't be bothered to do a simple Lexis-Nexis search of something like this, then I begin to question his intentions. If we are entrusting the Commission to finding answers, then I think it's reasonable to expect they would ask questions that cannot be answered by the newspaper nearly two years ago.