A question about something Condi Rice said.

[skypilot]

Did anyone understand her answer when Ed Bradley asked why she couldn't put this "Constitutional principle" aside considering the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks? I was listening hard to her answer because that was precisely the question I'd hoped Bradley would ask. Alas, I couldn't decipher her doublespeak.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Isn't it ironic that condi is referring to principles?

Especially constitutional ones! I found the interview to be rather creampuffish; and I cannot decipher her doublespeak either but good for us because of that.

I was disappointed that 60 minutes allowed her to get the last words in about - going after those who did this to us. Bizarro world they all live in.

[trotsky]

2. Oh yeah, the same constitutional principle...

that Bill Clinton used to avoid testifying publicly about the Paula Jones case.

Oh... wait...

[peekaloo]

3. Ha.....when the constitution can be used to cover their sorry asses

then they will abide by it.

[KC21304]

4. Josh Marshall has that exchange on his site.

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

[skypilot]

6. Ah, thank you very much.

*

[KC21304]

7. Your welcome. Josh is my first stop everytime I go online.

[skypilot]

9. You know where she lost me??

That business about how the commission is "rightly" not concentrating on what happened on the day of Sept.11. I don't know where the hell this woman gets her info. There have been numerous NORAD officials questioned by the commission about what happened ON Sept.11 and not just what happened in the days before and after. Although, the commission "rightly" wants to know what happened in the days leading up to the attacks and this is where Condi should come in.

"So, this is not a matter of what happened on that day, as extraordinary as it is - as it was."

Yeah, and your point is...what? The 9/11 investigation has come down to a matter of some bureaucratic "policy"?? The talkingpointsmemo blog described her explanation as "tortured". I was glad to read that because I thought it was just me having an obtuse moment.

[Aries]

12. They ARE looking at the timeline

of what happened on 9/11, as described recently in a Wall Street Journal article.

And there will apparently be a day of hearings devoted only to the events of that day, as mentioned by Commissioner Gorelick in her questioning of (I believe) Rumsfeld and Myers, when they were discussing whether intercepting pilots KNEW they had orders to shoot on 9/11/01, as opposed to whether orders to shoot were given (they were). Neither of them could answer.

It seems their goal is to present only truth-free content in all public statements.

[Toucano]

5. Well...

I can't give an authoratative answer, but as I understand it, their claim is that her testimony about policy would violate the separation of powers.

I really don't get it. National Security Advisor isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

I don't get what makes that position more protected than Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State, etc.

On edit: grammar

[polmaven]

10. They keep blathering

something about "staff members" as opposed to "Cabinet members", ant the fact that cabinet members are approved by Congress, and staff members are not, so the staff is protected and the Cabinet is not. National Security Adviser is not an official Cabinet member....blah, blah, blah.....

[Toucano]

13. I understand.

Thanks!

It's the same argument for not revealing Dick's secret energy meeting people. They're "advisors".

Didn't the repubs call Betty Curry to testify against Clinton? She, as his secretary, could have been considered an "advisor", no? Same with Vernon Jordan.

Does anyone know who the first National Security Advisor was?

[polmaven]

14. Well, yeah, but ...

Betty Curry was a staff member to democRAT, not to a Republigod! See the difference?

[readmylips]

8. They keep making the whole deeper...

what a bunch of bastards. Of course, they are trying to change the subject by focusing on Kerry's upcoming shoulder surgery. One article said: Is Kerry a Dick Cheney? Heart problems.

[polmaven]

11. Well, of course!

Everyone knows torn shoulder cartilage is just as life threatening as a heart attack! Whas wrong wichyou?