# Condi Hits the Stand **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312 "2004-03-30T15:03:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/41 "2004-03-31T02:09:08Z")
For the record, this is the 2nd time Dr Rice will testify. The first was a closed-door session. The news groups are technically correct when they say she will be testifying publicly. However, it leads people to believe she has withheld testimony. It’s tough to make political hay when there isn’t a camera and an audience. Take those 2 things away and your just another politician doing his or her job. Maybe CNN can get Howard Stern as color commentator to help their sagging ratings. One thing I’ve always wondered about, do the participants wear that funny makeup for video cameras? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/42 "2004-03-31T02:19:40Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s tough to make political hay when there isn’t a camera and an audience. Take those 2 things away and your just another politician doing his or her job. Maybe CNN can get Howard Stern as color commentator to help their sagging ratings. On the other hand, the nice thing about a closed door session is that you can pretty much say anything you want to attempt to impeach Dick Clarke, and he won’t even know he needs to defend himself. Sorry she won’t be able to do that. Of course, you prefer that she do the honorable thing, with the most transparency for all, right? I mean, read a certain way, it might seem that you would prefer that she did not answer questions for all to hear. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/43 "2004-03-31T02:23:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > For the record, this is the 2nd time Dr Rice will testify. The first was a closed-door session. First time _under oath_ though. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/44 "2004-03-31T02:28:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A whoopty-whoopity high level committee was formed to get to the bottom of it toot damn sweet, and after about five or six weeks is very seriously considering…what, exactly? Absolutely nothing: [Probing the intelligence panel](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/iraq.tm/) > [@](#): > > Five weeks after being appointed, the group has not met, and it is unclear when it will. (Mar 15) This is clearly a sign that the adminstration regards correcting the “intelligence failures” that led them to invade Iraq as one of the nation’s tip-top double-urgent priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/45 "2004-03-31T02:53:15Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m not sure I’m following you here. Yes, Clinton got impeached…and yes, in the second term. Is that important? He got impeached mainly because I think the 'Pubs had it pretty much in for him. Most of the ‘charges’, even the one’s of ‘lieing’ were pretty well trumped up. Sure, he lied…they all lie. He didn’t do anything worth impeaching him for as far a I could tell at the time. Yes, but he did lie under oath, which is perjury, which is a serious matter for our legal system and not merely a matter of fibbing. I agree he shouldn’t have been impeached, but it’s wrong to downplay what he did. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/46 "2004-03-31T02:59:07Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Absolutely nothing: > [Probing the intelligence panel](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/iraq.tm/) > > This is clearly a sign that the adminstration regards correcting the “intelligence failures” that led them to invade Iraq as one of the nation’s tip-top double-urgent priorities. Fortunately, the [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence](http://intelligence.senate.gov/index.htm) has a similar, but [more inclusive investigation](http://roberts.senate.gov/02-13-2004.htm) going on. So far, it seems like the electorate’s best bet. Here’s some discussion about the [SSCI](http://intelligence.senate.gov/index.htm) investigation and the [CICUSRWMD](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040206-13.html) investigations \*\* [Why Not Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin’s Use of Intel re Iraq?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238&highlight=rumors)\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/47 "2004-03-31T03:25:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness > 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 > > I think what they mean is the precedent of a National Security Advisor testifying. Eisenhour once said that if his advisors went out and told people what they talked about in the Oval Office, he’d fire them. For example, the [Executive Privilege Clinton invoked](http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/03/30/20040330_150403_rc1.htm) to prevent **Richard Clarke** from testifying in front of a similar panel in 1999. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/48 "2004-03-31T03:32:45Z")
That’s a great thread **SimonX**. I wonder if the president himself chose the name for the CICUSRWMD panel, or is the obvious transliteration to **CircusWMD** just a happy accident? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/49 "2004-03-31T03:58:41Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > That’s a great thread **SimonX**. > I wonder if the president himself chose the name for the CICUSRWMD panel, or is the obvious transliteration to **CircusWMD** just a happy accident? I read it in my head as “seek us our WMD” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/50 "2004-03-31T04:08:14Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > On the other hand, the nice thing about a closed door session is that you can pretty much say anything you want to attempt to impeach Dick Clarke, and he won’t even know he needs to defend himself. Sorry she won’t be able to do that. Of course, you prefer that she do the honorable thing, with the most transparency for all, right? I mean, read a certain way, it might seem that you would prefer that she did not answer questions for all to hear. Do you mean this metaphorically? Richard Clarke is not in office nor was he elected to an office. I have no opinion on whether she testifies or not. Congressional hearings have never served any use except for political grandstanding (by both parties). There is no real investigation involved. Sometimes they are used as a bully pulpit to beat up an industry like baseball over steroid use. Sometimes they are a public vetting for events like a power grid failure. Always they are an opportunity for politicians to wag their tongues for the folks at home. If Dr Rice makes fools of the committee it will not impress me for this reason. As far back as I can remember I’ve always had the mental image of “professional wrestling” when I see a congressional hearing. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/51 "2004-03-31T06:04:12Z")
So while there may be much rejoicing in Whoville that Bush and Co. will testify before the Commision, let us not forget one thing - they are not doing so willingly and without reservation. Bush and Co. have deliberately stymied the Commission from the get go, only to do an about face every time. Credibility is not just what is said, but how it is said as well. Being dragged kicking and screaming also speaks volumes. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/52 "2004-03-31T08:30:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m not sure I’m following you here. Yes, Clinton got impeached…and yes, in the second term. Is that important? He got impeached mainly because I think the 'Pubs had it pretty much in for him. Most of the ‘charges’, even the one’s of ‘lieing’ were pretty well trumped up. Sure, he lied…they all lie. He didn’t do anything worth impeaching him for as far a I could tell at the time. > -XT I guess I didn’t understand your point. I thought you were saying that she’s just gonna obfuscate in the same way Clinton did, and that nothing will happen. I was just pointing out that that strategy actually _backfired_ on Clinton, because he got impeached. For Clinton, there was considerable political fallout from saying misleading things under oath, and since Bush is up for re-election, similar political fallout from Rice acting similarly could conceivably be damaging. I guess that wasn’t your point, though. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/53 "2004-03-31T15:01:17Z")
“Congressional hearings have never served any use except for political grandstanding (by both parties)” Interesting perspective. Do you think that Richard Nixon wouuld have resigned without the Watergate hearings? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/54 "2004-03-31T15:07:54Z")
As to what Dr. Rice should be asked: [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/31/911\_questions/](http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/31/911_questions/) I think that’s a pretty good list of questions. ---
**Author:** ![cybersnark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9e5f3/32.png) [@cybersnark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cybersnark)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/55 "2004-03-31T15:37:04Z")
How does this tie in with Cheney’s refusal to provide information about the Energy Policy formulation? My understanding is that early in the administration, Cheney got in a smoke-filled back room with all his energy business cronies and worked out a policy that was pro-business, anti-everybody else. When he was questioned about it, he refused to provide any information, stating that he didn’t want to set a precedent whereby white house advisors are forced to reveal the information that had been given in private to the administration. Is that why the administration insisted that Condi’s testifying under oath could only be done if it didn’t set a precedent? Is what they’re really worried about is that if it did set a precedent, then they Congress could use it to force Cheney to testify about the Energy Policy? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/56 "2004-03-31T17:36:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Do you mean this metaphorically? Richard Clarke is not in office nor was he elected to an office. No, I meant it literally. Just to help you out a bit, one may be impeached and never ever even have sought political office. See #2 below. > [@](#): > > 1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office > 2 : to cast doubt on; especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of \ > 3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct Hope you find this useful. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/57 "2004-04-01T00:11:24Z")
> [@cybersnark](#): > > How does this tie in with Cheney’s refusal to provide information about the Energy Policy formulation? My understanding is that early in the administration, Cheney got in a smoke-filled back room with all his energy business cronies and worked out a policy that was pro-business, anti-everybody else. When he was questioned about it, he refused to provide any information, stating that he didn’t want to set a precedent whereby white house advisors are forced to reveal the information that had been given in private to the administration. Is that why the administration insisted that Condi’s testifying under oath could only be done if it didn’t set a precedent? Is what they’re really worried about is that if it did set a precedent, then they Congress could use it to force Cheney to testify about the Energy Policy? This little matter is being decided by the Supreme Court right now. considering the decisions on The Petagon Papers and the one that forced Clinton to tesrify, I don’t think Cheney is going to cover up for much longer. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/58 "2004-04-01T00:22:53Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > No, I meant it literally. Just to help you out a bit, one may be impeached and never ever even have sought political office. See #2 below. > > Hope you find this useful. Got it. Well, not sure where to go beyond what I said. Public hearings have always been a dog-and-pony show. Mr. Clark slams Dr. Rice and Dr. Rice slams him back. I get really aggitated at statements of opinion that don’t require substantiation. It’s nothing but a crap flinging contest. Anybody can stand up and swear they think Mr Clark is a dingbat and incapable of operating a hot dog stand or that he is the most brilliant man on the planet. Pure video BS either way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/59 "2004-04-01T04:01:35Z")
Mr. Clarke makes statements of fact. Wrote such and such a memo on a given date to a specific person. Met the President in the Situation Room on this date, met with him in this conference room at this time. You will recall, I’m sure, how the Bushivks swore up and down it never happened, then had to admit that it did. Best test of bullshit is fact content. Mr. Clarke states facts that can be checked, if they prove hollow, then its _tota_ bullshit. A really great bullshitter will use incontrovertible facts to support an empty argument. But trying to deny those facts…date, place, time…only to have to eat it. That’s whatcha call _weak_ bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312/60 "2004-04-01T07:55:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Got it. > > Well, not sure where to go beyond what I said. Public hearings have always been a dog-and-pony show. Mr. Clark slams Dr. Rice and Dr. Rice slams him back. I get really aggitated at statements of opinion that don’t require substantiation. It’s nothing but a crap flinging contest. Anybody can stand up and swear they think Mr Clark is a dingbat and incapable of operating a hot dog stand or that he is the most brilliant man on the planet. Pure video BS either way. As elucidator pointed out, this is not just a “he said, she said”. There are memos, meetings, times, places, and people that are quite verifiable. When Clarke says they only had _one_ principals meeting on terrorism in the entire 9 months leading up to 9/11, it can be verified. That’s why Bush hasn’t contradicted him, because he knows it’s easily proven. When he says that Bush was constantly being presented with memos emphasizing the urgency of dealing with the terrorist threat, it can be verified. Meetings have written agendas which can be referred to. All they can do is come up with bullshit like “meetings aren’t important.” And when they end up _changing their story_, then it starts to really look bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/condi-hits-the-stand/237312.md?page=4)