Why won't Condi testify in public?

Jump to First Reply
homhom
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I don't get it. She says it's not about national security information getting out, but a matter of separation of powers. Then why is she going to testify in private? Her deputy can testify and her predecessor can testify, but she can't. Cabinet members both sitting and retired can testify, but she can't.



Something stinks here.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    thoth2thoth2 Posts: 277member
    Especially since she goes on all the talk shows on Sundays...

    Thoth
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 20
    running with scissorsrunning with scissors Posts: 1,124member
    perhaps she has that not so fresh feeling.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 20
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Perhaps she does not want it widely reported that her breath smells of the babies she eats for breakfast.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 20
    argentoargento Posts: 483member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Perhaps she does not want it widely reported that her breath smells of the babies she eats for breakfast.



    Bingo
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The replies in this thread smack of racism.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 20
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The replies in this thread smack of racism.



    Where?



    If she testifies at all there is no argument about separation of powers. She should be forced to testify in public.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 20
    akumulatorakumulator Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The replies in this thread smack of racism.



    wuh?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    And anti-semitism
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 20
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Scott, I would personally like to see you actually address the issue. Why won't Condi testify in public?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 20
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quit responding to Scott's troll material. I may be banned for that statement, but it had to be said.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Of course you all are too obtuse to know that I'm playing with you. It's "racist" because it plays on the stereotype that black woman are unclean and "anti-semitic" because uses the lie that Jews use the blood of children in their food.



    SPJ this thread was way off topic before I got it it and binge you're the only troll I know here.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 20
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    a) It is all part of an ever-widening conspiracy.

    b) She got her masters at 18 and "don't play that shit."

    c) She is a Space Alien.

    d) She is actually a member of Al-Qeada and refuses to blow her cover.





    Choose wisely grasshopper.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 20
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    So we're not going to get a single serious reply to the original question? Too bad....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 20
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Because she knows that the 9-11 commission has spiraled into partisan bullshit?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 20
    audiopollutionaudiopollution Posts: 3,226member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Because she knows that the 9-11 commission has spiraled into partisan bullshit?



    What is the difference between testifying in public or in private, other than the obvious, if that is the case?



    What does she have to hide from the viewing public?



    Perhaps she's anti-American.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 20
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    poor scott...not sure where the freaky racism remark comes from...

    the not fresh feeling comment was a rather un-delicate period joke (yes condi's a woman, we get it)

    and groverat's eating babies comment was most likely aimed at us dreaded liberals who dare to dislike bushie and his croneys...i mean, of course we hate them all so much that we must think they eat babies (i even heard a repug tell me they taste like chicken)...and if she does eat babies, i thinks she needs to add a kid or two a day...she is looking too skinny in a sickly kind of way....



    as to why condi won't testify publically...i think it is because she is the admins attack dog for this coming fight with clarke and others...and she can't be an attack dog in a senate committee...you have to be reserved, polite, respectful.... she can't be that way one day on c-span and then on sunday morning fox tv calling clarke a filthy liar...so they hide the calm c-span condi and show the public the attacking fox tv condi...





    g
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 20
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    She won't testify before Congress, in public, because she stands by the long held notion that Executive Branch officials not confirmed by Congress should not have to report to Congress. Thus the separation of powers. She has made it clear she is willing to meet with the Commission in private, and has done so already.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 20
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by HOM





    If she testifies at all there is no argument about separation of powers. She should be forced to testify in public.



    Does Congress have the power to force her to testify? If so, where does it come from? The Constitution? She wasn't confirmed by Congress, so where's the oversight?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 20
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by k squared

    She won't testify before Congress, in public, because she stands by the long held notion that Executive Branch officials not confirmed by Congress should not have to report to Congress. Thus the separation of powers. She has made it clear she is willing to meet with the Commission in private, and has done so already.



    Sounds like you're saying there will need to be a Special Prosecutor.



    Anyone got Ken Starr's phone number handy?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 20
    k squaredk squared Posts: 608member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FormerLurker

    Sounds like you're saying there will need to be a Special Prosecutor.



    Anyone got Ken Starr's phone number handy?



    Not at all. She has said she's willing to meet them in private. I don't see a big deal here. There will be no bombshells during these hearings...government will protect government, regardless of current/former administration politics. Really, it's not as if Rice knows more information than Tenat, yet he appeared before the Commission.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.