Rice to Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Commission

[Gawain 0]

Article Here.

It will be public, on the record and under oath.

Still though, this will not be enough for everyone whining.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Works for me. Wouldn't even have been as much of an issue for me and I would have accepted the separation of powers excuse if her and every other member of the administration weren't on every talk show in existence over the past two weeks criticizing someone else's public, sworn testimony.

[Gawain 0]

There were just as many people on those talk shows that were supporting said testimony. Once she's done though, it'll be the same stuff on Sunday news shows. Except now, it will be minority Senators and Congressmen setting their sights on Rice.

Personally, I hope she chews them up and spits them out.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There were just as many people on those talk shows that were supporting said testimony.

Right, but they weren't claiming that they should not be speaking about the issue in front of one group, and then doing so to the entire public. You don't see a fundamental difference or conflict?

EDIT typo

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Right, but they weren't claiming that they should not be speaking about the issue in front of one group, and then doing so to the entire public. You don't see a fundamental difference or conflict?

Not when cabinet members and their staff have already testified. NSA is an advisory position, not a cabinet member. In principle, I don't want her to testify.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

NSA is an advisory position, not a cabinet member. In principle, I don't want her to testify.

Then she shouldn't go on TV calling other people who have testified liars, should she? Like I said, I'd agree with you if she would have kept her mouth shut. But you can't have it both ways. Either you have something to say that contradicts sworn testimony or you don't. If you do, then you should do so in the same forum. If you don't, then you shouldn't go on 60 minutes saying that you do.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

But you can't have it both ways. Either you have something to say that contradicts sworn testimony or you don't. If you do, then you should do so in the same forum. If you don't, then you shouldn't go on 60 minutes saying that you do.

It's Washington, DC! Yes, they can have it both ways and yes, they get it both ways most of the time. What we've observed re: the 9/11 commission testimonies is no different from any other major issue (Lewinsky, Whitewater, Iran Contra, Watergate). So, while I agree in the "honorable thing to do" concept you cited, it doesn't jive with the political realm we're trying to fit it into.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

Good for her! Glad to see people putting the investigation into 9/11 ahead of election-year posturing.

[TheAnvil 0]

You're letting your dislike of the Bush administration blind you from Gawain's extremely salient point. Like it or not, separation of powers is an issue here. If the leftists whining about Rice would have mentioned that in their whining, they might have gotten more respect from conservatives. They haven't mentioned it conspicuously (if at all) because they don't really care about such points with regards to this commission - they care about smearing GWB in any manner possible.

The real issue at stake here is the right of a sitting president to have a 'brain trust' which is not accountable to the legislative branch. I say that he/she does have that right and the country is the better for it.

With regards to Dr. Rice's 60 Minutes interview, what exactly would you have her do? LIE and state that Mr. Clarke was telling the truth? Or tell the truth herself?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jdhill 0]

Quote

accountable to the legislative branch

Just a note... the 9/11 commission is not a function of the legislative branch... it is an independent commission created as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003...

The commissioners are not current members of Congress.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[TheAnvil 0]

the legislative branch or any other government entity then.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

With regards to Dr. Rice's 60 Minutes interview, what exactly would you have her do? LIE and state that Mr. Clarke was telling the truth? Or tell the truth herself?

Or she could lie in her 60 Minutes interview. I am not saying she did, but it is a possibility you left out for some reason.

Since, according to you, she has no problem with speaking the truth on national television, I don't understand why you have such a problem with her speaking the truth, under oath, on national television.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Since, according to you, she has no problem with speaking the truth on national television, I don't understand why you have such a problem with her speaking the truth, under oath, on national television.

Because it is roughly the same as having your own lawyer testify about conversations he/she has/had with their clients. Advisory positions are "sacred" in their roles and being somewhat confidential.

The commission has already heard testimony from most of the cabinet.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Because it is roughly the same as having your own lawyer testify about conversations he/she has/had with their clients. Advisory positions are "sacred" in their roles and being somewhat confidential.

To keep you example going.

But you can't claim confidentiality after you have just spent two weeks hitting every talk show on national television that will listen to you. Unless off course she has been lying on the talk shows and doesn't want to lie under oath?

[TheAnvil 0]

You're missing the separation of powers point entirely. Reread the White House statements on that.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You're missing the separation of powers point entirely.

Then explain it to me.

[pajarito 0]

But what she volunteers to do or is told to do by the White House staff on behalf of the President to do is different from being required. She is not accountable to them.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But what she volunteers to do or is told to do by the White House staff on behalf of the President to do is different from being required.

I am not trying to be a smart ass at all, but I don't understand that sentence.

[pajarito 0]

Being required to testify under oath and volunteering information are two different things.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Being required to testify under oath and volunteering information are two different things.

IIRC she was asked to come and testify und oath. She declined, for the reasons you guys specify, but agreed to meet them privately. If it would have stayed at that, I think that would have been a very good compromise.

To me, what changed things is two fold. The current administration sought to declassify information protected under a similar scenario. Second, Rice decided to hit every talk show.

[pajarito 0]

I think, whatever party you adhere to, that politicians like to change the rules to meet their agendas. I personally think that the framework of the policy is more important than that and should be preserved, Democrat, Republican, or Indepentent.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Because it is roughly the same as having your own lawyer testify about conversations he/she has/had with their clients. Advisory positions are "sacred" in their roles and being somewhat confidential.

To keep you example going.

But you can't claim confidentiality after you have just spent two weeks hitting every talk show on national television that will listen to you. Unless off course she has been lying on the talk shows and doesn't want to lie under oath?

Yes you can. Dr. Rice has not revealed the detailed content of her conferences with the President. Lawyers do this too in their high-profile cases all the time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Yes you can. Dr. Rice has not revealed the detailed content of her conferences with the President. Lawyers do this too in their high-profile cases all the time.

Ahh, but lawyers in high-profile cases will then have to put their money where their mouth is in the court room. There is a public record of how the lawyer performed and one can see if much of what this person was stating on television had any ring of truth to it, or if they were just talking out of their ass.

(yes I know lawyers lie and that there is deceit and no system is perfect etc etc, but I am sure you get the gist of it)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Ahh, but lawyers in high-profile cases will then have to put their money where their mouth is in the court room. There is a public record of how the lawyer performed and one can see if much of what this person was stating on television had any ring of truth to it, or if they were just talking out of their ass.

(yes I know lawyers lie and that there is deceit and no system is perfect etc etc, but I am sure you get the gist of it)

To a degree, that is correct, but recall the hyperbole that Johnny Cochran was dishing out during the OJ Simpson trial (investigation to find the real killers etc) and Gregarigos (sp?) with the Michael Jackson and Thompson trials pending (prior to gag orders). There has been no accountability.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

The bottom line is, she said, publicly, that Clarke lied under oath. That is why they asked her to come testify again. If she has evidence of a crime (Clarke lying under oath) then she HAS to provide that. If she didn't go on talk shows claiming that Clarke commited a crime, this situation wouldn't exist.