Why won't Condi testify in public?
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.
Something stinks here.
Comments
Thoth
Originally posted by groverat
Perhaps she does not want it widely reported that her breath smells of the babies she eats for breakfast.
Bingo
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.
Originally posted by Scott
The replies in this thread smack of racism.
wuh?
SPJ this thread was way off topic before I got it it and binge you're the only troll I know here.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.