I’ve only been half-listening to the 9/11 commission this morning, and it seems like Ben-Veniste was treating Condi like this was a criminal investigation, i.e., cutting her off once she gave an incriminating answer so that she couldn’t qualify it. IIRC he also made a comment the other day about being willing to trade another commissioner’s time with Rumsfeld if he could have the other commissioner’s time with Condi. Does he think that Condi was most culpable in the intelligence failures? Angry that she wouldn’t testify? Anyone care to speculate?
Rice is the weak link in the 9/11 and Iraqi war failures. She was hired only to be a figurehead and was never given any real authority or inside information to match her title. She is the fall gal for when things get really messy. She seems to partially know this. E.g., she wanted to either testify in public or privately under oath, but not publicly under oath.
So the strategy of those trying to get to the bottom of things is to pressure Rice all the way. She will try to prevaricate as much as possible.* E.g., put a lot of extraneous qualifiers on her answers. If you force her to answer only the question asked she will either have to lie or spill the beans. I suspect she’ll realize her best interests are to let all she knows out and let the others take the fall instead.
In all political scandals, you look for your John Dean: someone well placed who knew (some of) what was going on, realized that if he didn’t cooperate he’d end up doing hard time, and was eventually bothered by the sleaze that even he can’t take it anymore. From then on it’s like dominoes.
The 9/11 commission already knows a lot of bad stuff happened pre and post-9/11, but having a current insider testify under oath to it would seal the deal.
*E.g., the standard Bush denial: “If I had known that they were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC, I would have stopped them.” Umm, why is the specific target mentioned? Why the “and” at all? Classic Watergate style answer-that-isn’t-an-answer.
When you say “weak link” do you mean the culpability rested most on whomever was the national security advisor or Condoleeza herself? It sounds as if she wasn’t given the authority anyway. Why wouldn’t Rumsfeld or Powell been as good a target? Thanks.
Dr. Rice knew that each commissioner had 15 minutes to grill her. Thus, if she could waste time talking in circles and trying to mitigate her actions, she could slip through the interview without saying anything useful. Stall, stall, stall. She tried repeatedly the wiggle out of responsibility by blaming Clarke. He gave me lots of information, but he didn’t tell me what to do with it, she said. Back up. Rice was Clarke’s boss! Why should Clarke tell her what to do? That’s her job.
You can delegate authority, but you can never delegate responsibility.
I think ftg is referring to the fact that, as the National Security Advisor, all information regarding national security had to go through her, so she could help the President process the various threats and rumors and whatnot. Rumsfeld and Powell are in the military branch of the federal tree, and wouldn’t have as much exposure to the raw data as Rice did.
I don’t know, but I’ll bet it has NOTHING to do with the reason I’ve got a hard-on for Condi.
“Weak link” as in the one most likely to stop lying and start telling the truth.
The video clips of her and the articles I’ve read of her testimony shows her doing a lot of dancing around issues. Alway tacking on extra qualifications that seem unnecessary, hemming and hawing. Clearly trying to avoid answering questions.
As someone who watched a lot of Watergate hearings, this doesn’t look good at all. Nope, no way.
She is highly spoken of by James Mann in Rise of the Vulcans and he is certainly no conservative.
I don’t know, but I’ll bet it has NOTHING to do with the reason I’ve got a hard-on for Condi.
I would too if I were a guy. Smart, classy, balls of steel: gotta love her.
As one who thinks there’s plenty of responsiblity to go around, going way back, no, it still doesn’t look good at all.
Remembering the Watergate hearings (gruelling and scary), the way things aren’t said matters almost as much as what is said. In more recent times, Clinton f’rinstance, evasions can be amazingly eloquent.
As far as tough grilling goes, anybody who plays politics at that level had better be prepared for the fire. It goes with the territory. IMO 9-11 rates tough examination, in order for the country to learn from past mistakes, if nothing else. Of course political blame and fingerpointing will be dragged into it, but the actual issue is crucial.
before 9-11 if you asked the average person (who had a clue who bin lauden (sp)is) on the street what would a-q most want to target in the us, wtt would be your first answer, second would be white house or capital hill.
obl was obsessed with those towers. just as gwb was obsessed with iraq. imo
gwb would have loved to go after iraq the day after he was inag.ed. obl was gonna go after those towers every chance he got.
interesting that both got their wishes. i guess the devil does get to answer prayers every now and then.
Is this because she has more integrity than Rummy and Powell or knows more (or both)?
Why is Ben-V being so hard on Condi?
Well, here’s a clue. He went to the epicenter of geeky nerdiness, Stuyvesant H.S. – when it was all-boys no less! That explains why he has zero social skills around members of the opposite sex. In fact, he probably thinks he’s flirting.
[grinny here]
~ stuyguy (whose been there himself)
Is this the same Ben-Veniste who was Assistant Special Prosecutor to Jaworkski in the Watergate cases?
Yes. And that may explain things – he thinks he’s trying to implicate someone in obstruction of justice or conspiracy or some such thing.
It’s ridiculous for anyone to compare this to Watergate–there’s no allegation or insinuation (at least from credible sources) of any criminal activity.