Posted on 03/28/2004 2:57:31 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
I was waiting for this to go up. We're about t-minus one hour from it (depending on how long Duke-Xavier goes, I guess). Too bad it's not going to be a long interview like Clarke had. I've noticed that 60 Minutes are not promoting this either. The commercial I just saw advertised the story on soccer phenom Freddy Adu, not the story on Rice or Pickering. I also discovered from the link referenced above that Rice spoke to them this morning and not yesterday as I'd heard would be the case before. Bill Kristol predicted this morning that Rice might say that if this is really such a big deal that she'll testify in public under oath as she's been badgered to do. I don't think Bill has a good track record on predicting news, so take that with a grain of salt. By the way, go Xavier-- I had Duke losing before now in my office pool bracket, but my opponents have them winning it all.
They proved long ago with Clinton that their job is to put Democrats in the White House.
I am so glad you said this.
Condi did just fine. I was reading these disparaging posts and thought I was at DU for a moment.
I do think Bradley badgered her a bit. I suspect that ole Ed wanted to look like a tougher than nails Journalist and wasn't about to take no stuff.
It was only a 12 minute interview, but we don't know, maybe that's all Condi wanted.
The best response Condi gave was the one that had to get out there. Forget all the rest. Yeah, Ed asked her the silly "more attacks after 9/11 than before". She zinged him good with her reply that with each attack the terrorists got braver, that they figured we had no fight. She also mentioned how we ran from Somalia. She was able to list the attacks and the truth was on her side. With each attack they got more vicious.
Ed asked her again about the less attacks before 9/11 than after and Condi said "They know we're at war with them."
What Dem could have given a more perfect answer?
John Q and Mary Soccer Mom understand this. My assessment is America went away from that interview glad the adults are in charge.
Bozos is right. Why the he!! won't they send her over there to testify?
Oh great. Did you see this morning's Chrissy Matthews show? It was a Lib lovefest... Chris, Katty Kay (sp?) - BBC, David Gregory - NBC, Gloria Borger - CNBC and Tucker Carlson - CNN - the only "conservative". All of them except Tucker were ecstatic over what Clarke's testimony and media appearances was doing to Bush's poll numbers, and Tucker just basically sat there slack-jawed, saying nothing. I honestly don't even know what he was doing on the show this morning... he appeared to be stunned or "out of it". :-(
What do you mean "this did not go well"? Please cite specifics and not just Bradley's questions.
Thanks in advance.
I watched and I can't believe I saw the same interview some doom and gloomers saw.
Good grief.
At one point Bradley really overplayed his hand. He was talking about Clarke's perception, Woodward's perception, etc. Condi says (approximation) I can't address their perceptions, but let me tell you what we DID. And Bradley cut her off and told her no.
The opinion is the easiest. Simply put, 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.
I have one observation. That is it is now clear what the RAT tactics will be. They will use former JC Shelton, Former Treasurer O'Neill, erstwhile author Woodward as well as Clarke to prove President Bush didn't appreciate Al Qaeda and that he wanted a war with Iraq in any way possible. This is where we must meet them and defeat them.
To defeat them will mean listing each and every RAT that believed WMD in Iraq, all of those (including Kerry) who thought Saddam to be out of control and so forth. A central list of all of these points should be on a given Web Site such that it can be accessed by all who wish to defend this Administration.
In my more paranoid moments I suspect the whole opposition to the Iraq conflict centers around our willingness to support Israel in defeating this proven enemy of theirs. No one dares speak of it, but the shear force of the opposition belies a strong underlying motive of resentment. In this I could be a 100% off target since many Jews not only vote RAT but also do not support the President's efforts at cutting off the supply of money to Hamas and others by removing Saddam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.