Rice Will Testify. Publicly.

sdw2001

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040330/D81KPFL01.html





Wow. I have to say I'm shocked at this reversal. Though, it's probably a smart move. I'd also like to say that I respected the WH decision not to let Rice testify publicly, but I think they did a terrible job communicating why it shouldn't happen. The conditions of "no precedent" being set by her testifying are responsible and fair.



Thoughts? Will the reversal hurt Bush, or help him?

giant

Quote:

Originally posted by SDW2001

I have to say I'm shocked at this reversal. ... Will the reversal hurt Bush, or help him?

Flip-flop is the word you're looking for.

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by giant

Flip-flop is the word you're looking for.

Here we go. If Bush held his ground, would you praise him? I'm thinking "no". Just a guess. The reasons to not let her do it were perfectly legitimate.

audiopollution

Quote:

Originally posted by SDW2001

Here we go. If Bush held his ground, would you praise him? I'm thinking "no". Just a guess. The reasons to not let her do it were perfectly legitimate.

Yes ... don't expose the faults for everyone to hear. Legitimate, indeed.



I've yet to hear a GOOD reason why she shouldn't have testified in public to begin with. If she's a public servant, then she should be compelled to testify in public.



(You're not as fun now. Your posts sound too careful. Damn those new rules! )

moogs

I mentioned this in the Clarke thread. I think the condition of "not requesting anymore testimony from other White House officials" is crap, but it's better than her not testifying.

alex london

I don't understand the no precedent argument. The fact that she is going public does set a precedent, whether the WH like it or not. Are the Republicans really saying that when a Democrat President gets involved in some god awful mess like this they're not going to say " well our National Security Advisor testified under oath so yours should too?"

hom

I'm glad that Condi is going to testify in public and that Bush is going to meet with the entire panel and not just the Chair and Vice Chair. Once the call came for Condi to testify, I don't think there was any choice but for her to do it. Once the press "calls" on you to do something, it's hard to fight it.



All partisanship aside for a minute, as a New Yorker, I really want to know what the hell happened and most importantly how to prevent it from happening again. I really don't want to wake one day and find that half of Manhattan is gone. \ If the 9/11 commission can help prevent another attack I am all for it. If it continues to get mired in partisan muck it does a disservice to all those that were touched on 9/11 and almost ensures that the lessons that it will teach will be ignored.

dmz

It was a stupid move for the Bushlets to cave to the old-time latency media, but then they are mostly boomers.



But Rice and the Guys have had time to reasearch, prepare, and generally get Condi ready to roll. I hope the men on the panel bring some Iodine, they'll need it after Rice takes their balls.







It's really should be on Pay-per-view, but CSPAN will have to do.



[evil laughter]

hassan i sabbah

Quote:

Originally posted by dmz

It was a stupid move for the Bushlets to cave to the old-time latency media, but then they are mostly boomers.

Probably the first time I've seen a concerned citizen expressing his dissatisfaction that he can't actually know less.

moogs

The NYT article I read didn't have a date or time. Has that been determined yet? I would think the testimony would be covered by as many (possibly more) outlets than covered Clarke and the others... given all the fuss I mean. Whenever it is, I'd prefer C-Span to CNN, with all their lunatic news-ticker crap sprawling across the screen.



Because I want to read about the latest low-carb discovery or the Lakers score while watching sworn testimony by those who dealt with 9/11. Stupid-ass media.

shetline

Quote:

Originally posted by dmz

But Rice and the Guys have had time to reasearch, prepare, and generally get Condi ready to roll. I hope the men on the panel bring some Iodine, they'll need it after Rice takes their balls.

Oh, yeah, like the scathing assault of bland platitudes she let loose on 60 minutes -- watch out!



About the only difference between Condi and her boss that I can see is that she doesn't show signs of stumbling over words while struggling to remember the carefully rehearsed message she's been instructed to deliver. Her obfuscating almost seems natural.

giant

Quote:

Originally posted by shetline

carefully rehearsed message she's been instructed to deliver.

"...camp david, and it was a map of afghanistan rolled out on the table..."

fran441

This is an excellent move, in my opinion, everyone involved should be testifying under oath and publically. 9/11 was the biggest attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor and that was when Hawaii wasn't even a state. We have a right to know what happened.



I'm glad she finally is going to testify under oath, saying that she would talk to the comission but not under oath implied that something was being hidden, and now we will know the truth.

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by shetline

Oh, yeah, like the scathing assault of bland platitudes she let loose on 60 minutes -- watch out!



About the only difference between Condi and her boss that I can see is that she doesn't show signs of stumbling over words while struggling to remember the carefully rehearsed message she's been instructed to deliver. Her obfuscating almost seems natural.

How about how 60 minutes only included 1/4 of her most important answers? That interview was sham.

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by audiopollution

Yes ... don't expose the faults for everyone to hear. Legitimate, indeed.



I've yet to hear a GOOD reason why she shouldn't have testified in public to begin with. If she's a public servant, then she should be compelled to testify in public.



(You're not as fun now. Your posts sound too careful. Damn those new rules! )

Because the President's most trusted advisors cannot feel they have to edit their advice on the possibility that they may someday have to testify under oath. NSA's generally do not tesitfy as a matter of principle and history.

scott

It's almost like people think Condi flew the planes?

sdw2001

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex London

I don't understand the no precedent argument. The fact that she is going public does set a precedent, whether the WH like it or not. Are the Republicans really saying that when a Democrat President gets involved in some god awful mess like this they're not going to say " well our National Security Advisor testified under oath so yours should too?"

Well..they shouldn't do that. The principle is an important one.

audiopollution

Quote:

Originally posted by SDW2001

Because the President's most trusted advisors cannot feel they have to edit their advice on the possibility that they may someday have to testify under oath. NSA's generally do not tesitfy as a matter of principle and history.

Why would they have to edit their advice in the first place?



If their advice has a basis in fact, offering it and testifying to it in the future should not be a problem at all. If their advice is faulty, and could have had some role in national security being compromised, then they should be held publicly accountable for that.



I think accountability is a much better principle to be held to.

audiopollution

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott

It's almost like people think Condi flew the planes?

I know ... isn't that crazy! It's almost like some people think she had no role, either!!!

moogs

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott

It's almost like people think Condi flew the planes?

Mmmm. No. It's not almost like that. It's not even sort of like that. We just want to know what happened in the days leading up to, and after 9/11. It's important to us, even though you apparently have it all figured out.



Humor us, OK?

superkarate monkeydeathcar

i don't think i'd have minded if the administration would have held there ground, but it didn't look good because she was out there on the sabbath gasbag circuit talking to everyone.

if she can talk to russert she can talk in an open session.