Condi to testify

[Thrill]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission

[Kahuna]

1. Poor Condi.. There's no way now that she can testify without..

contradicting herself. Ben Veniste and Gorelick are sure to have all of her prior statements at hand. :evilgrin:

[Hav]

2. .

She got possibly taught long enough now, so that it won't be that obvious when she lies.

[Tyler Durden]

3. The Bushites are big on not setting precidents:

Unprecidented Supreme Court decisions (Bush v Gore)
Unprecidented levels of defense spending,
Unprecidented increases in government size and spending,
Unprecidented levels of federal debt,
Unprecidented lies and deceit

This could be a long list.

[apnu]

4. I don't understand this precedent business?

Perhaps someone can explain it to me, why can't there be a precedent that the executive branch or it's members be called on to the carpet for things they are doing?

Why does the executive branch (or any other high level branch) get to hide behind the law when questionable activities occur?

I guess I don't get it, or I'm not well versed in that part of the Constitution.

[procopia]

5. I don't get it either

How is it a separation of powers issue, when the 9-11 commission is independent, not an arm of congress?

[apnu]

6. supposedly it's a national security issue...

Whatever that's supposed to mean. The commission wants to know what the WH knew prior to 9/11 not the names and activities of under cover operatives over seas.

Also, the terrorists know we are actively hunting them, they and the world knows we've been hunting them for decades. This isn't new information, so what (besides obvious butt covering) does the WH have to hide? I say nothing but the truth.

[Old and In the Way]

10. To this administration.

National security is synonymous with personal security. Anything that would expose this administration's gross negligence/incompetence, or worse, is grounds for hiding the truth under the umbrella of national security.

[Auntie Bush]

7. Welcome apnu to DU

:bounce: :hi:

[apnu]

8. Thanks! :D

I've been here for a long time... but rarely post... this commission business really gets my goat. I'm a firm believer in Open Source technology and that infects my political view as well.

I believe in an open government, where all public servants are held accountable for the slightest digression against the people. Let them stand in court (or commission) like the rest of us normal people. If they are guilty they go down, if they are innocent then they are free to go and no one should say any more on the issue. So this waffling around the 9/11 commission just makes me mad every day.

[calimary]

24. Welcome. And... here's something you can do about it...

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [e-mail]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[e-mail]

News: mailto:[e-mail]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[e-mail]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[e-mail]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]" target="_blank">[e-mail] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]
[e-mail] ; [e-mail]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[e-mail] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[e-mail] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: [phone]
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: [phone]

email: [e-mail]
AL FELZENBERG, DEPUTY FOR COMMUNICATIONS National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Office: 202-401-1725 Cell: 202-236-4878 Fax: [phone]"

[e-mail]

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

[Old and In the Way]

9. Quite simple, actually.

This pResident enjoys a majority of his Party in both Houses. This majority Party happens to be have members who are either extremely fearful in stepping out of line or they are corrupted co-conspirators in allowing this administration to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Believe me, if these actions of the Executive branch were committed by Democrats, the impeachment would have occurred on 9/12/01.

[apnu]

11. Oh I get the cronyism bit... what I don't get is the legal issue here.

Naturally, it's somewhat Utopian of me to assume that our laws will be held above the people enforcing them. And, of course bushco, and the neo-tards will protect their own...

What I want to know, is how its legal to have Executive Privilege in a case such as this. Have Executive Privilege in guarding the secrets of our spies and whatever super planes they are working on. That's OK, but to hid behind it when our entire nation has been buggered over terrorism isn't OK.

On a side note: It astounds me that people still believe in bushco. This is the party that touted "accountability" blatantly, and won big gains in the House and Senate by being more "accountable" than Clinton's privates. And yet, when they obviously are hiding and playing hot potato on this stuff, the "accountability" goes out the window AND THAT'S OK?!?! How the hell can, at best for us liberals, 40% of the country still think those jerks are doing a good job?

I guess I don't understand stupidity and ignorance.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Thing is, there IS no such precedent

It's just another WH lie. One that a lazy media reports for them unchallenged.

Sandy Berger testified on Haiti, and it's my understanding that a Reagan NSA (don't know the name) testified on Iran/Contra.

[calimary]

25. Robert McFarlane. Also, Zbigniew B did it during the Carter days

and I believe Henry Kissinger did it, too... yet another diversionary piece of crap. Just. Another. Lie.

[politick]

30. Exactly

There is no Constitutional protection of the kind BushCo is claiming. And it would not set a precedent Brxexinski testified about Billy Carter trying to influence US policy on behalf of Libya, Kissinger testified (though I'm not sure aout what), and Berger testified twice, about fundraising infractions, and something else.

It's all a bunch of bull

[mzmolly]

12. When?

:shrug:

[hippiegranny]

13. she's gonna lie

the real question is this - will she get away with it?

[Leilani]

21. Agreed hippiegrannie

When she refused to testify, politically it was better for us.

Now, that she has agreed to testify, how much of a whitewash will there be? I don't trust this administration on anything.

Even if she is asked tough questions, she will get through it, aided & abbeted by the Repubs on the committee. And at best it will be a wash.

The final report will blame Clinton, Bush, CIA. FBI, Congress, etc.
& in the end, there will be NO accountability.

[Snivi Yllom]

14. did they say when? I anticipate frantic coaching and getting her story

straight. I expect her to come out of this unscathed. Watch for a hatchet job on Clarke.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Here's her letter to the commission:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8312248.htm

But dig the preconditions:

"The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official.

"Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice...."

OK, so I can buy the first one, that they're not admitting they're wrong about the precedent. Don't like it; hope the commission will refuse, but whatever.

But the second one? They can't agree to that! God, I hope someone on the commission has the balls to challenge that. Preferably several someones, from both parties. What kind of investigation have you got if you can't call witnesses as new information is presented? It's absurd.

They had better make it CLEAR to everyone what an evasion this condition is. Because if it's accepted, the whole thing is a total farce.

[sadiesworld]

17. Have we been snookered?

Has the point from the outset been to draw a line in the sand leaving the monkey (and his organ grinder)on the other side?

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Possibly...

Just heard on CNN the commission rolled over on both pre-conditions, without reservation.

Weenies.

[Robb]

20. To be fair,

...this morning I heard someone from the commission say "That's fine, since we had no plans to call anyone else anyhow", or words to that effect.

But I agree it's a troubling condition. It does two things I can see right away; first, it limits the scope of the investigation implicitly, since if some testimony leads them to want to hear from someone new, well, they can't.

Second, I think it gives someone a "get out of jail free" card. I just can't for the life of me figure out who. :shrug:

(On edit): I just thought of something... can you imagine Condi "announcing" the capture of bin Laden during her testimony at the hearings? :eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Yeah but...

By that rationale, why do they need to call Condi now? They didn't think they needed to before, and they have her statements from behind closed doors.

The answer is, the Richard Clarke info broke, people heard it publicly, and people wanted the opportunity to hear her answer publicly, subject to questions publicly. How can we assume she (or someone else) won't say something that requires corroboration from someone else?

On your afterthought: I doubt she'll be announcing Osama's capture. If they've got him, it's in a box somewhere, saved for October. Otoh, she could conceivably have some other lesser bombshell. But I suspect Bush/Rove just caved to pressure within the Repub party. This looked REAL bad for all of 'em. Now they have, as you say, a "get out of jail free" card for any future embarrassments or potential perjury.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Hehe.......

It's about time. I heard on C-SPAN this morning that some committee members have caught some contradictory statements that she has made. She testified for 4 hours before the committee, in private and I guess things she said to them don't mesh with things she has said in her media blitz. :bounce: THIS will be FUN! I LOVE this. The cabal is going DOWN! :bounce:

[Leilani]

22. I wouldn't count on it!

There are enough Repubs on the committee to make her look good.

In the end, it will be everyone was to blame, therefore, no one is to blame!

[calimary]

26. Contradicta Rice. But enough of 'em are still drinking Kool Aid...

[MoonRiver]

27. Now we gotta hold the commission's feet to the fire

to play hardball with Rice.

[Nicholas_J]

28. Hs problem for Bush is

That the places which Bush's ratings are being most effected by her not testifying are all states that he is currently ahead in, won in 2000, and cannt afford to have go over to Kerry. This is causing a great deal of heat for Bush in states like Arizona.

[Nashyra]

29. I just saw a blurp of the * speech about rice testifying

and it said it all "I'm allowing this lecel of co operation because it is essential to find out what could have been done in the months and the YEARS before the attacks" they will try to crucify Clinton