Consider the dogs "launched" -- Republicans Want Clarke Testimony Declassified

[conjur]

Rice has not testified under oath.

Let's keep the facts straight, ok?


Rice has had private meetings with some of the commissioners but has yet to actually testify.

 

[conjur]

"The administration's attempts to discredit Clarke have backfired. "

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur
Rice has not testified under oath.

Let's keep the facts straight, ok?


Rice has had private meetings with some of the commissioners but has yet to actually testify.

Excuse my ignorance if Im wrong. Wouldnt seperation of powers apply here?

 

[conjur]

That's what Bush is claiming but there is precedent allowing Rice to testify.

 

[burnedout]

In his book, it seems Clarke himself has quite a few character attacks of his own. He calls James Woolsey a "cabalist". Yes, that's right, the same James Woolsey who tried to get an appointment with Clinton for months.

In Clarke's recollection of 9/11 he writes about going to visit the Vice President's location in the White House only to find the "right wing idealogue" chambers where Cheney, Rice, Lynne Cheney, Scooter Libby, Steven Hadley and Karen Hughes were locked down.

Such an "unbiased" source, I do believe.

More in coming days, stay tuned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's what Bush is claiming but there is precedent allowing Rice to testify.

I wonder what "precedent" you mean...conjur.

CkG

 

[chess9]

The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

 

[chess9]

The lawyers won that round and it really shouldn't have mattered unless someone was hiding something. Maybe they were, but I don't care. I do care about 911 and so do 99% of Americans. We need to get to the bottom of this problem and if Rice testifying under oath will help then she should do it. Those families deserve some answers and so do the rest of us. In fact, I'll bet most Republicans want Rice to testify under oath and in public.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

CAD:

This isn't about Drudge the Sludge. This is about accountability. THIS CASE IS SUI GENERIS. This is Pearl Harbor. This was an act of war that should be thoroughly investigated. In the end I SUSPECT that it won't make much difference. There probably was nothing Bush or Rice could have done and I doubt they were hoping for such an event. But by refusing to testify she has raised every red flag in the country. She is burying herself and her President. It's just plain stupid politics. Surely you must agree. (seein' as yer' so bloody reasonable all the time)

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

This isn't about Drudge the Sludge. This is about accountability. THIS CASE IS SUI GENERIS. This is Pearl Harbor. This was an act of war that should be thoroughly investigated. In the end I SUSPECT that it won't make much difference. There probably was nothing Bush or Rice could have done and I doubt they were hoping for such an event. But by refusing to testify she has raised every red flag in the country. She is burying herself and her President. It's just plain stupid politics. Surely you must agree. (seein' as yer' so bloody reasonable all the time)

-Robert

This isn't supposed to be about "politics" yet people are making it into one. She won't testify publicly and so people are turning into a partisan political issue. It may not be good "politics" but this isn't about politics...or is it

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

Re-read it, he wasn't trying to hide anything, he wanted to testify.

 

[chess9]

CAD:

Actually, good point.

It's about politics only because Bush has refused to let her testify. Of course the Dems are going to hammer the NeoCons for it. But, you know she should testify. It's worth more than EP. The American people understand what's happening and they are not laughing.

I wish I could quote my training partner exactly (he's a Republican) but his comment was something like "Who the ++++ does that woman think she is? The +++++ of the +++++++ Nazis?" He's usually not so restrained but he'd just finished a hard workout. We are a pair.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

Re-read it, he wasn't trying to hide anything, he wanted to testify.

Rice said she'd like to testify too. But ofcourse I'm sure you believe him over her - right?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: chess9
CAD:

Actually, good point.

It's about politics only because Bush has refused to let her testify. Of course the Dems are going to hammer the NeoCons for it. But, you know she should testify. It's worth more than EP. The American people understand what's happening and they are not laughing.

I wish I could quote my training partner exactly (he's a Republican) but his comment was something like "Who the ++++ does that woman think she is? The +++++ of the +++++++ Nazis?" He's usually not so restrained but he'd just finished a hard workout. We are a pair.

-Robert

Is parading things around on TV making it "political"? I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that it's the Bush admin making it "political" by her saying she has executive privilege. IMO that isn't making it "political" but the whining and gnashing of teeth about her "privilege" surely is political.
I really don't care if she does "public" testify or not, but one thing I do know is that she's smart and savvy enough to make a political scene, like Clarke did, too

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

Re-read it, he wasn't trying to hide anything, he wanted to testify.

Rice said she'd like to testify too. But ofcourse I'm sure you believe him over her - right?

CkG

She did?

Anyway, this is quite the reach, how does the Y2K Bug relate to 9/11, even if you remove Retrospect out of the picture? The Government had nothing to do with the Y2K situation other than trying to prevent it and they either succeeded at it or it was way overblown(which seems to be the case). OTOH, 9/11 actually happened and it appears that all that could have been done to prevent it wasn't done. In short, Clark had little reason to not want to Testify, while Rice has every reason(her job, Bushes job) in the world to not testify.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, Clark had little reason to not want to Testify, while Rice has every reason(her job, Bushes job) in the world to not testify.

That's nice and all sandorski but I think you are missing things due to your partisan slant. You see this all as a "political" issue -but it wasn't really until people on the outside of the Administration have made it such. This "public" hearing is just a political circus and Clarke seems to have woo-ed the partisan left with his show and now they thing they can make accusations about "hiding" or whatnot for political gain. Well I have news for you - This is going to bite the left in a big way...mark my words People will see this for what it is - a political game played by the left to try to discredit the Bush Admin - and they won't like it.

Oh, and yes - she did say that she'd love to testify again...and publically. She is also willing to talk again behind closed doors. Yeah - she must have something to hide.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

It's been stated before but I'll just repeat it...it doesn't make one bit of difference to me if Rice or anyone else testifies in public. I just want her (and everyone asked) to testify under oath.

Another point, what could possibly be more important than testifying in this 9/11 commission? After all, Bush at first refused to add an extension, and later added what many believe to be a sub-par extension, because the findings of this commission were too important to delay.

Another question...why won't she, or if CAD is right, why isn't she being allowed to? Does anyone have a theory?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, Clark had little reason to not want to Testify, while Rice has every reason(her job, Bushes job) in the world to not testify.

That's nice and all sandorski but I think you are missing things due to your partisan slant. You see this all as a "political" issue -but it wasn't really until people on the outside of the Administration have made it such. This "public" hearing is just a political circus and Clarke seems to have woo-ed the partisan left with his show and now they thing they can make accusations about "hiding" or whatnot for political gain. Well I have news for you - This is going to bite the left in a big way...mark my words People will see this for what it is - a political game played by the left to try to discredit the Bush Admin - and they won't like it.

Oh, and yes - she did say that she'd love to testify again...and publically. She is also willing to talk again behind closed doors. Yeah - she must have something to hide.

CkG

Speaking of "missing things due to your partisan slant", why do you and others keep ignoring the fact that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has unanimously expressed its unhappiness with Rice's refusal to testify under oath, with Republican chairman Kean leading the charge? Why did the Commission repeatedly express its frustration with the lack of cooperation from the White House? The only ones making this partisan are the Bushies who divert attention from their obstruction by blaming Democrats.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

Show me the 60 Minutes' transcripts, the Good Morning America transcripts, the Meet The Press transcripts, the CNN transcripts, etc. where Clarke was going around publicly talking about the situation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
In short, Clark had little reason to not want to Testify, while Rice has every reason(her job, Bushes job) in the world to not testify.

That's nice and all sandorski but I think you are missing things due to your partisan slant. You see this all as a "political" issue -but it wasn't really until people on the outside of the Administration have made it such. This "public" hearing is just a political circus and Clarke seems to have woo-ed the partisan left with his show and now they thing they can make accusations about "hiding" or whatnot for political gain. Well I have news for you - This is going to bite the left in a big way...mark my words People will see this for what it is - a political game played by the left to try to discredit the Bush Admin - and they won't like it.

Oh, and yes - she did say that she'd love to testify again...and publically. She is also willing to talk again behind closed doors. Yeah - she must have something to hide.

CkG

Speaking of "missing things due to your partisan slant", why do you and others keep ignoring the fact that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission has unanimously expressed its unhappiness with Rice's refusal to testify under oath, with Republican chairman Kean leading the charge? Why did the Commission repeatedly express its frustration with the lack of cooperation from the White House? The only ones making this partisan are the Bushies who divert attention from their obstruction by blaming Democrats.

Maybe because I'm not missing or ignoring that "fact"

I don't believe I said that the commision was politicizing this - but in your true spirit you ASSume things yet again. So yes - you and others bleating about the Admin making this "political" is BS. They claimed executive privelege and the left has turned this into a political circus to try to discredit the Admin. The commision's public testimony is just the stage for the "politicing" - I should hope that they are truly trying to find out what intelligence failures could have led to this sort of tradgedy so we can possibly prevent future attacks.
If the commision has more questions for Rice, they should let her talk behind closed doors like she did before. It doesn't matter where or how the info is given does it? Isn't it the info that is important here?...or is it
The demands for a "public" hearing and chants of "what does she have to hide" coming from the left is simply politics.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: chess9
The Y2K computer scare? Bwuahahahaha! LOL! Drudge will dredge up anything that feeds his piranha their morsel of flesh.

But, thanks for that, CAD. I had a good laugh.

-Robert

So what was Clarke hiding? Why wouldn't he testify? Same thing as Rice but about an even less significant(now in hindsight) issue. If he could claim priviledge for that commision - there is no reason Rice can't cite privilege in this one.
But yeah - make this about drudge instead of the FACTS. Go figure

CkG

Show me the 60 Minutes' transcripts, the Good Morning America transcripts, the Meet The Press transcripts, the CNN transcripts, etc. where Clarke was going around publicly talking about the situation.

He seemed to have plenty to say about an "electronic Pearl Harbor" around about 1999. So you tell me where his focus was.
Oh, and BTW - that still doesn't address why he thought it was necessary to have Executive Priveledge...

CkG

 

[nutxo]

OOh . O know, lets talk about sonic booms and rafts!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nutxo
OOh . O know, lets talk about sonic booms and rafts!

Hehe - "the rafts are coming, the rafts are coming..."

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

9/11 was an unprecedented event. Condi better get used to it and quick.