My Photo

« Thin | Main | Last post 'till evening (from me) »

April 08, 2004

Comments

Von, well said. Condi lacks Clarke's gravitas -- and that's showbiz, nothing else -- and she raced thru her statement at a too rapid clip, a rookie error. But all in all, she did a good job under a lot of pressure.

But the postgame analysis is all about the PDB, the title, the info inside re AQ plans to hijack a plane in hopes of getting prisoners released. That was Kerrey's best moment, and Condi's worst. And it will lead the evening news tonight. Which is not good for the admin.

But given what's going on in Iraq, this isn't the big story. Last night saw a panel of generals on ML hour suggesting the country was falling into chaos. It's grim, it's getting grimmer.

I think Dr. Rice did pretty well.

Von's comment about not changing the minds of true believer hit it on the head...although you could feel the ripple the title of the PDB made...

Given what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, though, she should really be let free to go back to work now.

Mitch McConnell just took to the floor to....attack the 9/11 panel as nothing more than a platform for interest groups to attack the Prez.

God, I love Republicans. Can we get that into a campaign ad?

I still want to know what the differences were between Clarke's memo of 1/25 and the plan adopted on 9/4. (I also thought that the point made about the lack of information making its way down the chain in the FBI to the field offices, combined with the lack of followup from Rice et al. was damaging).

Here's what I think the issue is.

Clarke's original memo and the final memo were quite similar.

Meanwhile, there were other diplomatic efforts going on as part of the broader context, led by Powell and Armitage. These efforts weren't necessarily documented as part of the NPSD.

No structural reform was underway, and counterterrorism was deprioritized.

I took the Republican's harder question as payback for stalling so long on the public testimony.

I took the Republican's harder question as payback for stalling so long on the public testimony.

That might be it, but I tend to think that they would've put that aside.

I wouldn't be so sure about the admin. releasing the PDB. They want this story gone. There is more important news coming out of Iraq. And they want this story gone.

Condi's testimony wasn't the beginning of cooperation from the WH. It was the end.

Mark's scenario serves as a good description of the par for course.

You think? Couldn't you see a scenario where the issue of releasing that PDB makes headlines for a few days, puts pressure on the admin, etc? It was Kean who made sure to bring it up at the end, after all.

I wouldn't be so sure about the admin. releasing the PDB. They want this story gone.

If they want the story gone, they should release the PDB. (Haven't they learned this lesson yet?) If they resist, the 9-11 committee may revolt (note that Kean is leading the charge.)

I think that the Republicans are genuinely interested in finding out what happened. The memo pretty much made them realize that if Bush had some smidgen of an idea on what was happening at the time, it would be bad for the party to follow him to the bitter end. That is going to knock several points off of his popularity, and at this point, we liberals are smelling blood.

Rice seems to have lied a lot - but what else is new?

I personally would not think of Bob Kerrey as partisan. While a Democrat, he was pratically a McCain in most ways and was very independent.

I personally would not think of Bob Kerrey as partisan. While a Democrat, he was pratically a McCain in most ways and was very independent.

Well, Rice didn't break down and cry, so I guess that's a kind of success, considering the carnage wrought by her incompetence. If we can set aside mere image for now...

You leave out how many opportunities Republicans gave her to show how ignorant she was of her responsibilities. So, no, you're wrong: the GOP types on the panel weren't less partisan.

Honestly, how is the GOP giving her a pass on this, and the Dem.'s challenging the failures, a sign of the latter's "partisanship"? Things inconvenient to failures aren't "partisan," irregardless of their parties, because planes flying into buildings don't care what your party is.

In the meantime, Iraq has been her (technical) responsiblity, and we've seen her trademark skills there. Isn't she the one who blamed the spread of Wahhabism on Iran?

The comments to this entry are closed.