Widespread public criticism of Rice testimony
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: National Security Adviser Ms Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks has come under generally scathing criticism in newspaper columns.
Alan M. Edelson from New York state wrote in the New York Times Saturday that Ms Rice “as is her custom, did not deign to talk to her questioners; she orated at them, with clichés and tedious rhetorical flourishes, rhythmically repeating phrases to form cadences better suited to commencement addresses, all cleverly calculated to stretch out her answers. The longer her answers, the fewer questions she needed to deal with. It’s also called filibustering. And what a bureaucratic mind she has, splitting hairs over what is a policy versus a strategy or a warning memo versus a historical review. The need for urgent actions was set aside by a need to spend seven months generating a strategic plan laced, no doubt, with words like ‘tasking’ and ‘rendering’ and countless acronyms. No wonder that our government took so long to get its act together - and when it did, it attacked Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Bettie W. Roberts asked sardonically in the same newspaper, “Excuse me, but did they expect a road map? Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration national security adviser, said in her testimony on Thursday that ‘there was no specific time, place or method’ mentioned in an intelligence report warning of a terrorist attack. Is that the level of protection we can expect from this administration? The mind-set is clear: since there was ‘no silver bullet,’ as Ms. Rice put it, this very hawkish administration was powerless to act at all. Good grief.”
James Wessnan from Albany, New York, wrote, “I am stymied by Condoleezza Rice’s repeated use of the ‘silver bullet’ metaphor and her distinction between ‘historical’ and ‘actionable’ intelligence reports. When subordinates give their analyses to their superiors, aren’t the superiors supposed to determine what to do? Isn’t that why this is the ‘executive’ branch?
She was not without her admirers, as was to be expected, such as Chris Belena from Florida who found that “Condoleezza Rice not only told the truth, but she also showed us that she is gracious and intelligent.” Ripley M. Howe from California found Ms Rice to be “smart, eloquent and appealing,” but added that her memory was a little weak.” She failed to answer two important questions by saying, “I really don’t remember.” Mr Howe added cynically, “Perhaps, in the interest of national security, America needs less firepower and more brainpower.
Myrna A. Gottlieb from New Jersey wrote to say that “throughout her testimony before the 9/11 commission, Condoleezza Rice tried to pass the buck for the failure of the Bush administration to thwart Al Qaeda’s attack on the United States. Ms. Rice tried to apportion the blame among previous administrations, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. But the impression I got was that as national security adviser, Ms. Rice was remarkably unengaged. Ms. Rice said she didn’t remember Qaeda cells’ being something that she was told she needed to do something about. I had to ask myself why she would have needed to be told before doing anything about terrorist cells inside the United States. Wasn’t it her job to take the initiative? “
Fern Trevino from Chicago wrote, “Condoleezza Rice’s testimony that President Bush was ‘tired of swatting flies’ is a stark admission that the president perceived Al Qaeda as no more than a harmless pest,” while James Adler from Cambridge, Massachusetts, wrote, “You would think that if any country on earth heard of an enemy determined to attack it, it would, at the very least, have sent Air Force jets to patrol a few obvious priority targets like its largest city and (if they were different) its capital.” Jack Starr from New York wrote the Richard Clarke’s demotion by Ms Rice showed that “she and this administration placed a lower priority on threats directed at the United States.” Peter Brebach from Colorado was of the view that “Rice stonewalled, filibustered and otherwise dragged out her answers in order not to have to answer any more questions from the non-friendly members of the bipartisan commission than absolutely necessary”
The Washington Post also published a number of letters from readers on Saturday, one of whom, Robert Brubaker pointed out that “at 8:40 a.m. on that day, air traffic controllers alerted North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) that they had lost contact with American Airlines Flight 11 and that it was significantly off course. Because NORAD’s planes were not at their highest level of readiness, 12 minutes elapsed before the first fighter became airborne. Flying at less than the speed of sound, the fighters were eight minutes away when United Airlines Flight 175 became the second airliner to crash into the World Trade Center. Even after this second attack, no fighters were scrambled anywhere else in the United States, including to Washington. NORAD could have been our silver bullet, and it should have been at a higher level of alert considering the significant “planes as weapons” warnings available to those entrusted to protect us.”
Fred Howell wrote, “Listening to Thursday’s inquiries by the 9/11 commission convinced me - in sorrow - that Osama bin Laden and his zealous minions can take a breather from their efforts to destroy the fabric of our American society. We are doing it to ourselves.” Samuel A Stern from Alexandria, Virginia, wrote, “Condoleezza Rice is not a consummate spin doctor but the ultimate bureaucrat: unable to act without an unassailable file that commits all ‘stakeholders.’
What she and her client did not have was ‘that vision thing.’” Ron Mason from Oregon found
“Rice’s testimony repetitive. Many of her answers were unnecessarily long and repeated so often that she seemed to be squandering time in order to limit the number of questions she was asked.”
A couple of correspondents to the Post accused Democratic members of the Commission of “grandstanding” and not giving her sufficient time to answer questions. Bill DelGrosso, also from Alexandria, Virginia, has a different take, “After watching the performance of the national security adviser in front of the 9/11 commission, I am convinced that we have found the American Iron Lady. Condoleezza Rice has demonstrated the Margaret Thatcher-like qualities this country needs. In the face of withering questions, well-promoted Richard Clarke rhetoric and the pressures of staying on top of the war on terrorism, she did not go wobbly.”
dailytimes.com.pk |
