Sense of security evident to viewers
A one-liner from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice defused a tense moment during her eagerly anticipated, nationally televised testimony before the 9/11 Commission yesterday morning.
In the midst of a grilling from former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey, Rice interrupted after he repeatedly referred to her as "Dr. Clarke," an apparent reference to former counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, whose contention that the Bush administration failed to make aggressive efforts to protect the country against the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had put the spotlight on Rice's appearance.
"I don't think I look like Dick Clarke," Rice finally responded, as the gallery laughed.
Looking a bit deflated, Kerrey mustered a wan smile when he concluded his questioning.
And Rice survived the confrontation.
However one feels about the administration's handling of the terrorist threat, it was hard to argue with the contention of NBC's Tim Russert that Rice was "articulate and poised" during roughly three hours of testimony.
Seated at a table facing a phalanx of photographers and the commission members, she displayed a softer, more moderate side of President Bush's big-stick, tough-talking foreign policy team.
Mixing in the occasional smile with a crisp, businesslike demeanor, she managed to seem conciliatory without offering a hint of mea culpa on the part of the White House. She stuck doggedly to her central message -- "there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks."
As a television event, the hearing did not produce the drama or defining moments that marked two other widely watched Washington showdowns, Oliver North's testimony during the 1987 Iran-contra hearings or Clarence Thomas's appearance in his explosive Supreme Court confirmation battle in 1991.
For one, the format did not lend itself to the revealing moments that viewers are used to seeing on such television courtroom dramas as "Law & Order."
While the commission may not be overtly partisan, the hearing featured a confrontational inquisitor followed by a friendlier one, which meant that Rice did not face the kind of lengthy stretch of prosecutorial questioning that can knock a witness off stride and ignite fireworks.
She did face a few uneasy moments, however.
Richard Ben-Veniste, a Washington lawyer and a Democrat, drew applause with pointed questions about the administration's pre-Sept. 11 knowledge of the Al Qaeda threat. Kerrey was very aggressive, but may have turned off viewers by battling Rice for the microphone.
Perhaps the most effective Rice antagonist was former congressman Timothy Roemer, a Democrat, who seemed to momentarily rattle her by hammering away at the lack of effective communication about the terrorist threat within the administration.
"Why don't the principals [Cabinet-level officials] at that point say, `Let's all talk about this?' " he asked, adopting a folksy, Matlock-style country lawyer persona.
At one point, in an effort to explain the vague nature of the pre-9/11 warnings, Rice opened a window on the murky world of terrorist "chatter," by reading communications that warned of a "big event," and trumpeted "unbelievable news coming in weeks."
Later, under Roemer's questioning, she added that "we've all asked ourselves `what more could have been done? . . . How do you act on `something very, very big is going to happen,' beyond trying to put people on alert?"
The American public will ultimately decide whether Rice was a credible witness. But she was a telegenic, polished, and confident one. 