I love the bit about the sdministration wanting it stated in writing that Condi’s testamony will not constitute a precedent. Who dos Bush think he’s dealing with here, the Supreme court? 
Further proof that whoever says creamed peas are good for you, is very wrong.
No joke. “Don’t worry, Mr. President, we’ll try not to expect to be told the truth, in the future.”
LilShieste
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.
Sure, but how can the commission offer assurances for anyone else. They can promise in writing that they won’t ask other people to testify, but they can’t prevent me, or you, or another commission, or Congress from asking. Precendent is precedent.
No, I wasn’t a fan of that, either. But it’s not really an analagous situation. One, Clinton was personally facing legal charges rather than defending the policies of his administration. Two, the stakes were a little different (a sexual harassment lawsuit vs. a terrorist attack on the United States). Not that I’m excusing him, I would have respected him more had he just come clean in the first place, but it’s not really the same thing to couch your language in legal terms when you’re personally facing charges.
Well if they give her even half the grilling they gave Clarke, it should be pretty interesting.
“Both”??
This suggests that Bush and Cheney will testify together.
I can think of only one reason why that should be necessary, and it isn’t very flattering to Bush.
I guess I don’t see what all the fuss is about on this board over this issue. Since most of you think she will lie, weasel and/or the questions will be softball anyway, whats the point? Why get so excited? She has already answered most of the questions that will be asked…and you don’t believe her answers. Under oath makes a difference? Thats a laugh. All her answers will most likely be properly screened so that technically they won’t be lies anyway. Don’t any of you remember Clinton? You think Condi and or the administrations legal team isn’t smart enough to look at this angle carefully and use similar tactics?? :rolleyes:
Of course, all this assumes that the administration DID lie about its Iraq data (all of it I mean…I’m pretty convinced myself that at the least the ‘truth’ was exagerated and the data cherry picked, but thats not the same thing)…which no matter how this plays out will be the assumption of the majority on this board. So again…why the excitement?
-XT
Fascinating. Will you post the results of the board wide study you conducted that drew this conclusion? Or are you just…um…making it up?
I’m basing it on the numerous threads about this same subject currently here and in the pit. You saying I’m wrong? That SEEMS to be the general tone I’ve seen so far.
-XT
xtisme, are you wondering why the excitement? since it “seems” like the majority of the board thinks Rice et. al are lying to us? (I am wondering if I am understanding what you posted.)
If this is the case-- the “excitement” is only present because only the “majority” of the board feels this way (that is, “not all”). Seeing as this is GD, we are debating with the posters (even if they are few and far between) that feel that the Bush administration is not lying.
If this isn’t the case… uhh… then could you repeat the question? 
LilShieste
I’ll just withdraw my comments…I actually posted this in the wrong thread. 
Carry on.
-XT
Tone is important, especially if that’s all you got. That, and trap doors.
Firstly, they will portray themselves as standing on principle, defending the office of the President from encroachment on its sacred “executive privilege”. (Anybody else hear the shade of Dick Nixon chuckling in the background…) “We don’t really have to do this, but we are so cooperative and eager to set the record straight, I mean, really, Condi is just champing at the bit…”.
That “no second helpings” proviso is a beaut. Condi will say what she says, if somebody later turns up something that contradicts her, they can’t call her back in for an explanation. If she serves them a whopper, they will have to dig for the truth. They may find it, but they can’t confront her with it. Think of it as “follow up question” insurance.
As for the Bush/Cheney dynamic duo, again, trying to set the rules even if the rules don’t matter, just demanding a display of deference. Kind of like Butch Cassidy refusing to start the knife fight until they discuss the rules. It is, of course, GeeDubya’s worst setting, a think-on-your-feet situation where not only must you walk on thin ice, you have to tap dance an improvisation.
Plus, it cuts exposure in half. Dick Cheney’s got that there “gravitas” thing, GeeDubya does not. He has the image of it, but that is stage managed hokum, professionally crafted Bushwah like his “down-home” folksiness and humor. The more attention on Cheney and off Bush, the better. Also, of course, there is less chance of mutual contradiction.
Like when someone asks about the special commission Bush appointed Cheney to head up about terrorism. Last report I heard was during the six months of its alleged existence, it never met. I really want to hear the answer to that one!
O.K., I know you posted in the wrong thread, but I just have to comment on this. What I remember about Clinton was that he ended up getting impeached. I think it would have been very relevant had he been running for re-election at the time. IIRC, that all happened in his second term, right?
I’d be impressed if Cheney could drink water while Bush speaks. Condi isn’t going to say anything she hasn’t said in public a million times. If national security mandated that she kept her mouth shut, perhaps she should have done so.
I thought the reason Condi Rice wasn’t going to testify originally was due to principle, separation of powers, and all that. What happened to the principle?
In any case, perhaps we can be helpful to the 9-11 Commission. What questions would you ask Ms. Rice?
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.
Maybe your point is that, because Clinton got impeached that this board will be able to pull out of Condi stuff that she doesn’t want to give? If thats your point, I conceed its possible. But I doubt it. For one, I’m unsure there ARE any real bomb shells to drop (i.e. Condi coming out and saying basically "Well, we lied about it all…muhahahaha!’), and if there ARE skeletons in the closet I seriously doubt any will see the light of day anyway. At least not from this commission and at this time. I will await developments with a skeptical mind…
-XT
FLIP FLOP!
If they can’t get what they need out of Condi, the commission can always subpoena some of the president’s secret service guys. I’ll bet that they’ve heard plenty!
I’d ask her to explain any of the contradictions from her as documented here.
Most especially, these (from the same cite)
Of course, there is considerable flexibility in the Admin concept of “urgency” and “imminence”, and related terms. Take, for instance, the crucial and immediate urgency of discovering why Fearless Misleader was so woefully ill-served by the intelligence community. 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?
(I love the workings of karma: when Woodward’s book came out, the Bushiviks basked in the glow of it, how GeeDubya was packaged as forceful, direct, and candid. The kind of man who uses “gut feelings” to make decisions. In a woman, this is usually called “intuition”…)