Condi Rice, re-fighting 9/10

September 26, 2006

The Note suggested this morning that Bill Clinton’s appearance/smackdown on Fox News may have been “a paradigm-shifting moment” for Democrats. It struck me as wildly hyperbolic — will the interview still dominate the political discourse a month from now? — but I think it’s fair to say Clinton’s hard-hitting responses have certainly gotten the right’s attention.

For example, in the Secretary of State’s office.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making “flatly false” claims that the Bush administration didn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration “did not try” to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks. […]

“What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years,” Rice added.

I think Rice misread the talking points. The right isn’t supposed to believe Bush was “as aggressive” as Clinton on counter-terrorism; the line is that Bush was more aggressive than Clinton.

Not that it matters — in either case, Rice is simply, demonstrably wrong. Indeed, it’s odd that she’s pick this fight in light of the evidence.

I’ll spare you a voluminous post, instead offering links to the key details:

* Rice’s claims are flatly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission.

* Rice’s claims are flatly contradicted by former Bush administration officials.

* And Rice’s claims are flatly contradicted by a memo she received shortly after becoming National Security Advisor.

And as long as we’re on the subject, if the administration really wants to seriously point fingers here, I’d also recommend reviewing 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste’s latest comments; the opening anecdote from “The One Percent Doctrine”; and Joe Conason’s pre-Richard Clarke piece for Salon, “Don’t Blame Clinton.”

Why the administration and its allies would want to have this fight all over again is a mystery. Were the facts not clear enough the last time?

It is a bit odd that the administration would want to bring this up in light of the facts, but since when have facts mattered?

  • Now will the fact checking MSM pick up on her lies? God that woman is annoying. BTW did anyone see the rest of 60 minutes? The Pres of Pakistan was not exactly easy on the Bush-co people. Maybe 60 minutes gave Condi her fluf article so the Bushies wouldn’t notice the next one.

  • Look how the story line has shifted away from “Democrats don’t do anything about terrorism” to “We tried just as hard as Bill Clinton did”.

  • The TV journalists’ technique of asking questions as if they were just giving the person the chance to rebut what “they’re” saying, might be okay if they picked up on issues like this and presented the real evidence of the facts as they know them so the person can rebut (or in Rice’s case can’t rebut) the facts. They just spring (usually right-wing) opinions on people.

    The way it is now the discussion is framed as opinion no matter how many facts the interviewee may state.

  • How I would love to see Round 2:
    Bill Clinton Vs Condi Rice (or Dick Cheney, or Baby-Bush, or ANYONE from this cesspool of an administration)

  • After the fallout from the Chris Wallace interview, my opinion of Clinton has gone up.

    I bought into the “Clinton did shit” aura of 911. Ceasing to rely on opinion and the MSM and relying more on facts, I have to say I was wrong.

    Those six little words comeback to bite Condi on the ass.
    “Bin Laden Determined to Attack US”

    I guess this will kill Condi’s “relationship” with the horndog that is the Canadian Foreign Minister.
    “Sorry Peter. It’s not you, it’s me. The problems with work and with Clinton. I don’t think I can make a relationship work at this time.”

  • “Condiment” Rice picked this fight BECAUSE of the evidence against Herr Bush’s administration. They can no longer afford to pretend the facts don’t exist, because—try as they might—those “facts” just keep popping up all over the place. They’re becoming more than just a nuisance; they’re becoming more than “Karl the Klown” can swat with his nefarious little countermeasures.

    These pod-people know that their days are numbered. Come January, they won’t be able to push through their agenda, and every last one of Herr Bush’s nominees who don’t pass muster will get smacked down—HARD.

    And here’s another little “tidbit.” Given that current technology allows for such things as “video-conferencing” and “distance education,” I think the days of “recess appointments” might be coming to an end. It’s no longer physically necessary for the Senate to be in chambers, in order to be “in session….”

    Herr Bush’s Reich is now in harm’s way….

  • In reality, is was Republicans who dragged their feet on this issue in the 90’s. It was destroying Clinton, not fighting terrorists which was the main priority for the GOP back them.

    Tom Delay once denounced the Clinton’s bombing of Afghanistan as “violating their sovereignty”
    I think if Clinton had gone after the Taliban and Bin Louden in the 90’s all the Republicans would have apposed it. Hell, they would have impeached for it. (However the only thing they could pin on him was lying about a blow-job)

  • What does it say about a political party that controls…every thing that it has to attack a former president? Maybe this is a new tactic that the Democrats can use. Just get together a bunch of people who disagree with ShrubCo and send them round the talk circuit. This Admin. is so desperate to decieve that it can’t let things be, which of course sets off a new round of lies. Weapons of Mass Distraction, Yes!

    There was no need for Dr. Rice to respond to Clinton’s well deserved ear bashing of that worm Wallace. But she and her ilk are afraid of what’s going to happen in 2009. The longer they repeat the lies (they think) the longer it will take to gather wide-spread support for their arrests.

    Keep talking guys, we’re recording it all for play back at the Hauge.

  • I didn’t really have the problem with Chris Wallace’s question substantively. I thought it was kind of chicken-shit the way he asked it (“I get lots of emails…”) but he’s the former president, terrorism and 9/11 is clearly an issue and there apparently was no pre-interview agreement to keep certain things off the table (which are BS anyways). Clinton was there to discuss his initiative and he was able to.

    That said, I loved Clinton’s response (apart from saying he was sandbagged, which I don’t think he was) and the passion and energy he put into responding. As everyone on this site has said in one form or another, “If only…..”

    I was musing a few weeks ago why the Repubs hate Bill and Hillary so much and have never really been able to put my finger on it. There are other Dems that have the same or similar viewpoints, others that are in the national spotlight, so why them, why so much hate and vitriol in their direction? Why when you mention the name Hillary do so many say “Oh, I hate her.” Her speech pattern is certainly annoying, but hate? Why, why, why?

    Something I saw in response to this interview kind of crystallized it for me though and forgive me if this is somewhat simplistic. But I think the powers that be on the right have decided that the Clinton’s (both of them) ability to discuss topics intelligently and passionately scares them. They are consummate politicians, they are absolute policy wonks who can talk policy all night with you, and they have charisma – you want to know what they’re doing and what they’re up to. Put these things together and you have an electable president.

    Put me in the “I’m willing to listen” camp if Hillary decides to run. Having lived in NY and voted for her for Senate, she’s done a great job for a junior/freshman/minority party senator.

    For Bill, hell, I’d vote for him right now for president….

  • I guess we all learned today that the Emporer has no clothes because the 9-11 report clearly states that Bush Co ignored an August 2001 PDB that stated Bin Laden determined to attack America. Also an independent report from 1999-2000 stating that al queda may use passenger jets as missiles to attack the US. So now that the emporer has lost his clothes lets see if democrats step forward and defend their record on national security and terrisom. That should be the plan from here until election day.

  • I sure as hell hope it’s a “paradigm-shifting moment.” For example, Dems could realize that Wallace’s post-hoc claim that he was “physically frightened” of Clinton is just par for the course with the republicans- just call the liberals wimps until they stop sounding like wimps, then make it sound like they’ve gone overboard- lost their composure. That’s what republicans are playing- it’s not what things are, it’s how you can make things sound.

    So I hope we’re not going to hear any comments from any Democrats any more about how we shouldn’t engage in attack ads. If you’re advocating that, you’re just dragging us down. We’re not in a relationship with the republicans, they’re apparently trying to destroy the Democrats politically. Just because some Republican can talk nice to you doesn’t mean that’s how they really feel.

    If the republicans we’re trying to get along with us, then there could be some validity perhaps in saying that we should consider cordiality towards them, but that’s not what’s going on. Until the situation changes, you have to live in the situation you’re in.

  • Condi… has a new job now, doesn’t she?

    For a professor of history, evidence and facts might have been equal to God’s word. For Bush’s doormat and chief prettyfier? Not so much.

    She’s made a *very bad* career decision, the poor cow.

  • There was a great Onion story in 2002 or 2003, something like “Rice Tells 9/11 Commission Bush Administration Did Everything It Could WIthout Making People Work Late.”

    Sounds about right. They were working late on missile defense and already thinking about Iraq. Bush’s CIA briefer “covered his ass”; that was enough. Except for those little people who died in the attack, of course.

  • Condi?

    At least no one can blame the Katrina fiasco on her.

    She was on vacation in NY that week… buying black boots and horse whips.

  • I for one hope that the Democrats can all make Chris afraid. I hope now that they have seen a person stand up for themselves they can stand up to all the Republican attacks and face them down.

    A bully will almost always back down when the person they are attempting to bully turns the tables. Oh yeah, the bully will always try to save face by telling everyone they let the other guy off the hook.

  • Homer is right.

    They hate the Clintons because the Clintons make them look like the evil, semi-retarded bastards they really are.

    Bill Clinton was right to go after Wallace the Wimp. Keep it up. And all the other Dems should do the same thing, just go after them like the Republican mouthpieces they are. Remind the viewers that Cheney loves Fox news. Because they lie like rugs.

    I’d like to see a poll asking people if they would trade Bush for Bill Clinton if that was an option.

  • I think the reason they’re trying to replay this whole situation is to get the public to think that Clinton was to blame for 9/11. Therefore, if Clinton, the Democrats last president was to blame for 9/11, you can’t trust the Democrats on national security and shouldn’t elect them in Nov!

    It’s an interesting way to try to rewrite the history of what happened before 9/11.. the right-wing has been trying to blame Clinton for it since day one.. and this is just a move on the republicians part to re-write the public understand of what happened.

  • Could you imagine Chris Wallace’s preparation for a subsequent Bill Clinton interview?

    “Get me my brown pants.”

    • Comments are closed.