Condoleeza lies with the help of Ed Bradley

[kcwayne]

Before Condoleeza went on 60 minutes, she had stated that she could not testify under oath to a Senate Committee because it would break a long standing precedent. Ed let her slide on this by not being prepared.

First of all, the National Security Adviser position was only created 50 years ago. In that period of time, there have been few crises that would cause a committee to need to speak with a NSA. In the last 50 years, 9/11 is without a doubt a topic that any Senate Committee would need sworn testimony from the government's key adviser on national security. Condoleeza is endangering the lives and welfare of thousands of Americans by her actions. The 9/11 committee's purpose is to recommend corrective actions that government can take to prevent more 9/11's. Their mission is seriously compromised if the key members of government with responsibility for implementing those recommendations do not participate UNDER OATH in the investigation.

Secondly, Condoleeza lied about not being able to find any precedent for a NSA testifying before a Senate Committee.

Well, here is an example of testimony by Sandy Berger on (coincidently enough) 9/11/1997 to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

Sandy Berger Testimony 9/11/1997

Ed, you are derelict in your duties as a journalist to let Rice get on national TV to tell lies and pass out propaganda unchallenged. Everyone knew what the administration's position on this issue was, and it is easily shown to be lies with a 2 minute Google search.

Condi, you are an incompetent liar, just as you are an incompetent NSA. Clearly we know that every word out of your mouth is a lie, but you ought to realize that most people are not as stupid as your constituency. Many of us read, have access to search engines, and can use the Internet to let millions know the truth about you. It's getting harder and harder to hide behind the compliant and complicit media.

I realize that John Ashcroft, the imbecile in chief, and you are working toward controlling the Internet to take away our freedom to share information freely. Meanwhile, I will be working to see that you are removed from office ASAP. Here's hoping that you remain an incompetent blustering fool. Your demise in November can come none to soon.

[tom_paine]

1. Nicely and truly said

If we don't stop the Busheviks...they'll be coming after us. It may not be EXACTLY like Grandpa Prescott's Business Partners (cattlecars full of piteous victims isn't good PR)...

...but they are coming.

Don't be caught by surprise like a German Jew in 1938.

[sniffa]

2. cut ed some sLack

the 'interview' seemed controLLed from start to 12 minutes Later. that was my take on it. it appeared it was one of those, "we'LL go on your show but you can onLy ask/say such and such." i think ed did a great job Letting condi bury herseLf.

i aLso thought the apoLogy condi didn't offer when ed bradLey gave her an opening for it, wiLL haunt the administration.

[NNN0LHI]

3. A real journalist would have walked under the rules that you suggest

And the reporter would have explained the reasons he walked on national television. That is the way 60 Minutes used to do their investigative journalism.

Don

[kcwayne]

5. I don't think Ed deserves slack

The principle argument that the administration makes against appearing before the committee under oath is this bogus "principle" against NSA testifying violating executive privilege.

If the administration told 60 minutes that they would not allow a question or challenge on their principle argument, 60 minutes should have told them that they are not a government propaganda dispersal machine and declined the interview.

If the administration put no such restriction on the interview, then Ed was totally unprepared to address Rice, and that is incompetent.

[sniffa]

6. if ed went on the attack

he'd Look Like a buLLy. i wouLd appLaud, as wouLd everyone here, but it wouLd no doubt give a sympathetic view of condi to peopLe who don't aLready hoLd her in contempt. she deserves not a shred of sympathy.

i saw the interview as a disaster, and anyone with a brain wiLL have viewed it the same. that's why i'm not knocking ed. i think it was briLLiant handLing... condi was horribLe by her own making. peopLe saw that, and not ed bradLey coaxing her, attacking her, or Leading her into making herseLf and the bush admin. Look bad.

[kcwayne]

9. There is a difference between an attack, and calmly pointing out the facts

Ed should have been properly prepared with the dates and circumstances under which both Brzezinski and Berger have testified before Senate committees. He could then simply respond to Rice when she claimed that the precendent prevents her from testifying that the precendent is not in fact an inviolate one, and since she says she would "love to testify for her own sake", wouldn't the examples set by Brzezinski and Berger allow her to do such?

That's not bullying, that's what an intelligent, informed journalist does. I know that Ed is intelligent. I am wondering whether he was prepared, or whether CBS is simply a propaganda facilitator for the administration.

BTW, welcome to DU. You have a strange L caps lock problem that is unique.

[sniffa]

10. thanks

thank you for the weLcome. :D

i understand your pov on ed as a journaList, and had he done that, it wouLd not have been buLLying, but it may have been seen as such. perception outweighs reaLity. i'm confident that the perception of Last night's interview, wiLL be that condi is Lying, and incompetent.

personaLLy, i'm reveLing in the aftermath of 60minutes.

but then again, i'm one man with an opinion.

[KharmaTrain]

4. 60 Minutes Was Conflicted

CBS Execs saw a ton of bad email...a wave of ink and radio chatter of the connections between CBS/60 Minutes and Clarke's publisher. This seemed to override the way the story was framed...(showing Condi walking in the sunshine...the "friendly" bit).

I think many of Bradley's questions make Rice look worse...not to ambush or attack her. It amplified her continued arrogance and this regime's attempt to stonewall and deflect this issue.

We know 911 ain't goin' away. Condi better stock up on underwear.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

7. Time Magazine is taking another look

[skypilot]

8. Did anyone understand Condi's answer when...

...Bradley asked her why this "Constitutional principle" couldn't be put aside this once considering the unprecedented nature of the 9/11 attacks? I listened to her because that is exactly the question that I would have asked her but I couldn't make heads or tails of her answer.

[spanone]

11. This is NOT a congressional commitee.

Condi thanks for exposing your boss for what he is. She would love nothing other than to testify. BULLSHIT.

[kskiska]

12. Didn't National Security Advisor Robert (Bud) McFarlane

testify in Iran Contra?