Today Show: A Brittle Condi Rice Defends President on WMDs, Military Record

The Today Show

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I cede to no one in my admiration for National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and have mused on this site about the notion of her being an excellent VP candidate and, who knows, someday, President of the United States.

But in her just-completed Today Show interview with Katie Couric, Rice appeared nervous, brittle and defensive, and gave answers that were at times unresponsive to the tough but relevant questions that Couric posed.

The ostensible purpose of her appearance was to tout Pres. Bush's speech on WMDs that he will give today to the National Defense University.

Katie asked whether the President had chosen this moment to give the speech in order to deflect attention from the controversy surrounding his National Guard record.

Rice insisted that the Pres. had wanted to give this speech for some time, and that circumstances had come together to make this an opportune moment to address the issue.

Katie then asked, "if efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs is a major goal, why hasn't the administration condemned the pardon granted by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan who has admitted selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea?"

Rather than answering the question, Rice praised the efforts of Pakistan in cooperating with the US and the UK in helping to "wrap up and destroy a shadowy black market for nuclear weapons."

Katie tried to press her on the apparent contradiction between US policy on WMDs and the US's failure to criticize the pardon. Rice replied by recycling her initial answer. When Katie came back to the question, Rice offered, rather weakly in my view, that "the administration is not in a position to criticize, and Khan is viewed as a hero by many in his country."

Moving to the National Guard issue, Katie asked about certain open questions: the fact that two of W's commanders had stated that he had not been seen during certain periods, and that he had been disqualified from flight duty for failing to show up for a physical.

Rice, who must have known the questions would be raised, utterly dodged the question. She said only that the President was proud of his service, and then moved on to say that the important thing to the American people is that he is providing good, steady leadership in this time of crisis.

Katie countered by citing a poll, in the context of the controversy over the failure to discover WMDs in Iraq, indicating less than half of Americans think they can trust what the President says. She asked, "clearly isn't honesty an important part of leadership, and when they hear a rationale for war don't the people want to know they can rely on it?"

Rice gave a very general answer, not responding to the poll, but just generally asserting that people trust the President and have confidence in his leadership.

Throughout, Condi seemed tense and brittle, determined to stick to her talking points.

Yes, Katie was fairly confrontational and pugnacious. But the fact is that, as uncomfortable as might be the questions she raised, they are not irrelevant and were certainly to be expected.

I believe Condi's performance is more a reflection of the administration's own nervous and defensive posture. Condi clearly had been issued strict marching orders and was sticking to them. And frankly, the timing of the President's speech on WMD does smack of political convenience and attempt to divert the attention of the press from less welcome issues.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I anticipate that some FR readers might object to this report. But I am trying hard to be candid in my assessment.

There is no point in whistling past the graveyard. To the contrary, to ignore the political problems at hand would be the worst thing that those who would like to see W's re-election could do.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Today Show ping.

[OXENinFLA]

The ostensible purpose of her appearance was to tout Pres. Bush's speech on WMDs that he will give today to the National Defense University.

Thanks for the heads up.

[mewzilla]

FWIW, I could only stomach a moment of it, so you saw much more than I did. Personally, just going by what I did see, I thought Rice looked ticked, and was trying mightily to hide it.

[CindyDawg]

Didn't see it. The Today show not on my must watch list :')

[smiley]

Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do....certainly Clinton wasn't going to get rid of Saddam....he was too busy going back to work for the American people...

[Glenn]

I don't object at all. Seems everytime we look the other way when there is a dictator in charge, it comes back to bite us several years later. In this case, that bite could be a very mean one.

[R. Scott]

the fact that two of W's commanders had stated that he had not been seen during certain periods, and that he had been disqualified from flight duty for failing to show up for a physical.

Missing a flight physical is hardly an indication that W was AWOL for an extended period of time, and as to people remembering him at drills I can’t remember many people by name that I served with during that time period.
But the diehard dems will grasp at straws, and maintain that Hanoi John was a “war hero”.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

As Khan receives his pardon, and Iran celebrates it 25th Anniversary, it appears that the President is focusing on the foreign affairs issue of WMD, rather than domestic issues.

The problem is the media will continue to attack his guard service and support Kerry.

I don't know if it is possible for the WH to address guard service, without looking defensive. There cannot be a positive way to spin it.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do.

Even the Dems are willing to admit that now. But that will not be a sufficient response for the President to questions concerning the WMDs and his military record. Rice's appearance today did little if anything to advance the President's cause.

[Catspaw]

The Today Show's on here in a couple of minutes. I'll watch to see if I agree with your observations. CNN is reporting that Condi Rice will be on Larry King tonight.

[mass55th]

"Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do....certainly Clinton wasn't going to get rid of Saddam....he was too busy going back to work for the American people..."

And the U.N. wasn't going to do anything about him either.

[rabidralph]

I've seen plenty of other interviews where Dr. Rice repeats an answer she gave to a previous question when the interviewer rephrases the question. I did not see this interview but Dr. Rice has always bristled when being questioned by stupid people. I like her icy demeanor during Q&As.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

As to people remembering him at drills I can’t remember many people by name that I served with.

We are not talking about current day interviews with Bush's former commanders, we are talking about entries logged by his commanders back then who indicated that they couldn't evaluate W because they had not seen him.

[Columbine]

Moving to the National Guard issue, Katie asked about certain open questions: the fact that two of W's commanders had stated that he had not been seen during certain periods, and that he had been disqualified from flight duty for failing to show up for a physical.

And these two are who?? You are aware that Turnipseed recanted his earlier remarks about the Alabama base.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The Today Show's on here in a couple of minutes. I'll watch to see if I agree with your observations.

I would really appreciate getting your impressions. I believe that in this kind of situation, the tone and body language are at least as important as the substance, and to my eye Rice clearly seemed uncomfortable and rather robotic in her responses. And I say this as a fan.

[mass55th]

"...it appears that the President is focusing on the foreign affairs issue of WMD, rather than domestic issues."

Isn't this the Dems plan? To keep Bush so busy with justifying the war and defending his Nat'l Guard service, that they can then tear him apart on domestic issues? Afterall, it worked for them in '92.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Sure it's their plan.

The problem is the WH is playing into their hands, and too soon, if you ask me. It's only February, there is a long campaign ahead of us.

What does the electoral map look like?

[Arkie2]

The press would rip Bush if he condemned Pakistan for this and claim he was distancing himself from a vital allie in the war on terror. He can't win with the press so best to do what's right and move on. Kerry's military record is much more devastating than Bush's. Paling around with Hanoi Jane and condemning our military would be fatal to his election chances if the press addressed the issue.

I'll make a prediction though. The press will never bring this issue up and when some political action group brings it out in the open with a political add the press and Dems will scream that it's divisive and irrelevant.

[Tamzee]

Couric is repulsive and I couldn't watch her on purpose like that for long... she isn't just nastily biased, she's extremely arrogant about it at the same time.

Watching her makes me feel like a dentist is drilling one of my front teeth and I never got my novacaine.

[BCrago66]

You didn't make a report. You gave an opinion, forgetting that nobody cares about your opinion. Eventually we'll get a transcript and/or video clip, and judge for ourselves.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

When it comes to Pakistan, I think there is much behind the scenes that Couric cannot fathom. The diplomatic and nuclear tensions are so intense, that treading lightly with a purpose are called for. (The adults are in the WH.)

I do think attacking Guard Duty, while the National Guard is serving in Iraq, is stupid. This can bite the Dems, when they least expect it.

[Prodigal Son]

I anticipate that some FR readers might object to this report.

Not at all. It was interesting. You gotta call 'em like you see 'em.

Speaking of this National Guard thing, I wrote this one earlier concerning Wesley Clark dropping out of the race (Michael Moore had endorsed him for the nomination). There's also Moore's latest open letter to the President about the 'Deserter Charge' on the thread as well. He's started to lose it a little bit on this thing, IMO.

Dude, Where's Your Candidate? (by yours truly).

If you have a minute later on, give it a look. The open letter is interesting even if my vanity isn't ;-)

[EnquiringMind]

Condi called the NG issue "ridiculous" and chose not to waste time on the subject. Perfect response.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I did a quick Google search before making this reply. I see that Turpinseed now is saying that he generally accepts W's account of his military service, but he has not said that he remembers seeing W back then. I cannot find but do remember seeing statements from commanders, made at the time, that they couldn't evaluate W's performance because he "was not observed" at their locations.

In any case, my post focused on Rice's performance. If there were good answers to Katie's questions, Rice didn't give them. Instead she tried to brush off the questions with bland generalities and then moved back to her talking points.

It struck me as a defensive, unconstructive performance.

[Prodigal Son]

When it comes to Pakistan, I think there is much behind the scenes that Couric cannot fathom.

Oh yeah. There is a lot going on over there right now.

[Flint]

Why doesn't someone point out that at that time the National Guard was seen as the Homeland Defense organization? If all of our competent pilots and airplanes had been sent to of to the war there would have been no defenses in the US. We were in a Cold War with the USSR at the time and his service was vital.

[MEG33]

Reporting in..will try to catch it.Could you tell me what time it comes in the hour?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Hi MEG. Should be coming on soon, just after Matt Lauer's first segment from Hong Kong.

[McGruff]

Katie asked whether the President had chosen this moment to give the speech in order to deflect attention from the controversy surrounding his National Guard record.

Sounds like Perky Katie's running on all 8 cylinders again.

I predict that within a couple of days it will be discovered that this speech was scheduled months ago.

I also predict that you won't hear this on any major media outlet except for Fox News channel or other Right Wing Extremest outlets.

[Stentor]

I anticipate that some FR readers might object to this report.

The invasion of Iraq appealed to me as a way to kick Arab ass to make a point. It is the only relevant issue to me. I know how I'm voting. If we win, in the next term, maybe more will get kicked to reinforce the point.

Isn't Couric hideous.?

[trebb]

Katie then asked, "if efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs is a major goal, why hasn't the administration condemned the pardon granted by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan who has admitted selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea?"

The correct answer to that leading question:

"Since it involves information way above your level of clearance, if I answered honestly, I would have to kill you. Do you have a private room we could use for the briefing?"

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Why doesn't someone point out that at that time the National Guard was seen as the Homeland Defense organization?

Frankly, having lived through that time, that is not my recollection of how the National Guard was viewed. It was seen by many as an alternative form of service for those who didn't want to go to Vietnam.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Condi called the NG issue "ridiculous" and chose not to waste time on the subject. Perfect response.

With all respect to a fellow FReeper, her response might seem perfect to strong supporters of the President. But many, not only in the press but amongst moderate and undecided voters, will want to know more and won't be satisfied to be told the issue is ridiculous.

[Liberty Valance]

Thanks for the heads up. Couric will be working for the Kerry campaign for the next 10 months and we need to get used to it.

[Phlap]

The question to be asked of W's commanders is why no action was taken at the time of this alledged transgresion? If he had not been seen during certain periods, why wasn't Bush charged? Why was he given an honorable discharge? Put these "commanders" under oath. Ain't gona happen. The dems hope to damage Bush and take away an issue ie landing on the deck of the A.C.C. and his Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad. And if they hope to rag it out until November good luck to them.

Eventualy the questions about weather Kerry needed, as did so many others, a psychiatrist to deal with his emotional distress after his service in Viet Nam will emerge.

[alnick]

We are not talking about current day interviews with Bush's former commanders, we are talking about entries logged by his commanders back then who indicated that they couldn't evaluate W because they had not seen him.

No, they wrote that he wasn't "observed." I make the distinction because several people here with NG experience have said that that means he wasn't given an evaluation at the particular time the entry was made. It has nothing to do with whether GWB was present or if the commanders making the entries noticed him present.

[mass55th]

Frankly, I don't think it's Condi's responsibility to answer any questions about the President's National Guard service. If Katie wasn't such a rabid bitch when it comes to Republicans, perhaps the President would grant her an interview and address the questions personally.

As far as the rest of Condi's appearance, I can't comment because I don't watch any of the regular network channels.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

You didn't make a report. You gave an opinion, forgetting that nobody cares about your opinion.

It's true that I mixed reporting with opinion in my post. I don't know whether you have seen previous Today Show reports that I've posted, but I do semi-regular posts on the show, normally focusing on the liberal bias on display.

But by the same token, I feel the obligation to be candid in my assessment.

The fact is that many FReepers, understandably, choose not to watch Today, and seem to enjoy getting not merely a verbatim transcript but also my take on the interviews and guests. You'll have to be the judge for yourself of my reports' merits.

[Destructor]

"Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do....certainly Clinton wasn't going to get rid of Saddam....he was too busy going back to work for the American people..."

Clinton was too busy chasing skirts to give a damn about Saddam, or national security/defense issues.

[uncbob]

I go back to a point I have been making here and that is not emphasied enough by the Bush people

As a result of our action in Iraq KADAFI gave up his WMD pursuit and more importantly THE CIA UNDERESTIMATED HIS PROGRESS

If they UNDERESTIMATED his progress why not SADDAM's
We only know about KADAFI's because he willingly SHOWED us

Who the hell knows what Saddam has /had hidden etc

Bush NEVER said the threat was emminent but that " some say we should wait till it is"

You don't put together the forces for a war overnight when things finally hit the fan

[GraniteStateConservative]

Rather than answering the question, Rice praised the efforts of Pakistan in cooperating with the US and the UK in helping to "wrap up and destroy a shadowy black market for nuclear weapons."

Because Condi has to deal with the actual country of Pakistan and not editorializing newsbabes like Katie. It's like Joe Gibbs. To hear him talk, every team in the NFL could give the Super Bowl-winning Redskins teams the fight of their life. Condi has to be diplomatic that same way.

Katie tried to press her on the apparent contradiction between US policy on WMDs and the US's failure to criticize the pardon. Rice replied by recycling her initial answer. When Katie came back to the question, Rice offered, rather weakly in my view, that "the administration is not in a position to criticize, and Khan is viewed as a hero by many in his country."

Again, she has to be diplomatic. That means not really answering the question. It means answering the question you want to answer in cases like this. Condi can't pontificate like we can at FR. Her words actually mean something. Ours don't.

Rice, who must have known the questions would be raised, utterly dodged the question. She said only that the President was proud of his service, and then moved on to say that the important thing to the American people is that he is providing good, steady leadership in this time of crisis.

Those are exactly the talking points of the WH on this. She said exactly what the press secretary has said. She said what Rove told her to say. Katie wants people to come forward to verify what the pay records said. Condi and the WH can't provide those people. So, she has to move the discussion to something else. She said Bush is proud of his service and he is proud of what the guard as an institution does day in and day out. Again, staying positive, as she was told to be.

Katie countered by citing a poll, in the context of the controversy over the failure to discover WMDs in Iraq, indicating less than half of Americans think they can trust what the President says. She asked, "clearly isn't honesty an important part of leadership, and when they hear a rationale for war don't the people want to know they can rely on it?" Rice gave a very general answer, not responding to the poll, but just generally asserting that people trust the President and have confidence in his leadership.

So, you wanted Condi to say the poll was hogwash? Special sauce and Zogby and the like as we do? That's not what she was told to do. You divert in politics, exactly like she did. You focus on your message in the face of whatever is put up to the contrary. Bush is good regardless of polls, regardless of Terry McAwful, etc. Keep repeating it-- that's staying on message.

I believe Condi's performance is more a reflection of the administration's own nervous and defensive posture. Condi clearly had been issued strict marching orders and was sticking to them. And frankly, the timing of the President's speech on WMD does smack of political convenience and attempt to divert the attention of the press from less welcome issues.

All of that is true. Of course they are worried at the WH. They've seen the polls. They've seen the internals of the polls. It's all a political calculation.

[McGruff]

Frankly, having lived through that time, that is not my recollection of how the National Guard was viewed. It was seen by many as an alternative form of service for those who didn't want to go to Vietnam.

In 1971 when I was drafted, I could have signed up for 4 years and picked where I wanted to be stationed. Germany was a popular destination. Some guys signed up for Hawaii, but that local wasn't a vacation spot like they thought it would be.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I don't think it's Condi's responsibility to answer any questions about the President's National Guard service.

Perhaps not. But by the same token, the day after the White House released W's Guard records, it was entirely to be expected that the questions would be posed to a senior administration official. If the administration didn't have a more confident response for her to offer, they should have reconsidered their strategy in having her appear this morning.

[GraniteStateConservative]

They can find people who served with him during that "gap" who can verify what the pay records say. So far, they've come up empty.

[Rudder]

The issue of WMD is a false issue--a straw man--erected by Bush's critics. Bush's "gathering threat" did not imply an immiment threat as his critics have so often misinterpreted his remarks to favor their position of assault against him. The White house has been wrong to be defensive on this issue, and it is continuing to inflict damage because of the administration's defensive posture. I never once thought that the WMD were the reason for the war because I listened carefully to Bush's words. I think the administration should come out and give the whole, rather complicated, explanation for the war with multiple messengers conveying the points, one by one.

[MindBender26]

Your posting is entirely correct. The voters will use the conduit of the public media to form decision-making opinions about this presidency and the upcoming campaign.

President Bush has a huge problem with his NG service. Now that they have released his pay records, why doesn't anyone remember him being there? I can tell you the who, what and where of each day of a total of 741 days of my incountry Vietnam service, and none of my fellow soldiers grew up to become President. (Although one went on to be GEN Fred Franks, and another GEN Tommy Franks)

Mr. Bush is, without a doubt, the president for these these times. But if the Dems now begin to accuse him of taking Drill money without ever being there, and these pay stubs would prove he took the $, then this is only going to get worse, far worse.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The question to be asked of W's commanders is why no action was taken at the time of this alledged transgresion?

Military politics can be very cut-throat. If one of Bush's superiors had wanted to come down hard upon him, they would have. They KNEW whose son he was, it isn't like the military exists in a vaccuum. To think that they just let it go, to protect him, is foolish. They didn't take action, because none was warranted.

[Liberty Valance]

Wow, now that i've seen the interview, Condi Rice did a magnificent job of defending the President's position today. Did you see the same interview? Brittle? More like educated and articulate. She's a keeper.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Condi's appearance did as much as Bush's MTP appearance. Sadly, that's about all they can come up with given the facts at hand.