April 8, 2004
KNOCKIN' ONE OUT OF THE PARK:
Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on April 8, 2004
[....] That is why we must address the source of the problem. We must stay on the offensive to find and defeat the terrorists wherever they live, hide and plot around the world. If we learned anything from September 11th, it is that we cannot wait while dangers gather.After the September 11th attacks, our nation faced hard choices: We could fight a narrow war against Al Qaida and the Taliban, or we could fight a broad war against a global menace. We could seek a narrow victory, or we could work for a lasting peace and a better world.
President Bush has chosen the bolder course.
Long after the whir of the spin machines has died down, this record will speak
for itself.
I missed it, stuck at work.
How'd she look gang? VP material?
Posted by: Andrew X at April 8, 2004 3:59 PMI didn't see it either but the blogsphere seems to indicate it will depend on your leanings. Pro-Bush/GOPers thought she did well, anti-Bush/Dems/media say she didn't do well.
Posted by: AWW at April 8, 2004 4:10 PMI'm unabashadly biased, but she clearly was in control and quite articulate as one would expect.
Sen. Kerrey tried to get her flustered and she fed him his lunch. Reading the transcript that's devoid of inflection or images brings even sharper focus to the alterior motives of people like him.
Had the left not tripped over themselves to embrace Clarke's version of history, they wouldn't be stuck in the increasingly awkward position of attempting to trick Dr. Rice into closing the "credibility gap" for them.
What a fiasco. If it weren't so predictible, it would almost be sad.
Posted by: John Resnick at April 8, 2004 4:34 PMDidn't see it, but a couple of things make me think she must have done very well:
1) The NYT seems quite evenhanded, and has an article totally about the fact that some members of the "non-partisan" commission were rather, well, partisan, indicating that they must have been insufferable.
2) Nothing from Fred Kaplan at Slate yet, whose slobbering pieces after Clarke's testimony were up so fast they must have been largely written before he testified.
Posted by: brian at April 8, 2004 6:02 PMAnd now Fred's chimed in with his column, which is more or less "I Hate Condi Rice". Not the most coherent piece you'll read on this or any other day...
Posted by: brian at April 8, 2004 6:50 PMKerrey and Ben Veniste were, ahem, er, disgustingly partisan, although Ben V. seemed saner than Kerrey. Perhaps arsenic levels in the water is currently excessive ... or perhaps unfortunately lacking at the hearings.
I watched and listened to every word today and Dr. Rice was absolutely Vice Presidential; but more likely an unequeled candidate for Secretary of State assuming General Powell will be retiring from government service.
I really can't say too much about her testimony today beyond her being tough, intelligent, knowledgeable, attractive and ultimately professional in her persona. In other words ... a respectful ... wow!
Posted by: Genecis at April 8, 2004 9:54 PM