streamed at http://www.yahoo.com/
middle right side of page...

Did this Timothy Roemer want her to answer any questions or is he only there to grill her and interrupt her when she tries to answer? When she gets a word in edgewise, he pretends she's responding to a different question than the one she was asked.

I thought this was supposed to be something real - now I realize it's just another partisan witch-hunt by the loser Democrats. What a bunch of :bs:

"Dr. Rice, considering one of the terrorists was your boyfriend and you helped him plan 9-11, do you now intend to file for his Social Security benefits?"

"Dr. Rice, how did you feel after you flew those planes into the World Trade Center?"

:duh:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
"Dr. Rice, considering one of the terrorists was your boyfriend and you helped him plan 9-11, do you now intend to file for his Social Security benefits?"


Please tell me that was not really one of the questions asked.

Originally posted by Toxick
Please tell me that was not really one of the questions asked. Well, no - but this guy just kept coming across with a bunch of accusations and, when Rice tried to answer or correct him, he'd interrupt her and go on to another accusation.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Well, no - but this guy just kept coming across with a bunch of accusations and, when Rice tried to answer or correct him, he'd interrupt her and go on to another accusation.

That was hardly the case. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
That was hardly the case. I have a transcript that says you're wrong:

http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html

Did you happen to catch Bob Kerrey's grilling of Dr. Rice? He started off by saying he believes military ops in Iraq are way off track and there's no chance of success over there. In fact, several of the partisan nutballs gave soapbox commentary instead of simply asking questions and letting her answer them.

KERREY: Let me move to another area.

RICE: May I finish answering your question, though, because this is an important...

KERREY: I know it's important. Everything that's going on here is important. But I get 10 minutes.

RICE: But since we have a point of disagreement, I'd like to have a chance to address it.

KERREY: Well, no, no, actually, we have many points of disagreement, Dr. Clarke, but we'll have a chance to do in closed session. Please don't filibuster me. It's not fair. It is not fair. I have been polite. I have been courteous. It is not fair to me.

(APPLAUSE)

I understand that we have a disagreement.

RICE: Commissioner, I am here to answer questions. And you've asked me a question, and I'd like to have an opportunity to answer it.

RICE: And I take it very seriously. I know that those who attacked us that day _ and attacked us, by the way, because of who we are, no other reason, but for who we are _ that they are the responsible party for the war that they launched against us...

ROEMER: But Dr. Rice...

RICE: ... the attacks that they made, and that our responsibility...

ROEMER: You have said several times...

RICE: ... that our responsibility is to...

ROEMER: You have said several times that your responsibility, being in office for 230 days, was to defend and protect the United States.

RICE: Of course.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I have a transcript that says you're wrong:

http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/rice.html

Did you happen to catch Bob Kerrey's grilling of Dr. Rice? He started off by saying he believes military ops in Iraq are way off track and there's no chance of success over there. In fact, several of the partisan nutballs gave soapbox commentary instead of simply asking questions and letting her answer them.

I did see this and had a little chuckle along the way. I dont see where any of your exaggerations are however.

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6th, of the existence of al-Qaida cells in the United States?

RICE: First, let me just make certain ...

BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it's important ...

BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president ...

RICE: ... that I also address ...

(APPLAUSE)

It's also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you'll just give me a moment.

BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you ...

RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will ...

BEN-VENISTE: ... told the president.

RICE: If you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.

BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

RICE: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

Now, the ...

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste ...

BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the ...

RICE: I would like to finish my point here.

BEN-VENISTE: I didn't know there was a point.

RICE: Given that _ you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.

BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
I did see this and had a little chuckle along the way. I don't find it amusing at all. This was supposed to be a serious security hearing, not an opportunity to smack a Republican around. Ben-Veniste, Kerrey and Roemer turned it into a partisan circus and I'm embarrassed that American people are so retarded that they'd even elect these bickering children to public office in the first place.

Typical political lawyer style slam job. Ask a yes or no question that does not adequately describe the situation and then run over the answer that you didn't really want to begin with. Seems to me that this world would work better if we all remembered we have twice as many ears as mouths and so should listen twice as much as we talk.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I don't find it amusing at all. This was supposed to be a serious security hearing, not an opportunity to smack a Republican around. Ben-Veniste, Kerrey and Roemer turned it into a partisan circus and I'm embarrassed that American people are so retarded that they'd even elect these bickering children to public office in the first place.

It hurts when something you believe isnt so believeable when confronted.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
It hurts when something you believe isnt so believeable when confronted. Why? Did you believe the Democrats were really going to conduct a fair and impartial hearing? Did you believe they were honestly interested in finding the breakdown that allowed 9-11?

It's okay, Buddy - don't be hurt. I used to believe these folks had the best interests of the country at heart, too. :poorbaby:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Why? Did you believe the Democrats were really going to conduct a fair and impartial hearing? Did you believe they were honestly interested in finding the breakdown that allowed 9-11?

It's okay, Buddy - don't be hurt. I used to believe these folks had the best interests of the country at heart, too. :poorbaby:

I think it was non-partisan as they said it was. Dont be so quick on the defense when someone attacks your party, otherwise your no better than the dems.:wink:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
I think it was non-partisan as they said it was. I think the transcript speaks for itself as to the partisanship of some of the commission members.

Dont be so quick on the defense when someone attacks your party Let's see - "Don't go on the defense when you're attacked." Very interesting.

Can you honestly say that the republicans would have just sat around. I think not. They got in an uproar over a lie about a blow job. They would have been just as bad if that's what you think the dems were doing to Rice today. I think it was good that they used force in their questioning.

If you want to say this was a partisan event then go ahead. The dems had their fun in attacking (according to you) but the republicans were also being partisan in that they just asked the soft questions to Rice and paved a nice happy brick road for her to cruise on.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I think the transcript speaks for itself as to the partisanship of some of the commission members.

Let's see - "Don't go on the defense when you're attacked." Very interesting.

Who was attacking her? No one!

Dont make that little tidbit a big controversy.:bonk:

If I was her...after 3 or 4 times of them doing what was quoted here from the transcripts.

I would have eventually stood up and said, "Look you creepy little bastards. If you want to know what happened pre 9/11, I'll tell you. If you don't want to know and you just want to sit here and ignore my responses just so you can throw mud on this administration, then I'm not going to testify any longer. Please give President Bush a call when you're ready."

And then I woulda walked out.

Did anyone notice that she kept stating that Richard Clarke never told her what to do with the information he provided her? She was his boss not the other way around!!

However, I think that this commission is focusing on the wrong thing. Instead of finding out who knew what when we should be asking the hard questions of what did you think you did wrong and how would you make sure it doesn't happen again? What have you done to TRY to prevent such a thing from happening again?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
They got in an uproar over a lie about a blow job. Don't make me go over the Paula Jones story again, please. The uproar wasn't over lying about a bj - the uproar was lying to a Grand Jury to deny a harrassment victim her day in court. It was about perjury (which is a crime) and it was about him putting pressure on others to commit perjury on his behalf, which is abuse of power.

the republicans were also being partisan in that they just asked the soft questions to Rice and paved a nice happy brick road for her to cruise on. I disagree. I saw them asking her pertinent questions, then letting her answer them fully. The Democrats acted like cheap Hollywood lawyers, barraging her with questions, then refusing to let her answer or clarify.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Don't make me go over the Paula Jones story again, please. The uproar wasn't over lying about a bj - the uproar was lying to a Grand Jury to deny a harrassment victim her day in court. It was about perjury (which is a crime) and it was about him putting pressure on others to commit perjury on his behalf, which is abuse of power.

I disagree. I saw them asking her pertinent questions, then letting her answer them fully. The Democrats acted like cheap Hollywood lawyers, barraging her with questions, then refusing to let her answer or clarify.

Its a shame that Bush has not been charged for his lies. I see we both disagree on what we percieved earlier today. I saw it as them asking her questions and trying to get answers to little or no avail. You saw it as them barraging her with accusations.

Originally posted by alex
Did anyone notice that she kept stating that Richard Clarke never told her what to do with the information he provided her? She was his boss not the other way around!! Okay, but keep in mind that she had just taken the office 8 months prior and certainly wasn't up to speed on everything yet. Clarke had been the security and terrorism dude since May 1998 and would have had a much better handle on things than she would have. It was up to him to keep her briefed and he obviously didn't do that, by his own testimony and the testimony of Sandy Berger.

what did you think you did wrong and how would you make sure it doesn't happen again? One of them did ask her that and she said that communication issues between the CIA and the FBI were the problem. Had the CIA shared it's information with the FBI, the Fibbies could have known better what to look for.

She also said that, upon taking office, Bush was pushing to get these guys to work together for better intel gathering. It was just too late to prevent 9-11.

She also shared "chatter" that was picked up by Intel - the problem is it was inconclusive. Didn't say where, how, when or anything substantial. Short of rounding up all Muslims in America and putting them in concentration camps, there wasn't a whole lot they could do.

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Its a shame that Bush has not been charged for his lies. What lies?

Is there any chance that since the Repubs were pressured into putting Rice on the stand, that we might get to put Mr. Clinton on the stand?

Originally posted by sleuth14
Is there any chance that since the Repubs were pressured into putting Rice on the stand, that we might get to put Mr. Clinton on the stand?

Neither the democrats nor the media will ever allow that to happen. The enormous fracas that would ensue at the very suggestion would cause the mind to boggle.


I can see James Carville clutching his chest in apoplectic shock already.

Originally posted by sleuth14
Is there any chance that since the Repubs were pressured into putting Rice on the stand, that we might get to put Mr. Clinton on the stand? We already know Clinton has no problem lying under oath, so I'm not sure what good putting him on the stand would be. Besides, Sandy Berger was the NSA back then so he'd know more about it than Clinton anyway.

Originally posted by sleuth14
Is there any chance that since the Repubs were pressured into putting Rice on the stand, that we might get to put Mr. Clinton on the stand?

He already testified (behind closed doors) as will GWB.

And here's some food for thought. What IF GWB in crew had the inside info and attempted to put stricter surveillance, screening, restrictions on Muslims in or trying to come in to this country? :confused: How fast do you think the ACLU and every other free for all organization out there would have put the kabash on any of those attempts? :shrug:

I am still of the opinion that these hearings and the frothing at the mouth Ted Kennedy types, are fueling the fire of all these Islamic radicals and boosting their morale to continue to kill as many Americans as well as those citizens from countries who support us.

Yeah, who knew what and when? It was an inherited problem by the Bush administration. Could anyone have stopped 9/11? Doubt it, it was an unparalleled attack of the type never before seen. Not enough had been done over the years to prevent it.

Clinton gave the CIA authority to take out bin Laden “by any means” somewhere around the spring of 1996. Clinton knew he was a threat and what did he do in the 5 remaining years in office? Not a darn thing. He did however initiate a visa express program with Saudi Arabia and where was it that 15 of the 19 hijackers visas indicated that they had come from?

Today we have agencies sharing information that didn’t happen before. We have taken the fight to the Taliban and are actually seeking bin Laden. We have taken out another major sore and will continue to clean up the leftovers that are acting up. We have had Libya see what could happen to them and they have disclosed their weapons programs and those that assisted them. Seems to me like we are now doing something about how we had fallen asleep on security issues over the years. After all, we can't go back and make it not happen.

Originally posted by Christy
And here's some food for thought. What IF GWB in crew had the inside info and attempted to put stricter surveillance, screening, restrictions on Muslims in or trying to come in to this country? :confused: How fast do you think the ACLU and every other free for all organization out there would have put the kabash on any of those attempts?
See, that's another thing that burns me up. The Dems keep harping that there wasn't enough done to prevent the attacks, but every time some Middle Easterner so much as gets searched at the airport, they scream "racial profiling" and lose their minds. :ohwell:

Plus that, these are the same folks who pizz and moan about "pre-emptive strikes" on Iraq. The whole thing is crazy.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, but keep in mind that she had just taken the office 8 months prior and certainly wasn't up to speed on everything yet. Clarke had been the security and terrorism dude since May 1998 and would have had a much better handle on things than she would have. It was up to him to keep her briefed and he obviously didn't do that, by his own testimony and the testimony of Sandy Berger.

One of them did ask her that and she said that communication issues between the CIA and the FBI were the problem. Had the CIA shared it's information with the FBI, the Fibbies could have known better what to look for.

She also said that, upon taking office, Bush was pushing to get these guys to work together for better intel gathering. It was just too late to prevent 9-11.

She also shared "chatter" that was picked up by Intel - the problem is it was inconclusive. Didn't say where, how, when or anything substantial. Short of rounding up all Muslims in America and putting them in concentration camps, there wasn't a whole lot they could do.

As they said the buck stops at the president. We can not blame the president for this matter or we will be blaming alot of other people. Its seems to me that you are trying to blame Clarke who supposidly told Rice about these up and coming events and wanted to urgently speak to the president to no avail. Rice was Clarke's boss the blame should go to her because she should have known better. If she was not prepared to handle this job then she should not have taken it. Eight months sure is a long time to fiddle around.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
We already know Clinton has no problem lying under oath, so I'm not sure what good putting him on the stand would be. Besides, Sandy Berger was the NSA back then so he'd know more about it than Clinton anyway.

What do you expect from a politician let alone a lawyer:shrug:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Eight months sure is a long time to fiddle around. So is eight years. :bubble:

Here's what I'd like to know: Why didn't we have a commission to find out how the first WTC bombing happened and what we could have done to prevent it?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
So is eight years. :bubble:


Good point and this is why we should not single out just one person in particular. We all failed on that day and now we need to figure out how to succeed in the matter of terrorism.:smile:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Here's what I'd like to know: Why didn't we have a commission to find out how the first WTC bombing happened and what we could have done to prevent it?


I think Rice would say that it was a 'tit tat' incident.:wink:

Besides 3,000 innocent civilians did not die.

CNN has Zbigniew Brzezinski on as their "security expert", giving his take on Condi's testimony today. He's not being very favorable toward her - surprise surprise.

:killingme

Apparently Aaron Brown forgot that ZB didn't do such a hot job on his own watch and has a lot of nerve criticizing someone else.

:killingme

http://www.orient.art.pl/bin-Laden-Brzezinski300.jpg

Lest anyone forget how bin Laden got his start.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
http://www.orient.art.pl/bin-Laden-Brzezinski300.jpg

Who is that?:confused:

Grizzly Adams in Soviet attire?:confused:

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Who is that? That, my friend, is Jimmy Carter's security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, with his new buddy, Osama bin Laden.

Back in 1979, Russia invaded Afghanistan and Brzezinski thought it would be a good idea to arm and train the Mujahadeen (which included Monsieur bin Laden) to kick the Russkies back out. After the Russians got gone, bin Laden formed Al Qaeda and the rest is history.

To be fair, I should also have a picture of Bill Clark, who was Reagan's security advisor, with bin Laden. This is a classic example of how things can come back to bite you.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That, my friend, is Jimmy Carter's security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, with his new buddy, Osama bin Laden.

Back in 1979, Russia invaded Afghanistan and Brzezinski thought it would be a good idea to arm and train the Mujahadeen (which included Monsieur bin Laden) to kick the Russkies back out. After the Russians got gone, bin Laden formed Al Qaeda and the rest is history.

To be fair, I should also have a picture of Bill Clark, who was Reagan's security advisor, with bin Laden. This is a classic example of how things can come back to bite you.

I often wonder when our day will come when we are not the world's leading nation.