[Terry Mross]

Sixty Minutes is re-running Clark's allegations more than Condi.

[Shepster]

For GOD sakes!! This is an outrage!! CBS is a friggin joke. You could see the contempt for the administration on Bradley's face. This is equal time? They gave her one segment and then abrubtly cut the interview short?

[longtermmemmory]

I bet the Dems are using their memos from the judiciary to make the 9/11 partisan tactics. The media no longer has significance as the fourth estate.

Is there a legal obligation for NBC, CBS or ABC to have news? Perhaps they should be released from obligation.

[shield]

WHAT A HACK JOB!!!! I can not believe the WH, allowed these bozos over at cBS to do this to Condi.

[mhking]

Yet another hatchet job - as if anyone was expecting anything else?

[nutmeg]

Did you see Condi on "60 Minutes" tonight? I thought it was abysmal, mostly due to 60 Minutes' hacking up of her interview. Clarke gets TWO 60 Minutes segments with softball questions - Condi only gets ONE segment, with a bunch of tough questions thrown at her... surprise, surprise!

Between this and today's Sunday morning shows... what a depressing day. The sheeple are going to eat it all up... :-(

[johnwayne]

There is one thing Clinton did that is much smarter than Bush and that's clean house as soon as possible. The should of had Clarke document everything he knew, sign it, and then dismiss him. Bush is too busy playing Mr. Nice Guy to scoundrels who have no problem lying and stabbing him in the back. Bush may be smarter than he is portayed in the press but he lacks wisdom.

[BluH2o]

Haven't read thru all the posts ... has anyone commented on how poorly Ed Bradly apppears? Not that anyone should be surprised ... but he does have that "AIDS" look.

[shrinkermd]

I have one opinion and one observation.

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.

[Texan4W]

You all are going to LOVE this!

This is from an email from TIME magazine about their next issue.

That terrible photo FoxNews used is also used by TIME in this story. Below is quote from TIME email.

.....................................
THIS WEEK'S COVER STORY

Is Condi The Problem?
As critics accuse the Bush Team of bungling the fight against terrorism, TIME takes an inside look at the role played by the President's National Security Adviser

http://ltrack.timeinc.net/r0/aheadoftime_03-28-2004/t_is_condi_the_pr/in?http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040405/story.html
...................................................

[Coop]

60 Minutes received yet another letter from me this morning. Was I surprised by last night? No. Am I ticked off anyway? Yep.

Dear 60 Minutes,

I grew up watching and enjoying 60 Minutes in the 70s/80s, but I haven't been much of a fan for years now because you've lost my trust. Last night, though, I tuned in after hearing (via the Internet, since you weren't bothering to promote it like you did Richard Clarke's verbal jihad) that Dr. Rice would be on the show. I figured 60 Minutes must have been raked over the coals for that blatant hatchet job from the week before and was now trying to make amends. So what did I see?

-STILL no mention of CBS' (Viacom's) financial stake in Dick Clarke's book

-Not a hint of Dick Clarke's CONFLICTING STATEMENTS in Aug 02, in his resignation letter, and in a publicly released E-mail to Dr. Rice.

-Descriptions of White House response as "attacks" and "ferocious."

-A focus on more attacks in 30 months since 9/11 than 30 months before, while simultaneously completely minimizing the successful capturing and killing of hundreds and hundreds of terrorists and Al Qaeda's leadership.

-No putting into perspective that an administration in transition had been in place less than 8 months, while the previous administration had 8 years in which to ignore multiple Al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests.

-A fairly hostile Ed Bradley interrupting and badgering the National Security Adviser.

Clarke has been completely discredited. How you can present that smoldering feces as news is beyond me.

When you led into Judge Pickering's spot by claiming the Dems were retaliating against the GOP (with no mention of JUDGE BORK or of the unprecedented filibusters), I grabbed the remote.

CBS News has truly become a joke. And you continue to wonder why nobody trusts network news anymore.

Sincerely,
Coop

[asav78]

"(Condoleezza) Rice said that when Bush met with his top advisers on Sept. 15, 2001, "not a single one of the president's principal advisers suggested that he do anything more than go after Afghanistan, and that's what we did." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was at that meeting and did suggest that Iraq should be attacked, as described in detail in Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War.""

Excerpt from: "Rice Defends Refusal To Testify"
Washington Post (3/29/04)