TIME Cover Story | Is Condi the Problem?

[nostamj]

On the morning of March 22, hours after Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief in the Administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, had made his explosive charges on the war on terrorism, Rice performed a rarely seen grand slam, appearing on the breakfast shows of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN. Interviews with Tom Brokaw of NBC News and Sean Hannity of Fox News followed; so did sit-downs with network and print correspondents as well as an op-ed piece in the Washington Post. For a woman who was once said to have been unfairly criticized—actually, by none other than Clarke—because "she doesn't run around telling everyone in the media what she thinks," Rice was doing more running and telling than anyone else since P. Diddy bragged about completing the New York City marathon.

Just about the only place that Rice did not appear was before the commission looking into the attacks of Sept. 11 during two days of gripping public testimony last week. Citing Executive privilege as a member of the President's staff, Rice said she could not appear under oath in a public session but would be happy to talk to the commission privately, as she already has done for four hours. Perhaps inevitably, given the manifold outlets for her ire, not everything Rice said was internally consistent. At one time she claimed that most of Clarke's ideas for combatting al-Qaeda had been tried and rejected under Clinton, while at another she insisted that the Bush team had acted on them. And Rice sometimes contradicted—or was contradicted by—Administration colleagues who were doing their own briefings for the media and appearing before the commission. Rice, for example, disagreed with Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that Clarke was "out of the loop" on decisions on counterterrorism.

more

[buycitgo]

1. is condi the scapegoat. you mean?

let's hope she's the first in a LONG long line of frogmarching scapegoats, until the only RAT left on the SS Bushtannica is the the cretin in "commmand" himself

can you spell H-A-G-U-E mr. XpResident?

[nostamj]

3. "Is Condi the Problem" is Time's title

for the actual article.

not my invention.

for me, Condi IS a problem, a symptom of a fatal wasting disease called bushism

[boobooday]

2. No, Condi is a major, screaming symptom

Of the deeply chronic illness of the neo-Cons. They are like a hostile growth on the Republican party, and the classic conservatives will either have to rid themselves of it (the Bush/Cheney/Wolfie/Rummy/Rice Cartel) or watch their party self-destruct.

And yesterday I saw documentary about the Carlyle Group, and they've got Colin Powell in their clutches, which explains a lot.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[RhodaGrits]

4. "colin powell in their clutches"? I've wondered what his

tie to all this was - can you elaborate?

[fizzana]

5. When someone keeps conttradicting themselves there are only

one of two possible reasons.

They are suffering from short term memory loss (unlikely in Rice's situaion)

Or they are telling so many lies they can't keep track of them.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

6. And here's where the Condi-Colin-Bush axis falls apart...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/clarke.flap/index.html

FIRST:

"In another development, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who has taken the brunt of Clarke's criticism -- will appear Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes," the program where Clarke first discussed his allegations last week."

SECOND:

"Rice has come under fire from members of the independent 9/11 commission for refusing to testify publicly before the panel. The White House maintains that it is inappropriate for her to testify because the doctrine of executive privilege precludes presidential staff members, such as Rice, from giving public testimony to panels formed by Congress."

Finally, Colin Powell weighs in on Condi's dilemma:

"I know she would like to do it. She wants to tell the story, but she has to consider the precedent that would be created by this."

The "precedent" that would be broken, according to the article:

"The White House maintains that it is inappropriate for her to testify because the doctrine of executive privilege precludes presidential staff members, such as Rice, from giving public testimony to panels formed by Congress."

So she really, really, really wants to go before the panel under oath. Really. So bad it HURTS. But she can't jeopardize national security by compromising her executive privilege, which would throw the gates wide open and allow all forms of terra to tramp upon our sacred shores. So she's going to "tell the story" and not be held accountable for anything she says (except in the media, but that's why Bush has Karl Rove and Karen Hughes and Rupert Murdoch's legion of butt puppets).

So she's going on 60 Minutes to play one-sided hardball with Ed Bradley, while not under oath. For Condi, the U.S.A. is one big Burger King, and it looks like she's going to "have it her way," while being applauded from the sidelines by her little buddy Colin, who will probably come back out of his hole after the program to speak of her bravery and fortitude for addressing these charges.

Magnifico!

:toast:

[Octafish]

7. She's with Stupid.