I thought of this when reading WaPo this morning. After listening to all this crap all week, the reporters who have been covering it for the Post write their analysis piece:
Condi has never said that she is constitutionally **forbidden ** to testify, just that she is not constiutionally **required ** to do so. Other officials may decide to testify under oath if they so choose. Is that hard to understand? And that is not made up. If you think it is, show us the part of the constitution that requires her to do so.
Since Ms Rice’s willing to testify, all questions about whether she’s required to or not are somewhat moot in regards to this specific case. I mean she’s gonna, whether she’s required to or not. So while the question is still relevant to the larger picture of how the USG works, this particular case can be assessed without having to reference the issue of whether or not she’s required to testify.
She just isn’t willing to testify under oath.
What differences would making the oath create for Ms. Rice?
Which of these reasons are the motivating factors behind her reluctance to make an oath?
IANAL, but one would think that whatever her oath status, there would be hell to pay if she was found to be lying to a congressional invistigating committee. Not jail necessarily, but certainly political suicide.
Since when does “You can’t make me!” qualify as an explanation of the refusal? Sure they can’t compell her public testimony but why isn’t she willing unless she has something to hide?
I’m not going to defend her, and I never have in this thread. Mainly I was just trying to dispell the urban legend “she has time to talk to the press, but no time to testify” that keeps cropping up. And, as I’ve said before, I’m sure this is Bush’s decision not hers. If he told to testify under oath, she would. I don’t understand all the Condi bashing here when it’s a perfectly good opportuntity for Bush bashing.
I guess some of us optimists out here still hold out the hope that a career bureaucrat might choose integrity over ass-covering. It’s kind of like those scientists down in the salt mines watching giant suspended bars of aluminum, hoping to witness evidence for a gravity wave…
You disappoint me. The public interest requires her to testify, publicly. Is *that * so “hard to understand”?
It most certainly is targeted against Bush. There is no misunderstanding who has the authority of the President here. “Is that so hard to understand” either? You further help yourself not at all by trying to dismiss it as “bashing”, as if it is just more political gamesmanship. Surely you have some more sense of history, if not of civic responsibility, than that.
We told **december ** this many times, and perhaps it’s time to tell you too: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
It is pretty rare that I would disagree with you, but I question whether Bush takes most of his direction from Cheney. I’m sure many would consider that Bush-bashing, but it is a heartfelt concern.
Or perhaps wishful thinking.
[sub]OK, the last sentence was Bush bashing.[/sub]
The President always retains final authority and final responsibility, even if he chooses to delegate some or all of his authority, and mistakenly thinks he can delegate responsibility. I agree that Cheney and Rove are making the real decisions here, but only because Bush has created that situation. The person ultimately accountable is him. Truman knew that, and kept a sign on his desk to remind everyone, a sign Carter borrowed for his term.
The proper action for her is to resign if she disagrees on this issue strongly with Bush. She can then testify as she feels apropriate. As long as she remains in her job, I expect her to follow Bush’s directives.
I would’ve paraphrased what I thought you said in about the same way.
Firtst off, certain rights are unalienable. While debate about this can lead one into areas of the realm of philosophy where even the self evident existence of the discussants comes into question, there’re certain aspects of rights that have real effects on the course of history.
When, “we only have the rights that we can defend,” then, the concept of a violation of rights is rendered nearly moot.
The idea that a right can be violated requires that a right can still be posessed even when it’s not successfully defended.
When rights, in general, are contingent upon the sucessful defense of the rights, then, the inability to defend the rights is, ipso facto, a demonstration that the entity did not have those rights. Rights that an entity does not have cannot be violated. Since there can be no violation of an entity’s right if it does not have that right to violate, if rights that cannot be defended are not had, then rights that are not successfully defended are not violated because the entity did not have such a right to violate.
Yet, the concept that a right may still be posessed even when it’s not successfully defended exists as a signifigant motivational factor in human struggle. The ability to effect intentional change is directly proportional to the level of participation elicited for a venture, cause or campaign. This relationship between the ability to effect intentional change and the ability to elicit participation in a venture gives the ability to elicit high levels of participation its eminence among the tools for human conflict resolution.
The very first assessment that Sun Tzu addresses in his classic of calculated conflict resolution is inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership.
The understanding that a right may still be posessed even when it’s not successfully defended has the power to increase a nation’s level of acceptable sacrifice and level of active participation among the population.
There’re a number of well known campaigns, both violent and non-violent, that depend on and depended on an idea of violated rights as an essential element of their abilities to elicit participation that have had historical impact on global power structures.
Armies of recruits have been, are, and will be recuited with the idea that a right may still be posessed even when it’s not successfully defended. Well known examples are easy to come by: the the taxation without representation gripe; the American civil rights movement of recent decades; support for the “Arab Revolt” of WWI; the conflicts in various parts of the Levant; etc.
Because the idea that a right may still be posessed even when it’s not successfully defended exists, and has as profound of an impact on the processes of human struggle and conflict resolution as it does, to render the concept that rights can be violated nearly moot, (if not fundamentally less meaningful), by defining rights as dependent upon the defense of the right, is to remove a pivotal element of the realities of human conflict resolution from one’s analysis, (and is thus fundamentally flawed).
[The “long-standing principle” the WH claims to be defending doesn’t exist despite your agreement with their assertion, John](www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm):
Clarke gave a more detailed list of inconsistencies, already cited.
Followed by: White House accusations that she’s turning partisan, mud-slinging attacks from the usual rabble of right-wing apologists, thinly-veiled accusations of perjury from Bill Frist, etc. etc. etc.
