Rice expected to meet 9/11 commission again (MSNBC)

[WillyT]

Rice expected to meet 9/11 commission again
Panel could insist on oath; GOP lawmakers target Clarke testimony

<snip>

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks indicated Friday that it was likely to grant a request from the White House that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice meet with it in private again to rebut criticism about counterterrorism policies.

“The commission expressed its desire earlier in the week to see her again,” Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, told MSNBC.com, adding that a response to the White House could come before or after a meeting Tuesday of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

“I imagine that at some point along the way it will happen,” he said. But he said the “commission needs to discuss” the request that Rice not be required to testify under oath.

<snip>

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195 /

Aaaarrgghh!!!

SHIT!!!

:nuke:

[orwell]

1. Question

Why would she insist on not taking the oath unless she intends to lie?

O

[arcane1]

3. there is NO REASON WHY NOT!!!!!!!

dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WillyT]

7. Yep !!! --- Except...

I just posed a ? over in GD. These assholes had Clarke's manuscript for over three months.

Betcha they had time to plot all sorts of lies and attacks while reading the thing.

This hyperbolic indignation is possibly a phony diversion to whatever else is comin down the pipe.

:shrug:

[arcane1]

8. yep, like they had those Dem judicial nominee files for a year

all kinds of time to figure out their talking points, etc. Then they'll say Condi can't take the oath because it will be misused in politically-based attacks or some such garbage...


But believe me, I'm the one who gets the most scared when it starts looking like they are going down. They will NOT go down easy :evilfrown: :scared:

as Paris says: Till we get peace it’ll be pain, And they know, and they know, they know....

[WillyT]

10. Yep... Got Me A Little Scared Myself !!!

If we win this thing in November, everybody keep your eyes peeled.

No tellin what they might try this time.

:scared:

[arcane1]

13. they will make the Clinton witch-hunts seem like a picnic

bank on it :(

[orwell]

11. Eat Cake

Plus now they are trying to release Clarke's secret testimony to Congress to try and nail HIM for perjury. He has testified TWICE under oath. But he is "evil".

Quenn Condi however tells the peons to "eat cake."

We remember the last time that line was used...

O

[girl gone mad]

2. They shouldn't cave..

in to her demands. If she wants to testify, it should be in public, under oath.

[orwell]

9. Move Along

Even if it is not in public, the public should be able to read the record. But there is no reason to not swear to tell the truth unless you intend to lie.

These are public officials, not royalty. They expect us to take drug tests and file truthful applications to work at Home Depot. This woman is in charge of National Security. I thought that was a big deal to 'Murricans...

Move along...nothing to see here.

O

[eileen from OH]

4. This is not that bad. . .

It will keep alive the "Condi won't testify in public under oath" meme. It's one more contrast between Clarke-in-public-under-oath in front of the 911 families and the secret what-is-she-hiding-that-she- can't-say-in-front-of-them-and-the-world UNDER OATH thing.

It only highlights the above-board and honest testimony of Clarke. It won't affect public opinion if it AIN'T IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC.

This is a huge mistake on their part. They may win the battle, but they've lost the credibility war.

eileen from OH

[Junkdrawer]

5. Offer her immunity, but make it public...

Then, if she accepts, we can all assume she's lying... :evilgrin:

[KissMyAsscroft]

6. Unreal.

Just un-fucking-real.

[screembloodymurder]

12. How can we contact the commission?

Rice must testify under oath.

[xchrom]

14. intending to lie

[Moderator]

15. locking

dupe - and a bad link. here's the headline it goes to: Republican lawmakers seek to discredit Clarke


previous discussion here -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=444245