Condi’s Moment

national review online ^ | March 31, 2004 | Mark Goldblatt

[ride the whirlwind]

The archetypal liberal is the guy who, every morning, drops a dollar in the lap of the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and who, every evening, blames conservatives for the fact that there's a homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building. In other words, liberals don't think things through; they opt for gestures, knee-jerk reactions that feel good, without the slightest consideration of long-term consequences.

Such was the case in their demand that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify, under oath and in public, before the 9/11 Commission. Now their demand has been met. Testify she will, even though there's no compelling reason for her to do so; indeed, she's already testified — albeit not under oath — for four hours in private session before the commission. There's not a shred of evidence she lied.

Even in the wake of former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke's damaging charges that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel before September 11, 2001, the White House was reluctant to let Rice testify publicly under oath because of the dual principles of executive privilege and separation of powers; if Rice's testimony creates a precedent for presidential advisers being summoned to appear before legislative committees, then future advisers might become less likely to provide presidents with frank and forthright counsel.

The liberals insisting Rice testify thought nothing of such principles. They knew only that Bush was against it, so they were for it. Whatever it takes, as long as they were sticking it to the president.

Now the liberals will get their wish: Dr. Rice will tell her side of the story, under oath, in public. And with the suspense that's already gathering around her appearance, it will be a hit. The rest of the nation will soon discover what careful observers of the Bush's inner circle already know: Rice is the most poised, articulate, and convincing speaker in the entire administration. She will mop up the floor with Clarke.

Want a "for example"? In his tell-all book, Clarke asserts that the first time he mentioned al Qaeda to Rice, in January 2001, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." Except in October 2000, Rice gave a radio interview in which she discussed al Qaeda. So much for facial expressions.

Not only will Rice make short work of Clarke, she will emerge from the hearing with conservatives flinging themselves at her feet, begging her to run for president in 2008. (There's already a website devoted to her potential candidacy even though she's said, on multiple occasions, she has no interest in the office.) And it would serve liberals right if she did decide to run, for Rice would be their worst nightmare. She would win the women's vote outright, peel away half the black vote, and set back the Democratic party for a generation.

But that's not the kind of thing liberals concern themselves with. Right now, they got her to testify. They stuck it to Bush.

It sure must feel good.

[FourtySeven]

Go Condi Go!

I still haven't heard WHEN she's going to testify though. Does anyone know the date?

[ride the whirlwind]

On Foxnews.com they're saying it'll be next week.

[UCANSEE2]

Author certainly has a high opinion of our Condi!

A good man surrounds himself with good people.

[ride the whirlwind]

Amen to that!

[Grig]

I do NOT want to miss her testifying. Any word on when it will take place?

[oceanview]

I think there is way too much optimism on FR about how her testimony will go. The Dems aren't just going to walk into this without something up their sleeve, without some new line of questioning for her when she testifies. I can think of a few areas of questioning that would be very dangerous ground: this whole issue of the Saudis involvement, and this issue of whether there was an attempt to "deal" with the Taliban prior to 9/11 with this whole pipeline thing. I'm not saying that I believe that stuff myself, so please don't flame me. All I am saying is that there will be some new lines of attacks by the Dems, they are not giving up on this issue.

[Lady In Blue]

Do you actually think that Dr.Rice or anybody would be talking about bin Laden without knowing the name of his terrorist group?! Unbelievable.

[MrB]

Some idiot called in to Sean Hannity yesterday, touting the same line.

"Condi said 'Bin Ladin', not 'Al Qaeda', therefor, she didn't know about Al Qaeda, and Clarke was right."

[RightWhale]

If she has the stuff for politics, this could be her debut. If not, she can go back to her cubicle.

[GailA]

Condi will take them down like Ollie North did.

[ride the whirlwind]

According to Foxnews.com, it'll be towards the end of next week.

[oceanview]

Pat Buchanan made a good comment regarding Clarke's credibility on CNBC yesterday. Saying that all this huffing and puffing he did about being the "know it all" for terrorism, the "go to" guy. That when he finally got to brief the president about it, he talked about the terrorists being in Afghanistan, etc, but didn't know they had been in DelRay Beach since 1997!

[StrictTime]

Hmmmm....let's see. Shall I vote for this in 2008:




Or this:

[ride the whirlwind]

Strategery in action.
...and the sheeple can't be THAT oblivious to how the liberal media spun this story.
Uh, some sheeple are beyond hope, I'm afraid.(sigh)

[ride the whirlwind]

Excellent! (Athough I think you've got the sizes of the pictures backwards. My eyes!)

[AFreeBird]

Good God man; put a BARF ALERT before showing that second pic, PLEASE!

[MrB]

Looks like the second pic was pulled, so it's Condi or Nothing...

Yeah, I'll take Condi... :)

[ironman]

Condi needs to be prepared. I hope she's working on her opening statement right now and puts to rest the many myths and urban legends the dems and the media spew.

[StrictTime]

Ok, then let's try this one: In 2008, this:



or this