Various re: Condoleeza Rice’s testimony Thursday, April 7, 2004:

From BuzzFlash:

...

“The 9/11 Commission is not necessary because, among other things, it uses the appearance of process to provide gobbledygook “cover” to the likes of Condoleezza Rice. She will tell her lies under oath and cannot be called back to clarify inconsistencies, based on an agreement with the White House.

Next, Cheney will hold Bush’s hand and pull his strings when they privately “talk informally” (not under oath) with the 9/11 Commission.

“What’s the point of all this scripted and orchestrated activity?

“We have enough on the record to prove that the Bush Administration willfully ignored warnings about an Al-Qaeda attack. We have enough on the record to prove that the Bush administration strategically lied this country into a disastrous war that has united the people of Iraq, including two feuding religious sects, against us and created a recruiting ground for terrorists.”

...

From the comment section of The O’Franken Factor blog:

“The questioning of Condoleeza Rice by the Republican commissioners was astoundingly feckless; perfectly tossed softballs intended to allow her to expound at will to what she was scripted for. Though, I must say I found it odd that John Lehman would, apparently for purposed of cover give her a laundry list of items that she could testify to knowing absolutely nothing about. Cut away the opening statement and the softball questioning from the likes of Lehman and Gorton, and cut away Rice’s rambling non-responsive meanders into safe areas where she could blame the tragedy of September 11, 2001, on the institutional and structural problems that have plagued government as far back as, say, the previous Administration, and we are left with about 45 minutes to an hour of significant public testimony.

“Contrast that to the testimony of John Dean before the House Select Committee investigating Watergate. In addition to days of closed-session debriefing, Dean testified before Sam Irvin’s committee for a solid week; day after day, with little chance at all to, as Rice proved rather adept, run out the clock.

“To limit the commissioners to 12 minutes of questions, especially with the staggered format with offered a friendly questioner at every other turn, makes for precious little potential for finding real value in what she said.

“We deserve so much more and so much better than this.”

...

“From Howard Fineman @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4695438/

“In an interview with Bob Woodward, Bush admitted two years ago that he didn’t have a sense of “urgency” about Al Qaeda. He said he wasn’t “on point”—wasn’t locked on a target in hunting-dog fashion.

“That admission caused few ripples when it was published. But voters now may wish to revisit the remark. Why? Because it’s now clear that the president may have had urgent reason to be “on point.” Rice was told about Al Qaeda cells by Richard Clarke in February 2001. When, if ever, did she tell the president about them? Bush was given the now-famous presidential daily briefing (PDB) of Aug. 6, 2001, which suggested not only that Osama Bin Laden was “determined “ to attack inside the United States but that the FBI had picked up a pattern that suggested the possibility of hijackings here. Did Bush follow up with the FBI? What did he do in the days immediately after getting the document?”

...

“Ok, Imagine Bill Clinton gets a memo on August 6th titled “Bin Laden Plans Attacks In United States” and on August 7th he goes on a month-long vacation, America is attacked little over a month later and suffers its worst losses on its own soil since the Civil War, what do you think would happen if the “liberal media” got a hold of that? Hmmmm.... Time’s up! They would

a) kill him

b) skin him

c) kill him then skin him

d) tar and feather him, kill him and skin him

f) none of the above

“If you answered “f”, none of the above, then you are dumb.”