Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WH Waivers on Condi

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:50 PM
Original message
WH Waivers on Condi
I go there every evening to catch the evening video news, and this is the lead story:

CBS/AP) Late Monday afternoon, White House officials were considering an about face on whether to bow to demands from the 9/11 commission to have National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath, reports Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

Roberts tells CBSNews.com the change in policy is being discussed at the highest levels in the White House. Rice reportedly believes that it might be positive for her to appear. But President Bush makes the final decision, and is thus far against it, says Roberts.

The White House is under enormous political and public pressure to waive its claim of so-called "executive privilege." President Bush has vigorously defended his right to receive advice from aides without the threat it will be aired in public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/21/terror/main607659.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh my...
Now the stonewalling must face public opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zeke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Democrats Must Be Careful...
Rice giving public, sworn testimony could become a reverse Anita Hill scenario, making Democrats look like their high-tech-lynching an African American woman.

Right now, Bush say NO is working.

If not broke, don't fix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nlighten1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. True, very true...
and we know how they stay to the script without fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zeke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yea, Verily...
Those who forget the 1991 Senate Hearings with Anita Hill are condemned to repeat them.

Democrats must play very smart.

Cunning as serpents. Gentle as lambs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BabsSong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. I pray our great leader still says "no"
I really don't care what the lying bitch will say---she won't cough up the hard copy proof so it's just a nice propaganda slot for them. I want our masterful leader to keep saying 'no'---it's the most damaging thing to them. And, trust me, this ass is saying 'no' because he's fucking scared of something..even with her lying. He's scared of her in front of all these 'lawyers'. Otherwise he would give her a nice pat on the butt and tell her to go "out there and whore for me like a nice girl, Condi".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waverley_Hills_Hiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. hmmmn..not sure about this...
a) on one hand it would be good to have the WH keep stonewalling as it makes them look bad.

b) on the other it would be good to have Condi answer some questions...(but will she be truthfull? And what kind of questions?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. make sure you watch the video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ezee Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Condi
wont tell the truth even if she does go before the public at the hearing. And if she does I will bet that the WH will only allow her to only if they get to review the questions before hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Flip flop! Flip flop! Flip flop! Flip flop! Flip flop! Flip flop!
:bounce::crazy::bounce::bounce::crazy::bounce::bounce::crazy::bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. "what did the president know and when did he know it?"
repeat as necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. NO OATH, NO POINT....
If she's not under oath, she's free to lie as usual.

This woman is a liar - there's no reason to make a transcript of unsworn testimony public.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. CatWoman, are you familiar with Cynthia Tucker of
the "Atlanta Constituition"? They had her on "The News Hour" on PBS tonight and she presented some very compelling arguments why Rice should testify under oath. Her whole point was that there have been precedents of security advisors voluntarily testifying in the past to put questions to rest and that running around from talk show to talk show basically calling Clarke a liar won't go away until she is willing to testify and call him a liar under oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah, I know of her
I read her column here in the AJC.

Bummer I missed NewsHour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Perception
It is better that they don't allow her to testify.
If she does, the questions will be sofball and she will
spout the usual party line crap. The panel wouldn't dare grill her or it will look like the black woman is being picked on. She would come out unscathed. This whole thing may be another Rove trick. Make it look like she is being forced to testify then have her do it. She is the picked on person. I bet she testifies and the Bushites will applaud her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC