Condoleezza Rice on 60 Minutes Live Thread [7pm EST, Sunday 3/28]

CBS News ^ | 3-28-04 | CBS News

[txrangerette]

Boy howdy they're jerking YOUR
chain. Don't let them.

[A Citizen Reporter]

I've noticed in the past few days, there are quite a few posters on FR, who come to defend the media, to "sound the alarm" that America still believes the NYT's and CBS.

It's interesting, in my experience, here in the boring midwest, that is not at all my experience. The media is having less and less of an effect on people, exactly because they've overplayed their hand. There is one guy in my golf group, who about five years ago, made a case that the media wasn't really biased. Today, he doesn't try that angle anymore, but it's because he's generally laughed off the tee box!

[cyncooper]

As a former member of the flock of uninformed sheeple (way back, before Ronald Reagan), I can assure you - Clarke's testimony and media appearances, Condi's weak interview on 60 Minutes

And just think. Reagan got elected twice!

And the word "weak" does not describe Rice in this interview at all.

[Peach]

So many connections between Iraq and AQ.

What a lost opportunity. Simply lost.

[Freee-dame]

She should tell the people that she will gladly testify in public, under oath, as soon as the congress gives up congressional immunity. As soon as they do, in writing, she will testify.

good point !

[Fishtalk]

I'm sorry, I can't see where in heck you're coming from if that doesn't offend you.

It offends me all to hell. That whole line of badgering by Bradley was stupid.

I still say that Condi did fine. She even graciously refused to comment on what Clarke was "thinking" when he apologized. This after Bradley dared Condi to agree with "those who say he was grandstanding".

She had entirely too much class to stoop that low. It was evident out here in la-la land.

I'm not defending CBS. I've never seen such an aggressive interview from a Journalist in ages. Rather than say Bradley should have cooled it, I'd rather think that's how other journalists should give interviews.

But they don't and we know it.

I still think Condi did a great job. You all just fret too much.

[cyncooper]

I though Bradley tried to do a hatchet job (which we all expected and predicted),and interspersed too much of Clarke from last week and that Condi did a great job in her answers, demeanor and tone.

[San Jacinto]

^The media are determined Bush will not be re-elected. In the past, the media have been obvious in their bias, but this is something more intense, more determined, more coordinated. The campaign has not even started and the media are attacking the President daily with increasing ferocity.

I believe the media believe that a template can be created and the general public can be made to beieve that there is a "generally accepted" belief that Bush is corrupt and inept. They know they only need a few million votes to sway the election for their man, and that is what they are aiming for. If the dems can win Ohio, Fla, and Penn-- its in the bag. Two out of those three might even do it.

It will take a few weeks of continuous onslaught to drive the message home, but they seem more than prepared to do it.They know Bush is strong on the war on terror, and that is one reason they hate him so. To blame Bush for 9/11, extoll the mighty Clinton as a great President in protecting the county, and paint Bush as a clumsy, inept liar IS THE MOST CYNICAL PLOY THE MEDIA HAS EVER ATTEMPTED.

It may also be the most brilliant. Bush is unbeatable if America trusts him more than Kerry in the war on terror. Day after day, week after week and month after month the American people are going to be told that Bush has lied, misled and mismanaged in this war. It will not just be Daschle, Pelosi, McAuliffe , and Kerry making the CLAIM, it is the national news reporting it as ACCEPTED FACT.

Don't underestimate them. The media have decided--BUSH WILL NOT BE REELECTED.-- Now the question is only this--Will they pull it off or will the American people see through it?

I intend to do everything I can to see that Bush IS reelected, but it will take millions of us working harder than ever before to succeed. We are living in times like no other.

[alnick]

And it certainly didn't help Ed Bradley that he asked, what good does it do to elminate 2/3 of Al Qaeda?

[Mo1]

And that would have stopped her from mentioning it in the intro to the piece how?

It wouldn't .. she just thinks people are dumb enough to buy that excuse

[BlueAngel]

Most of us are NOT criticizing Condi, we are commenting on the unfair treatment of 60 minutes and Bradley. We are defending Condi.

[Mo1]

LOL I dunno.... I couldn't watch anymore after the Pickering interview. It wouldn't be surprised if that is what he said

*L* Chicken

[Mo1]

Better than that, doesn't point 2 contradict point 1? She basically said, I didn't report it because I didn't know, but even if I did know, I forgot. She is as good a liar as Dickie Clarke!

That about sums it up

[isthisnickcool]

I used to do a post about Bush that went something like this:

"George W. Bush is stupid? Who says?" The I'd start with Ann Richards and make a huge list of people "W" has outsmarted or basically beat the snot out of. The list is too long to do now.

I watched this "interview". She did just fine considering the snake pit she was in. I hope that she had her own camera people there or has a copy of the unedited interview.

What a fine woman to have working for us. How lucky we are that she would even put up with smarmy little homos like Richard Clark or Ed Bradley.

"W" is going to beat the crud out of John Kerry (if he does not become too sick to run) or whoever else the Demnumbnuts run against him.

Why do I say this? Because at every tick of the clock THIS MEDIUM (the Internet) become more powerful while the "old school" like CBS become less powerful.

Some people seem so down here. I don't know why. Things look pretty good to me overall. As I stand here, at the ground zero of conservative American politics, at a place called FreeRepublic. Yea, this is ground zero. And as long as FreeRepublic is here knowledge is power! And we become more powerful every day!

[mrsmith]

Look, you say Bush is not handling this well but then why is there no evidence it is hurting him?
It's that simple.

The media doesn't get away with what it used to. The mass media coverage of Clarke- unlike 60 minutes and other "narrow" media like NYTimes analysis- has been unusually fair to the White House.

This week Clarke helped the Dems dodge the "security" bullet for now, but he hasn't hurt Bush.

[StriperSniper]

The GOP needs to focus the voter on all of these manipulation(s) of reality and the entire lack of logical consistency.

I'll bump that!

[prairiebreeze]

Condi Rice should under no circumstances appear publicly under oath. Not only is this a breech of the separation of powers, but it gives any rogue Congress the opportunity to determine how a policy was made and by whom. To change historical precedent will result in present and future harm not easily anticipated or measured.

Hear, Hear!

And your observations about the resistance to Iraq intervention and Israel have much merit IMO

Prairie

[cyncooper]

I see you and I saw two different Chris Matthews shows, too.

My view was I was pleased to see Tucker Carlson have some backbone and gumption and make several excellent points that even Chris had to agree with.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"She even graciously refused to comment on what Clarke was "thinking" when he apologized."

Thank you. That was her response that I was trying to remember, and Bradley's question was: "What do you think that Dick Clarke was feeling when he apologized to the victims' families?" An abysmal question, and a very professional and respectable answer. I don't understand the hand-wringing on this thread tonight.

[Peach]

I understand your words and respect and the thoughts behind them.

It was deeply disappointing to see a chance for Condi Rice to make a two sentence statement regarding the many, many Iraq/AQ connections and she didn't do it. Doing it would have accomplished two objectives.

It would have shown Clarke to be a liar when he said there is no such connection. And it would stiffen the resolve of the American people when it comes to casualities in Iraq.

That is my primary complaint about the interview. She was given a golden opportunity and didn't take it. IF they edited something important like that away, I expect her to give a press conference regarding the matter tomorrow morning. I rather doubt that's what happened. Also, I expect the administration to wise up and demand more control of interview settings, questions, etc. in the future.

That said, I appreciate your optimism and expect you are are correct in just about everything you said.