Ari Melber Gives a Review of Condi's Stanford Performance and a 4th Grader gets his chance

Ari Melber has a review of Condi's Stanford performance and he didn't rate it very many stars. You should read Ari's blog about the interview and get his take on it.

With several outside links and references to back up everything he says, he breaks down her story and refutes her facts. But, then that's what good reporting is all about. Too bad we have so little of it now.

In fact it has taken some university students and a 4th grader to get answers from Condi, before Congress, or any media person has bothered to ask her any tough questions.

Yes, that's correct, a 4th grader also asked her questions over the weekend. Of course his teacher wouldn't let him ask the question he wanted. But, Misha Lerner, a student from Bethesda, did get to ask, "What did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?"

Her answer was about the same as it was at Stanford. Must be a standard answer.

Rice took the question in stride. saying that she was reluctant to criticize Obama, then getting to the heart of the matter.

"Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."

She went on to say,

"I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country."

This statement is from the mother of the young inquisitor..

Misha's mother, Inna Lerner, said the question her son had initially come up with was even tougher: "If you would work for Obama's administration, would you push for torture?"

Notice there was no torture involved in his asking of the questions, and no harsh interrogation either.. He was forced by his teachers to reword his question in order not to offend, and had to take the word "torture" out.

Freedom of Speech anyone?? Guess it isn't practiced at Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital when Condeleeza Rice is there anyway. The teachers definitely censure the questions and make sure she isn't offended.

Condi Rice Went to Stanford, And You Won't Believe What She Said

The Young Turks have it for us.. I subscribe to their YouTube channel and get the videos when they come out. This was in my inbox this morning... WOW... is about all I can say..

Why are the media not covering this? They are ignoring this so much. They really don't want to talk about the fact the Bush Mis-Administration tortured. They really don't. Thank goodness some of the students were on the ball and got this on tape.

Here is what Condi Had to say and what Cenk Uygur's analysis of it afterward. It is priceless...



So, again, if the President says it is ok, then it's not illegal. Give. Me. A. Break.

Here we go with the Empirical Presidency of Bush/Cheney. That's what it amounted to. They had a stranglehold on this country and the Congress allowed it to happen.

Bush Refuses To Interrupt His Final Vacation As Middle East Crisis Escalates

In an effort to “prevent Palestinians from attacking towns in southern Israel” with rockets, Israel today undertook its third day of offensive military airstrikes in the Palestinian territory of Gaza, raising the death toll to more than 300. The Palestinian casualty numbers have been described as the highest over such a brief period since the 1967 Six-Day war. Scores of Israelis have been wounded — and at least one killed — by rocket attacks fired by Palestinians. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the situation “all out war.”

While Bush has been briefed on the situation by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, he has opted not to interrupt his final vacation as president to make a public statement on the crisis. For someone who has enjoyed the most vacation days as sitting president — including days spent relaxing in comfort during Hurricane Katrina and in the lead-up to 9/11 — it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that Bush prioritizes vacationing over crisis management.

Even an emerging crisis in the Middle East, one he pledged to resolve just 13 months ago, has not drawn President George W. Bush from his final vacation before leaving office. Despite his personal pledge at Annapolis last year to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians before 2009, this weekend Bush sent his spokesmen to comment in his stead.

Since departing Washington for Crawford on Friday, President Bush has made no attempt to be seen in public. In fact, he has yet to leave his ranch.

Today, in a press briefing delivered from the “Western White House” in Crawford, TX, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe was asked what is on Bush’s schedule today. In addition to receiving “updates on the ongoing situation,” Johndroe said, “I expect he’ll probably ride his bicycle today and spend time with Mrs. Bush.”

President-elect Barack Obama has also been monitoring the violence from his vacationing spot in Hawaii, staying in contact with Bush and Rice. “President Bush speaks for the United States until Jan. 20 and we’re going to honor that,” Obama adviser David Axelrod said.

One senior Bush administration official told the Washington Post that he thinks the Israelis acted in Gaza “because they want it to be over before the next administration comes in” and because “they can’t predict how the next administration will handle it.” Indeed, Bush has become fairly predictable in how he manages these sorts of crises.

On ABC's This Week yesterday, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) expressed his hope that removing Bush's hands-off approach may help address the situation. "I'm hopeful that as this transition comes, as we look to January, that strong presidential leadership can make a difference here."

Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, speculated that Israeli leaders synchronized their retaliatory attacks to political calendars in both Israel and the U.S. More moderate politicians running in the Feb. 10 national election needed to appear strong against Hamas, and it was perhaps better to strike before Bush left office on Jan. 20 because they weren't as sure what Obama's reaction would be.

"I think Obama will be supportive of Israel, but will bring a little more skepticism to it," Alterman said. "I think Obama will start from premise that Israel is an ally, but that we have to look at this fresh."

This is taken from two different sources. Part of it is from Think Progress and another is from a story by the Associated Press.

Some of what is happening in the Middle East is hard for me to justify. I understand both sides, yet it is hard to get news here that tells the true story of what is really going on. We are told mostly only what is happening from the side of the Israli's because they are supposed to be the good guy's, yet from what I can see, I am not sure they are right now.

Oh, I know, Hamas is bad, they are supposed to be a terrorist organization. But, really are who are they hurting lately?? That's my question. Maybe I am just naive, and just haven't been paying close enough attention to what has been happening. This is just my opinion, but right now it looks like the big boy is beating up on the little boy...and I really don't like that.

Panel: Congress was misled on Iraq uranium issue

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer
37 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales misled Congress when he claimed the CIA in 2002 approved information that ended up in the 2003 State of the Union speech about Iraq's alleged effort to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program, a House committee said Thursday. The committee also expressed skepticism about claims by then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that she was unaware of the CIA's doubts about the claim before President George W. Bush's speech.

Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium was one of the justifications for the Bush administration's decision to go to war. The claim has since been repudiated.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said in a memo that its investigation showed the CIA had warned at least four National Security Council officials not to allow Bush, in three speeches in 2002, to cite questionable intelligence that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium. The sentences were stripped out of those speeches, but made it into the State of the Union address.

In a 2004 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gonzales said the CIA had orally approved the inclusion of the claim in two 2002 speeches, although it did not appear in the final drafts. Gonzales later become attorney general.

Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote at length in his memoir about three memos the CIA had sent to the White House explaining why it doubted the claim and believed it should not be included in the speeches.

In July 2003, Rice acknowledged that the claim should not have made it into the speech based on what she had learned in the months since the State of the Union.

The committee said Gonzales, and Rice to a lesser degree, misled the public and Congress.

Rice "asserted publicly she knew nothing about any doubts the CIA had raised about this claim prior too the 2003 State of the Union address," according to the memo. Gonzales "asserted to the Senate — on her behalf — that the CIA approved the use of this claim in several presidential speeches."

The report said the evidence raises "serious questions about the veracity of the assertions that Mr. Gonzales made to Congress on behalf of Dr. Rice about a key part of the President's case for going to war in Iraq."

The House report is based largely on the testimony of a former CIA official and Obama transition adviser, Jami Misick, who was deputy director of intelligence at the CIA. Misick told the committee that in 2002 she spoke personally with Rice to dissuade her from allowing the claim to be in a speech.

Misick was interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee for its separate 2004 report on prewar intelligence and gave a different account, a Senate official said.

That committee report blamed poor CIA management for the information's use in the State of the Union, saying there was no reliable process for approving the use of intelligence in presidential speeches.


Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.