According to available
press reports about Condi's testimony tomorrow before the 9/11 commission, we should be in for quite a well-rehearsed and, most importantly, a very
on-message treat.
We already know she's not going to apologize. Duhh.
More importantly, I've witnessed how the giant Wurlitzer/SCLM echo chamber operates in real time for years at this point. I started to wonder how Condi's going to spin this one out.
It occurred to me, wouldn't it be so fun to start dissembling and spinning Condi's testimony for her NOW...before she starts trying to save her and her bosses asses jobs?
Let's play "Guess where this is going." It's easy and fun.
What we already know about her testimony comes right from the headlines.
Fox News is already reporting:
Rice's opening statement will be a "detailed, almost day-by-day overview" of what the administration was doing in the months before the attacks, a White House official said.
"She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place and will lay out the facts," Bush said Tuesday.
Rice is expected to speak directly to survivors of those killed in the attacks. Some Washington insiders say the tone of her testimony must be measured, deliberate and noncombative but with some passion.
"It's about defending the president ... not discrediting opponents," presidential adviser David Gergen told the Los Angeles Times.
Rice has already been criticized for focusing on missile defense and not Al Qaeda in a speech she had planned to deliver on Sept. 11, 2001.
But President Clinton also made national missile defense a priority in his final counterterrorism report, which said the United States must confront new threats that included weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and nuclear weapons.
While Clinton's report, submitted to Congress in December 2000, doesn't mention Al Qaeda, it does name Usama bin Laden as leader of the terror network that carried out attacks on American embassies and planned more attacks.
But, wait a minute. That's not true! Kevin Drum already de-bunked this when the Washington Times' argued that Richard Clarke was somehow lying when he said terrorism somehow wasn't THE focus of the Bush administration:
The full report is
here. If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.
On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."
It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":
We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.
As far as I know, Clarke never suggested that counterterrorism was the Clinton administration's highest priority, merely one of several high priorities. [Clarke's] complaint isn't that Bush didn't make it Job 1, but that he didn't give it even as much attention as Clinton did.
This is a bit long, sorry.
But my guess, based on what we already know, is Condi's going to blame Clinton and Bush in unequal measure. I already know Condi's going to spin Clarke's testimony harder than a Kenmore dryer. That's her main goal tomorrow. Therefore, she's going to argue that this is the fault of the Clinton administration because they didn't specifically identify and/or destroy Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Therefore, the argument will go, both administrations are to blame...perhaps Clinton more so because they had 8 years and poor Bush only had 8 months.
Anybody else around here have any thoughts at this point???? Anyone want to make sh!t up???
On a related note, anybody have with a Condi drinking game???