I'm Starting to Smell A Rat. Do You Think Rice Will Testify Afterall?

[Solomon]

Somehow I'm starting to feel that this Condi not testifying is a sucker play.

As I noticed with Ed Bradley last night, people still aren't asking the right questions.

As I talk to people around the office, I noticed that most people don't know what the issue really is about Rice not testifying.

Now that the fires have been stoked up pretty good, and the fever pitch of "she must have somthing to hide" takes hold, why not trot her ass out now and say, o.k. "I'll testify under oath."

They won't get anything more out of her and the public will wonder what the big fuss was all about.

Secondly, as much as I am enjoying the Richard Clarke "play", one thing he is doing for them is cementing the belief that 9-11 was done by Bin Laden and AlQaeda. I've not seen any evidence yet on this issue, and Clarke presents no evidence for it.

I am still livid at the fact that no one, and I mean NO ONE, not even DU, wants to talk about Bush's connections with the House of Saud. Fifteen of the nineteen "hijackers" were Saudi Arabian.

[OneBlueSky]

1. I agree . . .

remember, when this Commission was approved by Bush, its charge was only to examine policy implications, not what actually happened on 9/11 . . . whether they go beyond that charge remains to be seen . . . but I doubt it will happen . . .

[leftchick]

3. I believe Jamie Gorelik (sp?) said they will indeed look at...

The day of Sept. 11, 2001 after this pre-9/11 inquirey. They want more time too, think bushco* will give it? :eyes:

[FloridaPat]

2. I came to that same conclusion about how it proves Bush knew

nothing. I get the feeling he knows nothing about everything, but that's another story.

I haven't seen Cheney looking for Sadam links. There is still Wolfretz and Pearl and the rest of them. And Israel. The CIA has done a lot behind the White House back over the decades too. Although why the CIA would want more Bush is beyond me.

It is possible the president is that dumb. Although how to explain the 20 minutes he sat watching children read is amazing. And the disappearing act he did. Since this guy is that dumb, maybe the best thing to do is keep him in the dark. He does act well.

[The Spirit of JFK]

9. I think it's more about politics

It's a commission the President formed. I think he set it up simply to molify those who were making a little noise about it. He knew Rice wouldn't HAVE to testify at this, and he thinks the Dems don't have the numbers, backing, or the balls to initatiate a full blown invetigations where they could throw subpoenas around. It's an election year, people are paying a little more attention, and people are stupid enough to think this commission is independent AND the bottom line. All they were supposed to say that it was a lack of communication, staffing and funding...blah blah blah.....everyone gets off with a little slap on the wrist (except for Clinton, whose policies get dragged through the mud) and then they up the budget for military and intelligence.

I think they ALL underestimated Clark and the backlash, though. It doesn't help that the whole Medicare debacle, the Plame scandal, the Enron connection, the FBI whistleblowers, and such are making inroads, too. Notice a lot of these roads lead to Cheney's House of Secrets.

I think it's safe to say that a LOT of us think Bush knows/knew a lot less than the others from Day 1. He was just there to win the election for Cheney as Cheney has all the personality and charm of a stump. As Hans Blix said, "the rumors that Cheney is alive are somewhat exaggerated"...

[Solomon]

12. I believe this too. It would have been stupid for Bush II and Rice and

others to have been in the top loop. Bush II didn't need to know anything.

[bryant69]

4. Well

You want to talk about Bush's connections to the House of Saud, don't you? That's at least one person right there? And it strikes me that when ever there are posts here about how the Bush Administration and the House of Saud plotted to kill 3,000 Americans, there are plenty of people who agree. There's no shortage of posts on the subject.

Of course there are those, like me I admit, who disagree, who may challenge the idea. But that's what you mean by talking about it? Discussing the possibilities one way or another?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[drthais]

6. whoa nellie

not that it CAN'T be true...
but I don't think that was meant by the poster above....

I blieve, more to the point
that people are generally unfamiliar
with the cozy long-term relationship between the two families
which has led to all manner of things

but not necessarily the planning of 9-11 (!)

in other words
to those of you who have not read the book
(House of Bush,House of Saud)
go get it!


IMO, probably the best book on the list (which is long)
brings in a variety of confluences
and ties things together quite nicely

[Unknown Known]

5. I've talked about the Saudis here before

but don't get much response

[damnraddem]

7. Yes 15of the 19 were Saudi -- and so is ...

bin Laden. In fact, what the media has not taken up is the the close ties of the Bushistas to the bin Laden family.

Did Al Qaida perpetrate 9/11? Actually, they claim they did. Osama bin Laden says that he was behind it. What I've never seen any evidence about is the claim that Osama is an outcast from his family.

[Solomon]

10. I disagree. Bin laden specifically denied that he was involved.

If you're referring to that fake tape put out, that wasn't even Bin Laden on that tape.

There has never been one iota of evidence that says al qaeda did it.

We know full well that George Bush was cia for many many years. If he needed twenty arab patsies to pull off a black ops thing, where would he get them? Iraq? Iran? Syria? I've always thought it strange that the "hijackers" were from Arabia. None of the other al qaeda "masterminds" they are always looking for are from Arabia.

I think Clarke helps Bush by pinning it on Bib Laden.

Lastly, I don't think that just because they may have been a conspiracy to pull off a little black ops necessarily means that "they plotted to kill over 3,000 americans". If Bush I was trying to pull off a "traditional" hijacking black op, (which looks to me like what happened given the statement "no one imagined they would be used as missiles"), he may have been doublecrossed.

Bush II, who was expecting the "traditional" hijacking, was confused as hell when he heard planes were running into buildings. That's why the jackass sat there looking stupid in that class room.

[Jose Diablo]

18. Yes, UBL denied involvement in 9-11, but he did say he knew who did do it

And we do not really KNOW that 15 of 19 were SA's. Whoever it was that did the hijacking could have been using false Id's.

What bothers me the most about the 9-11 story, is how the hijackers were "partying" at a strip joint, buying lap dances and drinking. This just seems out of character for Islamic fundamentalists.

But the thing is, if it wasn't UBL and it wasn't Islamic fundamentalists from SA, just who in the hell could it have been?

[louis-t]

8. I think she will testify under oath for a different reason..

Political pressure. The bullies always give in to pressure if it is kept up. I don't think this is a sucker play. They realize Condi has told many versions, and her versions don't jibe with Unca Dick's versions, etc. It may be a diversion to distract from other Bushco inconsistencies and lies. I keep seeing this image of the guy that used to come on Ed Sullivan and spin a bunch of dinner plates on sticks.

[Guaranteed]

11. People talk about the Saudis being the terrorists all the time

It's pretty common.

[sangh0]

13. That doesn't make sense

Specifically, "They won't get anything more out of her".

If she testifies in public, the law requires her to answer all questions put to her. She cannot take the fifth because it only protects you against self-incrimination. Since Condi is NOT on trial, she can not rely on her 5th Amendment rights to protect her.

Also "thing he is doing for them is cementing the belief that 9-11 was done by Bin Laden and AlQaeda. I've not seen any evidence yet on this issue, and Clarke presents no evidence for it."

I'm surprised you haven't heard about the video in which OBL takes credit for 9/11. If he had made that statement after a few days in US custody and had some visible bruises, I might believe the confession was coerced, but that was not the case in this instance.

[Solomon]

15. I'll say it again. That was a fake tape of

Bin Laden. You can see that it was not Bin Laden on that tape. I'm surprised that you fell for that.

[AlinPA]

14. I agree. When she does testify it will be a media frenzy.

Then they will play her as a goddess. Further, I heard she was to meet with victims' families. Rove and media will play that like symphony.

[usscole]

16. Your are too pessimistic

The relentless story of her refusing to testify, along with that picture of her looking pissed as hell, is the greatest press. At this point, no matter what she says, she can't undo the damage.

[Snivi Yllom]

17. Well the will have insane media coverage and she will smash the critics

when she does finally appear. There will be little rebuttal. So yes, maybe it was a sucker play.

[Karenina]

19. Exactly HOW, in your opinion

will she "smash" the critics? She's such an OBVIOUS LIAR. Even the most stupid of the willfully ignorant can see it. Visceral responses overcome media spin. That is why WE SHALL OVERCOME.

[Paradise]

20. You are not alone in your suspicions.

The WH had Clarke's book for several months. None of this has caught them by surprise. I've had the same feeling, but you had the guts to say it.

[Festivito]

21. Local TV news: no mention of Condi under oath or Bush talk at all.

The TV air-hairs noted Condi would speak to the panel in private, releasing a transcript. Not that she would be under oath or not, not that Bush would be under oath or not.

They either have to convince the panel of:
No oath, in which case she can use generalities
No public, in which case she can misdirect
Transcript only, in which case they can edit it based on national security

All this fighting is keeping the story up for days, repeated, which is usually the Republican style of press and population manipulation. Not that it couldn't be double reverse psychology.

The backfire is showing that Bush won't testify.

It is finally sinking in.

Each day they don't reach an agreement, is one more day of toasting.

Come, we go write our editors hot toasty fiery letters.