Moran Q+A: Rice Testimony

April 9, 2004 -- Now that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has spoken publicly to the 9/11 commission, how is the public reacting to her comments?

ABCNEWS White House correspondent Terry Moran answers questions from ABCNEWS.com users who watched the televised testimony.

Question: If this was a bipartisan commission then why was it so partisan in questions?

Answer: Because it's a bipartisan commission, not a non-partisan commission. It's just a fact in our country — and a healthy one — that we disagree politically about basic issues of governance. It is also a fact — maybe healthy, maybe not — that most of us ally ourselves with one of the two major political parties. Recognizing that fact, the Congress and the president figured the best way to design a commission was to have equal representation of Democrats and Republicans.

That said, there is a long tradition in Washington that partisanship should be set aside as much as possible in debates on national security issues (though sometimes that cannot, and should not, be done). Here, the fact that it is an election year seems to have driven some Commission members in both parties to let their loyalties influence their duties more than might have been the case in an off-year.

Question: Is there anywhere I can download the entire 9/11 commission's questioning of Rice? I missed this and would like to see the entire thing for myself.— Paul, Dallas

Answer: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html. And many other sites.

Question: Did you feel, as I did, that Dr. Rice was trying to filibuster or was she trying to be give a complete answer to each question by the panel?— RJ

Answer: I used to cover jury trials. Lawyers would always tell their witnesses, "Answer the question. And only the question. If you're asked, 'Do you have the time?' answer, 'Yes.'" But nationally televised hearings on a crucial and contentious topic during an election year are very different from trials. The White House strategy for Dr. Rice seemed to be: If you've got the microphone, use it. And she did.

Question: Assuming the real challenge was the structural nature of communications between the CIA and the FBI: A) Why hasn't there been any changes in the leadership at either organization? B.) Why was VP Cheney having private meeting without CIA involvement at the Pentagon? C.) Why did Clark, Former Sec. of the Treasury O'Neil and a few lower level FBI agents claim the administration was only looking for ways to get into Iraq? What about the memo presented by Paul O'Neil which clearly stated that was the Bush objective?— Frederick, North Hollywood, Calif.

A) This is a political question. Political leaders will have to answer it. B) He's the vice president. Aside from the president, he's the only other executive-branch officer specifically mentioned in the Constitution. He can do what he wants, as long as the President approves. For those voters troubled by Vice President Cheney's deep involvement in intelligence and national-security issues, there will be other candidates on the November ballot. C) The Bush administration came into office determined to come to grips with what most top officials viewed as a strategic threat to US interests: Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Several of these officials had long advocated American military action to remove Saddam from power. Iraq was clearly a focus of the president's attention from the get-go.

That said, top planners at the Pentagon say they were not tasked to draw up any invasion plans — an essential and necessary task that would need to be undertaken, along with intense diplomatic groundwork in the region, well in advance of any actual war — until AFTER the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Once again, voters will decide how to judge the president's strategy.

Question: I would like to know is this indicative of what the Senate now demands of our security adviser? Now that she has testified, could this mean that whenever we have security issues they will convene a panel to find absolute answers? I myself believe in a need to know for our national security matters. Do you feel this will change how our security policies are carried out?— Edward, Albuquerque

Answer: An excellent question. All presidents — and this one in particular — fight hard against what they view as encroachments on the executive by the other branches. But "executive privilege" is a funny thing. It looks like law — but it's really politics.

Presidents cave in and give up the goods when the political heat gets too intense. They "stonewall" when they've got the public on their side, or when they are politically strong enough to resist the Congress's demands. So in the future, it is likely that Rice's appearance will be declared a "precedent" by some congressional body seeking information from the executive. The president at that future time will argue that 9/11 was unique, and Rice's appearance was a singularity. And the public will essentially decide who wins.

Question: Can we see what administrative documentation is in place that defines the purpose of a "Presidential Briefing Memo." This might be enlightening.— Mike, Dallas

Answer: The history is interesting. The "President's Daily Brief" was initiated in 1964 by the CIA for President Johnson. It is not established by statute or executive order. It is, rather, a traditional form of communication between the intelligence community and the president — and a very valuable one. Here are a couple of interesting historical articles that came up when I googled the topic: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/ http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter98-99/art04.html#ft0

Question: I listened to Sec. Rice's testimony and frankly she was unconvincing. Clearly she is doing everything to protect her boss, which is admirable, but why is this administration loath to admit that mistakes were made and to ask the American public to forgive their misjudgments and miscalculations and try to move towards a unified America?— William, Taos

Answer: That's in large part a political question, and one I thus should not answer. I can tell you that every White House "spins," and refuses to admit that the president is ever wrong or mistaken — and that these tendencies worsen during an election year. It's a shame. Americans are grown-ups. They can handle a president who says, "We tried something, and it didn't work." But I doubt we will see a president say such a thing in the near future.

Question: I was not satisfied with Rice's testimony. I don't feel she was forthcoming, but rather tried to control the questioning with over long answers that really didn't respond adequately to the questions. I also think there are numerous contradictions in her testimony not addressed by the commission. — Madonna, Dexter, Mich.

Answer: Fair enough. Others thought Dr. Rice was convincing and informative. Not for me to say.

Question: Dr. Rice must have spoken Richard Clarke's name 20 times during the hour of testimony I watched, detailing his responsibilities and her dealings with him. Doesn't this pretty much negate Mr. Cheney's claim that Clarke was "out of the loop"? — Jeremy, Cullowhee, N.C.

Answer: The administration's argument is that Richard Clarke was not "in the loop" at the top level of policymaking — the president, the vice president, the cabinet. That is where the decisions — about terrorism, Iraq, etc. — were made. Clarke worked for Rice, coordinating interagency efforts against the terrorist threat — and, in theory, carrying out decisions made when he was "out of the loop." That is how Rice could speak of him one way — he worked closely with her on counterterrorism — and Cheney another — he was "out of the loop" when decisions were made about war and peace. That is the White House version.

Question: Do you think R. Clarke's book has tainted his testimony? — E.V., N.Y.

Answer: I hark back to my days covering jury trials. Many people, in evaluating the credibility of a witness, will consider whether a person has a financial, personal, or other motive to shade his or her testimony. That does not mean jurors automatically disbelieve a witness who has a personal grudge or financial tie in a case — not at all. Sometimes the force of what a witness says is just flat convincing. But it is one element people put on the scale as they decide whom to believe. And people, I've found, are pretty good at getting at the truth. That's why democracy works.

Question: How could someone who testified that the millennium plot consisted of a man with a suitcase full of explosives and a map of LA then testify that "we never had any indication there would be domestic terrorism"? Isn't LA in the US? — Kathleen, Phoenix

Answer: I believe — and you can check the transcript — that Rice was referring specifically to the summer 2001 period, when she says the only specificity in the threat information pouring into Washington indicated that the targets were overseas.

Question: I watched most of Rice's testimony, and I felt it was both complete and honest. I hope she is around a long time, and could see her being the first American female president or vice president.— Marge, N.J.

Answer: She has often dodged the question of whether she has any political ambitions. But she has also said she wants to return to California — and some top Republicans there have spoken of her as a potential gubernatorial candidate.