NYT: Evaluating the 9/11 Hearings' Winners and Losers

[DeepModem Mom]

POLITICAL MEMO
Evaluating the 9/11 Hearings' Winners and Losers
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: April 18, 2004


WASHINGTON, April 17 — From Sam Ervin to Earl Warren to Joseph McCarthy, high-powered investigative hearings in Washington have created heroes and villains, made and broken political careers, and rewritten history and biographies in unexpected ways. The Sept. 11 commission's hearings seem certain to take their place in that gallery....

***

(The first "player" evaluations from the article--)


....JOHN ASHCROFT Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general, was still recovering from gallbladder surgery when he testified. By the time he was finished, even some Republicans were saying he might have been better off staying at home, and some commission members suggested he may have damaged his relations with them....

***

BOB KERREY AND RICHARD BEN-VENISTE With his indignation, spirited questioning and energy so boundless that he mixed up the names of two star witnesses, Mr. Kerrey cut a memorable figure. Compared with Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Ben-Veniste was more prosecutorial, but both men stood out as tough questioners of White House officials, particularly Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser....

***

RICHARD A. CLARKE To say that opinion is divided on Mr. Clarke would be an understatement. To Democrats, he was the man who spotlighted deficiencies in the response to warnings about Sept. 11, and embarrassed the White House with his apology to the families of victims of the attacks. That was arguably the defining moment of the hearings....

***

CONDOLEEZZA RICE (The content of her testimony) has seemed to be more of a problem for the White House than for Ms. Rice, who tesitified after weeks of resistance by the administration. Her cool, poised and very prepared presence — at one point she flustered Mr. Kerrey by approvingly quoting one of his speeches to make a point — had members of both parties expressing admiration....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/politics/18PANE.html

[freetobegay]

1. I'm still confused!

:shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

2. As intended. That's the Times' job - confusing its readers with empty

polysyllabisms so they come away confused but (hopefully) complacent from the implied message that they live in the best of all possible worlds.

[freetobegay]

3. Well thank you for clearing that up!

I feel better now that I know hteir mission.

[daleo]

6. So true

But I have never heard it summarized as well.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I added some explanation on edit --

It's an "inside-the-Beltway" article, and not particularly serious. It's about power and career positioning in D.C., and not so much about the very serious subject that prompted the hearing. I don't like "inside-the-beltway" provincialism, but it's a fact of political life.

[freetobegay]

5. Thank you

eom