Report: Wife Scratched Tiger Woods' Face, Chased His SUV; Update: Police Unable To Interview Couple Today
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
Bloomberg Spent $102 Million On Campaign
Two Doors Fall Off AirTrain At JFK
Dogs Rescued From Puppy Mills And Shelters Arrive In L.I.
Another day, another tough crowd for former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. Last week, Stanford students put her on the defensive on the Bush administration's stance on torture; yesterday, a 4th grader from a D.C. school asked her what she thought about the Obama administration's criticism of Bush-era methods. Rice said, "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. 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," adding, "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." Flashback to Rice's 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission, admitting she saw a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" in August 2001.
Condi Uses 9/11 To "Explain" Waterboarding To 4th Graders
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (27) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
if you can download firefox at work and then use adblock.
[more]
"if i hadn't poured the water on the bad men's heads your mommy and daddy would have died in a big loud explosion."
Inappropriate question for the venue, imo.
Maybe, but kids are like that. You can expect them to come up with the most amazing statements and questions.
Not sure why you say that. The venue was a school, the kid was a student at the school, the speaker had a role in recent historical events, which the student asked about. What's inappropriate about it?
Anyway, someone apparently had the authority to screen the questions and decided that it was appropriate in that edited form:
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?"
"They wanted him to soften it and take out the word 'torture.' But the essence of it was the same," Lerner said.
I read the article, thanks. That a teacher approved it doesn't make it any more appropriate to me. Teachers make mistakes too.
This is a highly controversial subject and I'm not sure it's an appropriate discussion for 9 year olds. If parents want to discuss this issue with their own children, that's their business, but bringing it into a classroom where not all of the parents might agree on what adult issues they want their kids exposed to is not right, imo.
These kids were babies when 9/11 happened.. and Rice is saying "I hope you understand this was a difficult time". How are they supposed to understand that? How are kids supposed to understand the complex legal issues that are involved?
My original comment may not have been clear. I've got nothing against the kid who asked the question.
No major attacks on US soil between 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency speaks for itself. More than a few terror plots were foiled due to this type of interrogation.
Anyway, waterboarding was probably the only time in their lives some of these terrorist scumbags ever bathed.
It's a pity there's not a fraction as much anger when some jihadist slices off somebody's head with a rusty knife while they scream for mercy then dances around with the severed head singing Allah Akbar.
The claim that torture prevented attacks is very much in doubt, since the attacks that were supposedly prevented by the torture were foiled before the tortured persons were even in custody.
FBI Director Robert Muller has also said that no attacks were prevented as a result of confessions derived through torture.
I know you're allergic to facts, so I don't expect a response.
The anger is from people with brains and moral conscience, who understand that we are supposed to be better than said jihadists. Since you lack both a brain and a conscience, I don't expect you to comprehend this. It would be nice if you would just shut the fuck up though and stop talking about things you don't understand.
"No major attacks on US soil between 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency"
He should have been guarding us before 9/11. Not just after.
I'm going to be in charge of protecting your house. When burglars break in and steal everything you own, I am going to stay in charge and 9 years later say, "WELL no one broke in SINCE that big break-in! Yay me!"
Why bother attacking on US soil when there are so many American targets in Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, you forgot to mention there have been no attacks during the first 100 days of Obama administration.
She goes down in history as a failure as will her boss.
Yeah, and she's just as much in denial about it as her former boss is. Colin Powell at least finally admitted he was wrong, and most people still haven't regained respect for him. There's no way history will treat her kindly if she keeps parroting the party line for the rest of her life.
I think a lot of people regained respect for Powell when he endorsed Obama, and during his endorsement, repudiated the Bush administration and the GOP as a whole. I know I did.
Smart kid.
I'm surprised Rice didn't answer the kid with her own question, like "Why do you hate America?"
Awesome :)
Hell yes.
Glad it was asked, disappointed it wasn't answered. I love how she noted that indeed, "after September 11, we wanted to protect the country," because they sure didn't give a fuck about it before September 11.
So Politburo, it appears your name isn't ironic.
Rice is a public figure deeply involved in torture under the Bush administration, so that question was entirely appropriate. It was phrased well, timely, provocative but not as harsh as lots of other people would have made it.
And there should be controversy in schools -- teaching the kids to look for answers and push hard, rather than being polite sheeple.
I hope this issue follows that Bush and his crowd around whenever they appear in public.
I'm not saying the question shouldn't be asked. If you read my comment, you'll notice that I said that I thought this wasn't the right venue for the question.
Kids can be taught to 'look for answers and push hard' without getting into complex political questions that, imo, may not necessarily be appropriate for 9-10 year olds.
PS - My 'name' is an online nickname. Attempting to derive any meaning from it is folly.
"More than a few terror plots were foiled due to this type of interrogation."
Baloney. Pure baloney.
"A 4th grader from a D.C. school asked her what she thought about the Obama administration's criticism of Bush-era methods"
Really? Not prompted by parents at ALL?
Why not? I've read news papers (my brothers and I would fight for them) from an early age. Anything I didn't understand, I asked.
I don't know, 10 years old seems awfully young to ask a question like that. It's possible of course. If all kids were smart enough to ask these questions it would be great!
What's wrong with "some prompting" by the parents? They're supposed to be involved in their kids education. If the parents have been helping the kids understand basic stuff in politics and the kid seems interested, that is great.
Didn't say anything was wrong, just wondering. It would be wrong for the parents to use the kids to ask a question that was inappropriate.
Ms. Rice should know better than to lie to children, it sets a bad example.
And to ides_of_march's comment; go fuck yourself.