Condi Rice just said on CNN that she wouldn't testify because the Panel

[sam sarrha]

Is concerned only with Policy"
and not with what actually happened on 911..

and a Security Secretary has never testified on "policy"
there was no precedent for her to testify.

and the Liberal dominated press will never point out the 'wobble' in that spin.

[Felix Mala]

1. You didn't see what you think you saw

I guess it's become a kind of folklore that Condi Rice was even serving in this administration in 2001...

[HFishbine]

10. Huh?

Folklore?

[Jacobin]

2. Let her keep 'splainin all the reasons she can't/won't

testify under oath.

"Never has a woman NSC advisor in the month of March 2004 ever testified before Congress"

"Never has a NSC with African american heritage ever testified before congress"

"Never has a NSC for a president named George W. Bush* been asked to testify before congress"

Pick your "never has" and add anything you want to. The excuses can be endless. The obvious truth is that she is lying her fat ass off on talk shows and doesn't want to go under oath.

[MonicaR]

5. ha ha

These clowns were supposed to bring honor and integrity back to the White House.

All they've brought back are the good old days of Watergate

[Felix Mala]

7. are you sure

I think it's become a folklore that these people were going to bring honesty and integrity "back" to the White House. The president never said the word integrity. (Too many syllables.)

[mcar]

21. Actually, I think it was honor and dignity

Still a lot of syllables, though :)

[koopie57]

26. I think what he said was

don't misunderestimate the horror and dignificy I will throw at my family's dinner

[trotsky]

12. So very true.

At this point, it doesn't matter what various excuses they offer. The damage is done.

[randr]

3. She has some sort of reality dysfunction

Does she really think there is a difference between what they thought they wanted to do and what they actually did. This is an investigation to discover exactly how the thoughts (policies) translated into actions and if those actions were appropriate in the situation.
Give it up Condi, you are only a pawn in their game!

[jean]

4. no former SecSec'y had thousands die under their inept watch, either

And don't you wonder what else they are neglecting, either through just sheer dumb idiocy or through focus on their bogus PNAC delusions of grandeur?

What the else is falling apart on their watch?

Richard Clarke held up two visual aids in his Meet the Press appearance yesterday: The hand written thank you for your service from b*sh and Clarke's fully prepared policy plan/recommendation on protecting the country against Cyberterrorism.

Will his Cyberterror policy "suggestions" be ignored as well?

We should all get a copy ( screened for citizens to see ) of Clarke's Cyberterror plan so there can be a national discussion. If we can't have a copy then let's have PBS or SOMEONE sponsor a thorough documentary to inform the public.

[Beetwasher]

6. A Black Woman Named Rice Has Never Testified

before a 9/11 panel before. Therefore, there's no precedent for her testify. :eyes:

[Barkley]

8. I thought the Constitution barred her from testifying not policy?

So which one is it?
Both?

She sure talked about policy in TV interviews in the past:
Supporting coupe against Chavez of Ven.
"we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".

We know what happened on 9-11; over 3,000 innocent people were
murdered.

We want to know if any officials were negligent.

The arrogance of this administration knows no bounds.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. She should be honest and admit that she can't testify under oath

because she doesn't want to.

[Ediacara]

11. I'm confused

Just yesterday she said she was Constitutionally barred. Even though she won't point out where in the Constitution her non-Constitutional position is outlined to not be compelled to testify before anyone.

Now she's saying she doesn't have to because she doesn't think that they're interested in listening to what she has to say, and again, her non-Constitutional position hasn't ever talked to people before?

What the fuck is wrong with the media!?

[htuttle]

13. J’accuse!!

Liar!

[Toucano]

14. It's amazing.

I don't think Condi has a smoking gun. The most we're going to get out of her testimony is conflicting statements. She'll just say, "I misspoke," and that would be the end.

I mean, the public and the press let her get away with saying on MTP in June that she "simply forgot" that the yellow-cake uranium claim had been discredited by Tenet and taken out of Bush's Cincinnati speech. That's why it ended up in the SOTU address. They "simply forgot" because it was "3 plus months". This from a highly educated person who has earned 5 degrees and has 3 honorary degrees. Poor memory is a hallmark of the highly educated, isn't it? She was never required to remember things from the start of the semester to the end? That would be "3 plus months" would it not?

BUT

Pigheaded W wants to make one of his cowboy-standing-strong poses over this issue and it is creating far more problems than it could ever be worth. He's cutting his nose to spite his face.

[LadeJarl]

15. Because..

Pres. Cheney told her not to testify.

Erik

[robbedvoter]

16. Wow! She found out the 9.11 commission was NOT congress!

We need a whole new set of reasons! ;-)

[havocmom]

23. And someone pointed out to her the office of NSA isn't mentioned

in the Constitution.

[gemlake]

17. The "policy" excuse is a joke

TPM points to Sandy Berger's testimony during the Asian campaign contribution hearings:

"in 1997, when he was NSC Director, he was testifying in the course of an investigation into a scandal -- but certainly one with policy implications, since I'm pretty sure what they were asking him about was whether money affected policy. Why this is a constitutionally significant distinction is lost on me too. But again, that's their out -- it wasn't about 'policy'.

. . . .

I think there's a growing realization in Washington this weekend that Rice is going to testify, whether she realizes it yet or not. Among several reasons why is the fact that her rationales for not testifying are just becoming more and more visibly bogus, drawing tortured distinctions of no clear constitutional import."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[skypilot]

18. Which seems to be the opposite of what she says here.

"... But this commission is rightly not concentrating on what happened on the day of September 11.. So, this is not a matter of what happened on that day, as extraordinary as it is - as it was. This is a matter of policy. And we have yet to find an example of a national security advisor, sitting national security advisor, who has - been willing to testify on matters of policy."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002777.php

OK, so WHO exactly is stuck on policy?

[kodi]

19. why, isn't that downright Clintonesque?..depends on the meaning of policy?

they live by the rhetorical sword, they die by it too.

[stepnw1f]

20. Can They Subpoena Her?

[bagnana]

22. If she is complaining about the panel that's good news

So now the Bush Administration is going to diss the panel's mission and motives? Bring it on.

[Moderator]

24. NEEDED - Link

Please supply ASAP.

[yellowcanine]

25. So preventing the attacks had nothing to do with policy?

Whatever you say, Condi. In other words, they just hate our freedoms. Um, ok.

[Moderator]

27. Locking

duplicate discussion - go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x450788