MSNBC Breaking News:
NBC News: Condoleeza Rice to testify publicly before 9/11 panel - NBC News has learned that Bush national security adviser Condoleeza Rice has now agreed to testify under oath in public before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Is this due to mounting public questions and did she make this situation WORSE and more of a huge deal by going on Good Morning America and the like, doing, essentially a publicity tour? What NEW information could her testimony possibly bring us? Surely she’s been coached and provided with satisifying answers by now, no?
Yes, maybe she should tour some more before releasing the next album…
Sixty-nine brought us Woodstock. O-Four is gonna give us Doublespeakstock, courtesy of Fuhrer Bush and Crew.
I’m not one to be a ‘frothing at the mouth’ bush basher, even though he has greatly disappointed me, but this just seems completely bizarre.
Condi and Bush: no no no no no no no…OK
Seems like a long time to ‘get stories straight’
I was no fan of Clinton and his “meaning of ‘is’” type shennanigans, and Bush has generally avoided same simply by going with the Gomer Pile bit constantly… But Rice is going to be in a bind. She is no fool and deserved a better administration. So, as Bush’s sock puppet, she’s going to have to provide some pretty fancy jaw-flapping. Get ready for a Clinton-esque Punch and Judy show.
Oh, and I AM a frothing Bush-basher.
Here a 1 page pdf press release from the 9-11 commission.
Condi Public under Oath
I’d quote it, but it shows up as an image under xpdf.
Also, Bush and Cheney have agreed to meet with the full commision.
Imo, It would have been the product of a protracted, (very) hardball deal; Condie testifies, no showboating by the questioners and questions to be seen beforehand. Throwing a very public bone out that should be juicy enough. If not send Powell in.
Damage limitation/window dressing. Bleh.
What I don’t understand is this:
What sort of precedent are they talking about here, and what do assurances from the commission have to do with it? I don’t get it.
Daniel
Once she agrees to testify… during the testimony itself can she claim "executive privilege and avoid answering certain questions ? Are the proocedings secret or restricted ?
(bolding mine)
This is one of the biggest about faces I have seen from this administration (taking into account how rare is this for the pigheaded administration), I do think there is something to what you just said jarbabyj. On the whole, I was wondering what in the dickens was the reason for her not testifying, since I do think she will do OK.
I also think most of what she will say will only be corroborated by unsealing all the info of the meetings, and I do think the administration is doing this specifically to stall any efforts (from republicans no less) to unseal documents. I do think this is caused by the democrats calling the Republican’s bluff: The Republicans only wanted to unseal a partial testimony of Clark, the Democrats then said: OK, unseal that and more: including the info on Cheney’s energy meetings.
Can’t have that, she will testify and Bush is counting now on at least the press to leave this behind. Problem is, for this presidential campaign, there goes every effort on being able to call Kerry a flip-flopper.
As I understand it, the main reason she didn’t want to testify was she didn’t want it to become s.o.p. for the sitting national security advisor to have to testify in hearings like this. I’m not sure on the reasoning behind the concern, but I’d bet on “top secret/concerning national security/stuff I can’t disclose, etc.” They don’t want it to become a precedent so congress can’t trump national security/secrecy.
As for Condi, I think this is really overblown. Does anybody expect her to do anything other than stick to the script?
The problem is if the questions asked are from a script. Condi would be hard pressed to explain a lot of things… script or no script. If the questions asked are too soft it ill be just a white wash.
I never even considered that. However, wouldn’t this just cause more bruhaha and suspicion? Seems to me that if she doesn’t dump everything, it will just increase the already world sized spotlight.
You should get the full version of Acrobat. 
Seems rather fawning.
Heh.
They can get a lot of mileage with just yes-or-no questions, if they pick the right questions… 
The interesting bit will be whether any major bombshells will come out of this. On the one hand, Condi will be under oath; on the other hand, I wouldn’t put it past her to give weasly answers to avoid embarassing the Administration. I suspect she won’t be able to refute Clarke’s allegations with any great effort, myself – there are already enough citations out there to disprove all the claims she’s been making for the last week or so.
This will be the biggest non-event of the hearings. I’ll be stunned if she says anything that she hasn’t already said in her numerious talks with the media lately.
I’d just quote her own statements to the press this past week and ask her to repeat them all under oath.
Catching flies with honey, that’s all. Once she says “I do” with the cameras rolling, things will change. She’ll weasel anyway, arguing that the only differences are ones of emphasis and interpretation, and she may even get away with it.
I agree. If it’s one thing I can count on Bush and his administration to do, this is it. I don’t know how many times I have fooled myself into thinking “Well, let’s see if Bush will give us any groundbreaking information during this State of the Union address.”, etc. I also don’t really expect anything groundbreaking from this event, considering the abrupt 180 degree turn-around of the Bush administration’s views of it.
Sometimes I feel like I’m back in the highchair, with no say in what I’m being fed.
ZOOM! Look at the airplane! Yum!
LilShieste
SO HE DID KNOW ABOUT THE SECOND PLANE
Why didn’t he DO something!!!