Condeleeza's refusal is the nail in the coffin of Bush

[Must_B_Free]

My wife says her refusal to testify under oath is like someone refusing to take a breathalyzer. I have to agree. This was and STILL IS a matter of national security. Her unwillingness to take an oath of honesty in this matter of her country's national security is at least scandalous, if not treasonous.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. It looks really bad.

It needs to be brought up often.

What is she hiding?

[Cleita]

3. She's hiding the fact that to go under oath she would have

to repeat everything that she has said on all the talk shows and that she writes about in her columns and convince herself that she is speaking the truth. Then she would have to answer questions.

[Must_B_Free]

4. Why won't she cooperate for the sake of her country?

she could be hiding something relatively innocuous, like Clinton and his lie about "that woman". But in an issue where we need to find out what the shortcomings in our national security were... Unbelieveable that a public servant refuses to serve the public interest.

[chookie]

53. A classic dilemma

If she tells the truth, she will be "disloyal" to His Chimperial Highness.

If she lies, she will do jail time for perjury at some time in the future.

Therefore -- she keeps her trap shut. Kinda a "lady-like" way to please the Fifth.

[Jawja]

68. Well, no....

she's not keeping her trap shut. She's getting airtime before the public, not under oath and not before the Commission, to dispute the testimony of others.

[Sulldogg]

7. I woudl like her to testify

But I do have some reservations because of the separations of powers issue she raises.

If a purely legislative body can call purely executive adivsors, those advisors it has no jurisdiction over, to testify, then I think they are out-stepping the checks and balances placed upon them. Becasue of this, I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and other confirmed members of the administration should all testify.

[Solomon]

11. What legislative body? Isn't this an executive commission, created

by Bush himself? What separation of powers is she talking about?

[Sulldogg]

12. Here

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

[Solomon]

19. But isn't the fact that it's "independent, bipartisan commission", take

her argument away?

[Sulldogg]

20. No,

Since it is still a legislative-brnach run commission, it could be seen as interfereing with the Executive branch's power to name its own advisors. The constitution clearly lays out who congress has oversight over and who they don't. Anything outside of that is getting into a very odd area.

[Must_B_Free]

21. It should be overlooked in the interest of national security

she could be fully to blame through incompetence and thus should not be allowed to hide behind priveledge.

[Sulldogg]

22. All I'm saying is

I have reservations about it, but I would much prefer her to testify.

[Leilani]

48. Many exceptions have been made in the past

so she wouldn't be breaking precedent.

[capriccio]

24. AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

She already testified behind closed doors, so where's the separation of powers argument? She doesn't want to go public (as other executive appointees have), and that's a whole other issue.

[Sulldogg]

25. No

Discussing facts, situation and whatnot isn't forbidden, it's that testifying under oath is a major thing and opens up the possiblity of interference with separation of powers.

[Nashyra]

44. Isn' t it the * administration that keeps saying 911 changed everythin?

So her testifying is part of the change.

[Kool Kitty]

46. Yup, Nashyra, that's what I said

in this thread further down. Whoever thinks that she shouldn't testify is shooting themselves in the foot. She won't testify under oath, but she's all over the TV shooting her mouth off about someone else's testimony? If she's so bent out of shape about it, why doesn't she put her money where her mouth is and testify, and do it this time UNDER OATH. (Unless, of course, she's lying. But that's not possible, is it, I mean, this was the administration that was supposed to bring integrity back to the WH...)

[Q]

51. "Separation of powers" is a RWing talking point...

...which has no basis in fact. It's like Nixon and his 'executive privilege' argument. The Bushies are using it to cover their ass and hide their malfeasance. The legislative branch has the power to investigate and question the executive branch as part of their Constitutional responsibilities.

[Dhalgren]

54. The congress is specifically charged with the oversight of

public officials - that's why they have the power to impeach a president. They had no hand in electing that person, but they have the duty to oversee his/her actions as surrogates of the people. There is no member of the government that is exempt from congressional interview.

[Sulldogg]

59. That is not true

The constitution clearly defines which parts of the executive branch are subject to Congressional oversight. Outside of those, the legislative branch has no powers over the actions of those individuals. Allowing congress to overstep their constitutionally limited powers is a very scary move...

[RedSock]

60. so why did powell tenet and rummy testify?

so why did powell tenet and rummy testify?

are they not also supposedly exempt?

[unblock]

2. it's one thing to refuse to answer specific questions

really.

she should just agree to testify and then, when asked almost anything of consequence, say something like, 'due to ongoing national security considerations, i cannot answer that question'.

that's how to stonewall. then the mighty wurlitzer can kick in and have something to defend. they'll be able to come up with excuses for any SPECIFIC question.

but just plain refusing to testify period, that's too broad to justify.

[swag]

5. It's amateur hour at that White House

and unfortunately, it has always been that way with these guys.

[Career Prole]

6. I bring it up often!

At work and on other boards. My kid brother told me today "Sure Clarke sounded convincing, but all these other people are saying he's lying."
I told him, "You picked up your Masters at MIT...don't be so stupid in public. Lying under oath carries a stiff penalty. If both sides want to 'swear in' we listen to the evidence, make a decision, and charge the lying party with perjury. If one side refuses to testify under oath it's not considered evidence. What they say has no bearing on the process except to the fools who fail to see this basic truth."

Dan Senor is a friggin' android. I just wanted to get that in.

[FARAFIELD]

8. she did testify

just in private, but her refusal to do public testimony is lame, i mean if you have already testified in private why not in public. I just think she doesnt want to get caught in a lie. I that case the appearance of not testifying makes people think she is hiding something.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. She's never testified under oath. Period.

[Must_B_Free]

10. oh, so she testified

in private? as in "when noone was looking"?

[Solomon]

13. it can't be considered testimony if she didn't take an oath. More like

an interview is what they called it.

[Berserker]

15. There should be no separations of powers

that excuse makes me sick! And she says chimpy won't let her testify
Put your hand on that bible like the rest of us Americans would have to you are not above us! And also lets hear from you Mr.President or do you need a BJ to get you on the stand. For once in your life be a man.

[Sulldogg]

16. Do you mean that title?

I hope not

[Career Prole]

14. I'm not aware of her testifying under oath.

I have seen it referred to only as a private interview. Where did you read that she was under oath? Thanks!

[Manix]

18. Yes I think your right. She will not say anything under oath.

[DieboldMustDie]

17. On Nightline tonight...

one commentator -- I think it was David Gergen, but I'm not 100% on that -- was saying she should waive executive privilege and testify, rather than responding in the press.

[Wapsie B]

23. OK.

Even if you believe that chimpy sits at the right hand of God why wouldn't you want all the major players in the WH to testify UNDER OATH? This is 9/11 we're talking about here. That means chimpy on down. How can even a die-hard repug defend this refusal to cooperate? This is sick, and any political party that allows this to go on doesn't deserve to exist.

[Blue-Jay]

26. Understand this. It's not HER refusal.

It's the refusal of Bush/Cheney to allow her to be picked apart by people smarter than her. She'll crack by forgetting the lies that she's been fed, and they damn well know it. Either that, or she'll be too afraid to peddle the falsehoods.

If Cheney told her to appear before the commission in public, she'd do it. Her orders are to simply repeat her script on the softball "news" shows and feign righteous indignation.

Either way, it's not her choice to make. She's a good little soldier.

[Sulldogg]

27. I honestly think

you underestimate Rice's intellect.

I'm not 100% familiar with all of the people on the 9/11 commission, but Condoleeza Rice is an established intellectual. She has a Ph.D. in International Studies, was Provost at Stanford and is widely regarded as an authority on Eastern European and Soviet political operations.

I think she's definitely a shill for this group in the WH, but insulting her intelligence is just unwarranted.

[Stephanie]

28. Regardless, she is cracking under the pressure

She looked absolutely nuts today - twitchy, blotchy, sweaty and high-pitched. She's going to crack.

[Sulldogg]

29. I think she realizes

its a sinking ship...

[Blue-Jay]

30. No, she's very smart.

My point was this:

1. It's not HER decision to make.
2. She's not a good liar, and the administration knows it.

They don't trust her to be believeable, unless she's unchallenged. Follow the bouncing head and sing along, kiddies. The gamblers call it a "tell", and she'd be trounced.

[Kool Kitty]

31. Well, if she's not dumb,

she certainly lacks imagination. Especially after her famous "no one could have EVER imagined that hijacked planes would be used as missiles" quote. She may know her shit about the former Soviet Union, but she is distinctly tone-deaf in regard to testifying. She should testify under oath. Bush or Cheney or whoever runs this whole circus of an administration should waive whatever prohibitions there are and have her testify. I mean, after all, aren't they always wailing that "9-11 changed everything"? Just once, they should be a little bigger and show that they think the American people deserve some answers.
And as far as her having a degree, well, W has a degree, too. And I don't think much of his intellectual prowess.

[Sulldogg]

32. Bush has a MBA

Rice has a PhD, very different levels of post-graduate work.

[Kool Kitty]

33. Sorry, my error.

I just don't think much of people that are supposed to be so smart, but have no common sense and zero compassion. (My husband has a PhD, you'd think I would know the difference, wouldn't you? Maybe I'm up too late.)

[Sulldogg]

35. Makes sense

BUt I was pointing out that calling her stupid doesn't help anything.

[Kool Kitty]

37. No, maybe it doesn't.

But I didn't call her stupid, did I? (Not that I remember, anyway.)

[Sulldogg]

38. No

BLue-Jay did, that's why I posted the post you responded to initially.

[Blue-Jay]

40. Nooooooo.

I implied that several members of the commission are probably smarter than her when it comes to ferretting out the truth. I never said the word "stupid".

Did I?

[Sulldogg]

42. Okay

I misinterpretted what you were saying, sorry.

[Blue-Jay]

43. No blood, no foul.

Honestly, I'm just feeling a little argumentitive tonight. I just got back from a gig where I had to break up two fights by using calm reason. They think I'm some kind of damn Zen master, yet I'm still pissed off. Sorry to vent.

Any drummers in Ohio looking for steady work?

[Blue-Jay]

39. Nobody called Condi "stupid".

Maybe I didn't phrase my original post well. I'm calling her a bad bobble-headed liar.

She knows her shit. Unfortunately, her "shit" has zero to do with the tasks that she's been assigned.

[Dhalgren]

57. And I have known absolute morons with Ph.D.s

Sorry, her abilities in academe notwithstanding, she hasn't come off as very bright since she accepted her appointment.

[sendero]

64. Thank you...

... for pointing that out. So many people get educational achievements confused with intelligence. There is only a mild correllation at best in my experience.

Getting a PhD has a lot more to do with perseverence than it does with intelligence. A person with average intelligence can get a PhD.

That is not to say that I think Condi is stupid. Other than the fact that she got herself mixed up with this bunch of clowns and now she is just trying to escape with her freedom and reputation. It is not going to be easy IMHO.

[Skittles]

67. THANK YOU DESEO

I work with people with advanced degrees who have a hard time sounding coherent in a freaking email.

[GoldenOldie]

52. Condi's smarts,

Condi's qualifications were Russian history, etc., she had no background on the ME. If she was as smart as some give her credit for, and been forewarned by briefers from the previous administration and Dick Clarke, why was she not burning the midnight oil and educating herself on the ME and utilizing all sources available. This administration seemed to have the mentality of "your not my boss and we don't have to listen to anything you have to say," result 9-11.

[Skittles]

66. it's not her imagination

she is a Class A Bush whore and a certified LIAR.

[tkmorris]

34. Interesting side point that

"and is widely regarded as an authority on Eastern European and Soviet political operations."

That's about as useful in a National Security Advisor as being an expert in ancient Babylon isn't it? Just wanted to point that out.......

[Sulldogg]

36. Eastern Europe

is still dealing with the Soviet Legacy, and with Putin the former head of the KGB presiding over Russia, I don't think it's time to burn those books just yet.

[Dhalgren]

58. "Burn books"? You mean "bridges"?

You can defend Condi's intelligence all you want - she has a high IQ - o.k., so what? If you act and speak like an idiot, you shouldn't be surprized if someone says, "Hey, you're an idiot" She has performed so poorly as the NSA, that she should resign in shame (of course if the same level was held to others in this administration they would have to follow suit).

[Kool Kitty]

41. That's why Clarke said it was like they were

"preserved in amber". (W's father old retreads that he himself hired.) They were all about the former Soviet Union and the woeful missile defense system, although I may kinda understand their interest in the old USSR. Resources and pipelines, that sort of thing.

[Timefortruth]

50. She probably has a high IQ, but there is more to intelligence

than that. Common sense in the form of wisdom and judgment are equally important.

[Solomon]

55. It doesn't matter how much intellect you have. If you've been left out

of the loop, then you'll look pretty stupid.

[July]

56. I know lots of "established intellectuals" and Ph.D.s,

and I can guarantee you that a Ph.D. or a high position in a university is no guarantee of authority or intellect. Yes, you must have SOME intelligence to get a Ph.D. But I haven't seen any evidence in the things Rice says that she's anything more than a third-rate intellectual, like most of the people filling up conservative "think tanks."

[susu369]

63. Baloney

Rice is NOT an "established intellectual" - parrot it all day long but I still do not buy it.

Saying it does NOT make it reality.

If she was truly smart, she would never have joined this evil cabal.

This sample of her established intellect just bowls me over:

"We did not know at the time – no one knew at the time, in our circles – maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken."

[Skittles]

65. her "intelligence" does not impress me

she has never impressed me in any of her interviews.

[tom_paine]

45. Given the troubled state of our Voting Systems...

...I cannot believe that until I see it an not an iota before!

Look, they shamelessly stole 2000. They stole 2002 with "rob-georgia" Diebold help. They gerrymandered Texas in violation of tradition and possibly law (not that "law" has any practical meaning where Busheviks hold sway). They stole California using a 100 year old law for a bad purpose and I think there was vote fraud in that one, too (sadly, I think Ahnold would have won with or without Bushevik tampering).

Listen to Scalia's arrogance...to all Bushevik arrogance. they have something in store for us...maybe several somethings.

And they have the ability to stuff and block tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of votes. Now they have Diebold, too.

I wouldn;t count chickens. There's miles to go and work to be done.

[Serenity-NOW]

47. Clinton testified to a legislative commission

Didn't that set a precedent? I really don't buy this 'separation of powers' argument coming from an administration that wants Congress to have the ability to overrule the judical branch. It makes no sense. Not like much does these days.

[tom_paine]

49. Of course it makes no sense. Imperials believe themselves above the law

Given the Orwellian Nature of the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media, and the unquestioning and Orwellian nature of their followers, the Imperial Family will have no problem either ignoring the hypocirsy or selling it to the Brownshirts that "this is different".

[ck4829]

61. Kerry will hopefully use this to his advantage

Rice's refusal should be used as a talking point Kerry can use. Let's all hope he uses it to help dethrone Bush.

[Disturbed]

62. Her IQ doesn't matter.

Whether she is an intellectual or an over achiever doesn't matter regarding the topic title. The majority of the American public go on perceptions and vaque ones at that. In this case the perception, excluding freepers, is that Ms Rice is hiding something. If she were not then she would testify just as the Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense did. All the nuances don't matter. It's the perception.