Rice on 60 Minutes right now

[conjur]

She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

 

[Czar]

give us more info

no 60 minutes here

 

[Dman877]

Excuses are like a$$holes.... and this administration seems to have too many of them.

"Everyone is sorry" but she won't say she is sorry or responsible in any way... I was watching pbs earlier and they had family members of 9/11 victims on there calling for her resignation... hear hear.

 

[Perknose]

Condi meant this, condi meant that. Condi has to ketchup with the truth.

What a weasel. :|

 

[Gaard]

It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

Its not really a rumor, its an expectation. Most Executive members do not typically stay around for the second term. Some do, the majority don't.

If Bush is reelected, I dont expect Rice, Powell, or Rummy to be around for the second term. Rice will resign, Powell will resign, and Rummy will just be replaced.

Id be suprised if Cheney was still the running mate after the RNC Convention.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

Its not really a rumor, its an expectation. Most Executive members do not typically stay around for the second term. Some do, the majority don't.

If Bush is reelected, I dont expect Rice, Powell, or Rummy to be around for the second term. Rice will resign, Powell will resign, and Rummy will just be replaced.

Id be suprised if Cheney was still the running mate after the RNC Convention.

I didn't realize this. Is there some sort of reasoning behind this?

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: conjur
She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

She already did...

From CNN's web site....


"She has given four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 panel, formally titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

Various other news agencies report the same thing. Read a little....

Some more quotes from CNN's web page about Rice...

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice "has been very helpful to us" in private sessions.

"She's told us she's happy to have us come back, so we're going to get the information that we want in the commission," Hamilton said.


here is the whole story

 

[Gaard]

So that's her reason?

"Because I already did."

?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

Its not really a rumor, its an expectation. Most Executive members do not typically stay around for the second term. Some do, the majority don't.

If Bush is reelected, I dont expect Rice, Powell, or Rummy to be around for the second term. Rice will resign, Powell will resign, and Rummy will just be replaced.

Id be suprised if Cheney was still the running mate after the RNC Convention.

I didn't realize this. Is there some sort of reasoning behind this?

1. Which part? Executives not wanting to return for another 4 years?

2. Or why Rice and Powell wont return if Bush is re-elected?


3. Or being suprised if Cheney remains the running mate?


Answer to #1. Most do not feel like putting up for 4 more years of the same. Its a very stressful job, and most want to go back to a private life.

Answer to #2. See #1

Answer to #3. Cheney is the most polarizing figure in the Bush White House.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

Its not really a rumor, its an expectation. Most Executive members do not typically stay around for the second term. Some do, the majority don't.

If Bush is reelected, I dont expect Rice, Powell, or Rummy to be around for the second term. Rice will resign, Powell will resign, and Rummy will just be replaced.

Id be suprised if Cheney was still the running mate after the RNC Convention.

I didn't realize this. Is there some sort of reasoning behind this?

1. Which part? Executives not wanting to return for another 4 years?

2. Or why Rice and Powell wont return if Bush is re-elected?


3. Or being suprised if Cheney remains the running mate?


Answer to #1. Most do not feel like putting up for 4 more years of the same. Its a very stressful job, and most want to go back to a private life.

Answer to #2. See #1

Answer to #3. Cheney is the most polarizing figure in the Bush White House.

lol

I was referring to #1. I guess I just assumed you meant it was the president's decision not to bring them back...but you're saying it's usually voluntary?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Gaard
It's rumored that Rice will retire after this year.

Its not really a rumor, its an expectation. Most Executive members do not typically stay around for the second term. Some do, the majority don't.

If Bush is reelected, I dont expect Rice, Powell, or Rummy to be around for the second term. Rice will resign, Powell will resign, and Rummy will just be replaced.

Id be suprised if Cheney was still the running mate after the RNC Convention.

I didn't realize this. Is there some sort of reasoning behind this?

1. Which part? Executives not wanting to return for another 4 years?

2. Or why Rice and Powell wont return if Bush is re-elected?


3. Or being suprised if Cheney remains the running mate?


Answer to #1. Most do not feel like putting up for 4 more years of the same. Its a very stressful job, and most want to go back to a private life.

Answer to #2. See #1

Answer to #3. Cheney is the most polarizing figure in the Bush White House.

lol

I was referring to #1. I guess I just assumed you meant it was the president's decision not to bring them back...but you're saying it's usually voluntary?

Yes most of the time its voluntary.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: conjur
She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

She already did...

From CNN's web site....


"She has given four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 panel, formally titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

Various other news agencies report the same thing. Read a little....

Some more quotes from CNN's web page about Rice...

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice "has been very helpful to us" in private sessions.

"She's told us she's happy to have us come back, so we're going to get the information that we want in the commission," Hamilton said.


here is the hole story

Read a little yourself... it wasnt under oath.







SHUX

 

[Insane3D]

What is the "hole story"? Is that like a porno?

:Q

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

I was going to watch, but britany is on showtime
and she is much more interesting than Rice.

 

[EXman]

She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

It's better than being like Clarke doing it twice and having two different stories

This isn't about 9/11 and the Truth it is about the next 4 years.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: EXman

She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

It's better than being like Clarke doing it twice and having two different stories

This isn't about 9/11 and the Truth it is about the next 4 years.

Nice Funny how Clark has become a household name and his book is already a best seller...hopefully they bring charges against the opportunist.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: conjur
She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

She already did...

From CNN's web site....


"She has given four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 panel, formally titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

Various other news agencies report the same thing. Read a little....

Some more quotes from CNN's web page about Rice...

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice "has been very helpful to us" in private sessions.

"She's told us she's happy to have us come back, so we're going to get the information that we want in the commission," Hamilton said.


here is the hole story

Read a little yourself... it wasnt under oath.







SHUX

Where does it say she wasn't under oath? She gave testimony...guess what....you do that UNDER oath.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

well, there isn't any pressure from Bush for her to testify so why should she?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Condi meant this, condi meant that. Condi has to ketchup with the truth.

What a weasel. :|

You are calling the wrong person a weasel. She is doing what her boss wants her to do.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Shuxclams

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: conjur
She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

She already did...

From CNN's web site....


"She has given four hours of private testimony to the 9/11 panel, formally titled the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States"

Various other news agencies report the same thing. Read a little....

Some more quotes from CNN's web page about Rice...

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice "has been very helpful to us" in private sessions.

"She's told us she's happy to have us come back, so we're going to get the information that we want in the commission," Hamilton said.


here is the hole story

Read a little yourself... it wasnt under oath.







SHUX

Where does it say she wasn't under oath? She gave testimony...guess what....you do that UNDER oath.

I don't think the testimonies are done under oath unless it is requested. If all testimonies were under oath, we wouldn't be having this issue with Rice and we wouldn't have folks calling for declassification of Clarke's private testimony if the request could be asked of the accusers as well. But I could be wrong.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Perknose
Condi meant this, condi meant that. Condi has to ketchup with the truth.

What a weasel. :|

You are calling the wrong person a weasel. She is doing what her boss wants her to do.

LOL! This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who ISN'T just doing their job 99.9% of the time? That's what Rummy was doing, that's what Bush was doing. It is simply stupid to give her a pass because "she was just doing her job." Not that I agree with the OP and the rest of the people in this thread, but I don't think her refusing to testify should be given a pass because it is her job. Didn't you mean to say "She's black, so I'm giving her a free pass."

 

[chess9]

Shinerburke:

Rice has yet to say a single word to the 911 Commission under oath. That's the whole problem. Clarke was under oath, but Rice doesn't need to speak one syllable of the truth if she's not under oath. She also refuses to appear in public before the 911 Commission even though she has "testified" privately.


-Robert

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: EXman

She's making all kinds of excuses as to why she won't testify UNDER OATH

It's better than being like Clarke doing it twice and having two different stories

This isn't about 9/11 and the Truth it is about the next 4 years.

Yes, it would be bad if he did that. He did not. Clarke's testimony has been consistent. Frist retreated from that character assassination when Democrats called his bluff. "Bring it on! Declassify his testimony so we can see the two different stories." Frist: "Buhhhh, never mind."

Please check back with mother Dub. You should stop repeating Frist's lies. You are supposed to be bleating new lies today. BAA. BAA.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Where does it say she wasn't under oath? She gave testimony...guess what....you do that UNDER oath.

Not when you are Condoleezza Rice. She talked to the commission but still refuses to testify under oath.