Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, had this to say about Clinton’s private meeting:
“A lot of what we talked to him about was actually the inner workings of presidency as well as many of the classified briefings we’ve been able to read,” [commission chairman Tom] Kean said in an appearance on Thursday evening on “Newshour” with Jim Lehrer. “We asked him some pretty detailed questions on those. And he was just totally frank – totally frank, totally honest, and forthcoming.”
Kevin Drum, while trying to pretend that this was actual sworn testimony from the former President (it was not), had this to say:
Isn’t that a refreshing change of pace? And he did it all without Al Gore there to help him along.
I would agree- Clinton being candid, honest, and forthcoming IS a refreshing change of pace. But really, despite Kevin’s veiled allegation that Rice was somehow dishonest, this is not a change of pace at all:
The administration has requested a second private session with Rice to clear up “a number of mischaracterizations” of her statements and positions about the attacks. She was interviewed by the panel behind closed doors on Feb. 7.
Rice was “very, very forthcoming in her first meeting with us,” said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican named by Bush to lead the commission.
Yawn. Kevin is rapidly approaching Josh Marshall territory.
rkb
Oh, Drum overtook Marshall a while back with the ludicrous AWOL attempt.
kevin holtsberry
Perhaps I am blind but I have never understood the appeal of Drum. He just rumages throught he news and looks for ways to bash those he disagrees with. There are untold bloggers who do the same thing, why does he get a job at Washington Monthly? I have never seen any particular insight of great writing from his site.
Ricky
Josh Marshall is a partisan flak but he’s NOT ignorant.
Drum is the most ignorant blogger out there.
JC
Umm – the point was about that Clinton will meet alone with the commission, while Bush needs Cheny to tag along, and clean up after him. I thought this was obvious.
John Cole
Nonsense, JC- the “and he did it without Al Gore…” nonsense was an additional swipe.
You people are not only dishonest with the rest of us- you are dishonest to yourselves.
_
Kevin Drum, while trying to pretend that this was actual sworn testimony from the former President
Really? Where did he pretend that? As JC points out, I think your mind-reading powers are malfunctioning a bit.
If this is the best criticism anyone can come up with on Drum, he must be the best blogger in the world. Sheesh.
John Cole
Are you people idiots?
“With all the fuss over Condoleezza Rice’s testimony yesterday, it slipped through the cracks that Bill Clinton was up right after her. How did he do?”
Clinton was not testifying ‘right after her.’ He was merely speaking to the commission, not testifying under oath.
Jeebus.
_
Uh huh, well let’s see. Did he say Clinton was *testifying* right after her? Well…no. No he didn’t. Did he ever mention anything about being under oath at all? Hmm…guess not. But luckily you’re here to tell us what people mean EVEN WHEN THEY DON’T SAY IT. Must be fun to create straw men to knock down. Bet it makes you feel like a big man.
Gary Farber
For crisake, John, you’re ranting because someone praised the fact that Clinton showed up and testified for hours, and the commissioners, including all the Republicans, liked that?
I’m sure you’re not going insane, but I thought you said you were over rabid Clinton hatred.
A reader says on Kevin Drumm:”He just rumages throught he news and looks for ways to bash those he disagrees with.”
Yes, he would be entirely unlike other bloggers in that. It’s terrible.
Sheesh. Worthwhile, essential, commentary, indeed.
Gary Farber
“You people are not only dishonest with the rest of us- you are dishonest to yourselves.”
“You people”?
Who are you declaring as so dishonest, John?
(It’s a tiresome exercise asking you this sort of thing.)
John Cole
I am ranting because the clear implication is that Clinton was honest and straight-forward, while Rice and others in this administration have not been.
Gary Farber
“Are you people idiots?”
Dunno. Who are you referring to, and who are you quoting?
John, this sort of thing is enough to make one wonder if you drink and blog.
(I’ve been stupid enough to do that, and I’ve always regretted it, in case you wonder.)
Gary Farber
“I am ranting because the clear implication is that Clinton was honest and straight-forward, while Rice and others in this administration have not been.”
It’s hard to see how either of us are qualified to rate Clinton’s testimony, given that we’ve not been able to read it.
But Tom Kean praised it at length on the PBS Newshour.
I guess, being the Republican chair appointed by President George W. Bush, he must be part of the Eveeil Conspiracy, or something.
John Cole
Umm. That is precisely my point Gary. Hence, this atatement- “Isn’t that a refreshing change of pace?” is sheer partisan hackery, since the THOMAS KEAN, the same guy you just noted, said the same thing about Condi’s testimony.
In other words, it is not a change of pace at all- despite Drum’s attempt to call her (everyone now- if honesty is a of pace, then dishonesty must be the norm) dishonest.
Kimmitt
Gov. Kean did not say the same thing about Dr. Rice’s testimony. He made a statement regarding Dr. Rice’s February 7th testimony. We have no information regarding Gov. Kean’s impressions surrounding Dr. Rice’s recent testimony.
To put it another way:
1) Drum believes that Dr. Rice was evasive.
2) Drum brings forward someone who has every partisan reason to speak of Clinton with the faintest of praise who says that Clinton was quite forthcoming.
3) Drum compares and contrasts the two, then sticks in a nice dig regarding the President’s need for a minder.
None of this had anything to do with Rice’s February 7th testimony. Thank you; have a pleasant evening.
Slartibartfast
I think that in the mind of one who’s already convinced themselves that Rice has something to hide before she ever set foot before a microphone, an insistence on a thoughtful, complete answer to questions could seem evasive. I mean, who in the world who didn’t have something to hide would take pains to give the entire answer, despite the panel’s insistence that she stop when THEY think she’s done?
Slartibartfast
And no, I’m not going to edit the above for grammar. I haven’t had my coffee yet. Deal with it.
JC
Again, clearly comparing Rice and Clinton, is missing the point. The point is to compare the two PRESIDENTS.
You may be completely right in your point about Rice (which I don’t think you are, but let it go) and this still is only a straw man. Not Rice. BUSH.
Sheesh…
Slartibartfast
So, for equivalence, you’d have Bush appear before the commission, not under oath? Interesting. But I’m suspecting that’s not what you meant.
Kimmitt
I’d certainly see an unrestricted discussion not under oath but without any minders to be significantly superior to the limited discussion with Cheney next to him.
JC
Actually, for the longest time, the commission was attempting for “equivalence” between the two administrations – that Clinton and Bush would be under the exact same strictures, and the same would be for Gore and Cheney. This didn’t happen – but I think it would have been the fairest, least partisan thing to do. Note, that the Bush administration has been the stonewalling entity here. And yes, “unrestricted discussion under oath but without any minders”, would be superior.
Ricky
Bush is busy finishing the job that Clinton left.