- Archives

(With few exceptions:) The New York Times (1/19) describes the hearing as a "delicate rinse cycle applied to Condoleezza Rice by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, despite a jab here and there." Those watching "could be forgiven for thinking that the future secretary of state was a newcomer to the Bush administration. With a few exceptions, the hearing was political theater." Rice "acted as if things were going according to plan in Iraq and everywhere else, and the senators acted as if she were not part of the serial disasters of the administration's foreign policy." Senators "recited the flaws in Mr. Bush's foreign policies...and then did little more than politely urge Ms. Rice to check into those things once she's confirmed." All three networks led their newscasts with Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing. While there was a consensus in the reporting that Rice faced no serious obstacles to her eventual confirmation, the stories noted the senators' pointed questions, especially on Iraq. Despite the tough "grilling," Rice was portrayed as holding her ground. [more]

CBS Evening News (1/18, lead story, 3:10, Roberts) reported, "Her confirmation is not in doubt, but today, Senators raised plenty of doubts about White House policy, grilling Condoleezza Rice on the Iraq war and what it's done to America's image."

NBC Nightly News (1/18, lead story, 2:45, B. Williams) reported Rice faced a "sometimes ferocious cross-examination," making a "long day in the hot seat for the woman known for her famously cool demeanor under fire."

ABC World News Tonight (1/18, lead story, 3:10, Douglass) reported, "Rice held her ground as a Senators' frustration about the war in Iraq boiled over," and Sen. Chuck Hagel "asked skeptically if there really is a plan for the US to get out." Sen. Barbara Boxer "accused Rice of concocting new explanations" for the Iraq mission, while Kerry "heaped scorn on Rice's defense of the war."

WPost Praises Rice. The Washington Post (1/19) editorializes that Rice "was polished, well prepared, and good at making the president's case and answering the sometimes passionate critiques of his record in Iraq and elsewhere. ... Better presentation and a more professional style could certainly help U.S. foreign relations, which have been damaged not only by the war in Iraq and other substantive acts but by the arrogant highhandedness, incoherence or simple neglect that much of the world has experienced from Washington." Moreover, she "appears to be assembling a highly experienced and respected team, passing over agenda-driven appointees...in favor of more pragmatic professionals such as Robert B. Zoellick."[more]