Why Condi Rice had to lie, to evade, to avoid testifying under oath in the 9/11 hearings.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mrtanderson

Member
Jul 28, 2000
26
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: digitalsm
You are fully aware Condi Rice testified under oath before the 9/11 commission back last month, for 4 hours. Richard Clarke did too for 15 hours, so did everyone else that has testified in public hearins. The meat and potatoes of the investigation was/is being done behind closed doors. The past two days were dog and pony shows.

I think the families of the 9/11 attacks have the RIGHT to face the woman who was possibly responsible for their family's deaths.

This is a long thread so unsure if anyone commented on this but it is AL QAIDA and their fanatical leadership that is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Let's not lose sight of where the true blame should be directed at.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: mrtanderson
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: digitalsm
You are fully aware Condi Rice testified under oath before the 9/11 commission back last month, for 4 hours. Richard Clarke did too for 15 hours, so did everyone else that has testified in public hearins. The meat and potatoes of the investigation was/is being done behind closed doors. The past two days were dog and pony shows.

I think the families of the 9/11 attacks have the RIGHT to face the woman who was possibly responsible for their family's deaths.

This is a long thread so unsure if anyone commented on this but it is AL QAIDA and their fanatical leadership that is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Let's not lose sight of where the true blame should be directed at.

You are assuming Phokus doesn't agree with Al Qaida's goals.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
From HOP's link...

The letter sought written assurances that the panel would not consider Rice's testimony precedent-setting and that no additional public testimony from any White House official would be sought.

What does this mean?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: mrtanderson
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: digitalsm
You are fully aware Condi Rice testified under oath before the 9/11 commission back last month, for 4 hours. Richard Clarke did too for 15 hours, so did everyone else that has testified in public hearins. The meat and potatoes of the investigation was/is being done behind closed doors. The past two days were dog and pony shows.

I think the families of the 9/11 attacks have the RIGHT to face the woman who was possibly responsible for their family's deaths.

This is a long thread so unsure if anyone commented on this but it is AL QAIDA and their fanatical leadership that is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Let's not lose sight of where the true blame should be directed at.


you know thats besides the point. the administration was responsible for protecting us. they ran on the platform that the protection of previous president was inadequate. the fact that they had warnings from clarke, spiking warnings from fbi/cia during the summer, a whole infrastructure built by the previous president to work from, and still, they did their best to ignore it. that is negligence. its one thing to be blind sided when you truely are not warned and have no precedent, but entirely another thing when the previous administration leaves enough to have you hit the ground running, and you instead walk away in the other direction.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Stolen...

George Bush: Strong, steady leadership.

No investigation of 9/11!
Well, okay. We'll let this hand-picked commission investigate 9/11.

No, they can't see the PDB.
Well, some of them can see it.

No, there never was a meeting with Clarke, Bush, and a couple of other people.
Well, there was a meeting. But it was short!

No, terrorism was a top priority before 9/11.
Well, maybe not top--more like number 16 on the list after wiping out bong retailers.

No, Condi can't testify.
Well, she can testify, but not in public or under oath.
Well, maybe in private under oath.
Okay, okay--in public and under oath.

But remember: That Kerry sure is one flip-flopping slippery fish!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
From HOP's link...

The letter sought written assurances that the panel would not consider Rice's testimony precedent-setting and that no additional public testimony from any White House official would be sought.

What does this mean?

Does anyone know what this means? And whatever it means, why is it a stipulation?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Gaard
From HOP's link...

The letter sought written assurances that the panel would not consider Rice's testimony precedent-setting and that no additional public testimony from any White House official would be sought.

What does this mean?

Does anyone know what this means? And whatever it means, why is it a stipulation?
Just a guess, but it sounds like they don't want the 9/11 Commission asking for Cheney or Powell or Rumsfeld or Bush to testify in public. Don't blame 'em. Look at the furor when they stonewalled Rice's public testimony.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Pacifier, I guess.

Really though, I didn't know what the biggie was about all this testify in public thing. As long as anyone whom the commission has questions for testifies...under oath...that'd be good enough for me.

Now I sincerely hope we don't see an abundance of "I don't recall" or 5th amendment responses...especially after the White House has hammered the "cooperate completely" phrase into our brains.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Pacifier, I guess.

Really though, I didn't know what the biggie was about all this testify in public thing. As long as anyone whom the commission has questions for testifies...under oath...that'd be good enough for me.

Now I sincerely hope we don't see an abundance of "I don't recall" or 5th amendment responses...especially after the White House has hammered the "cooperate completely" phrase into our brains.
Agreed, under oath is more important than in public.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
under oath means diddly. she can be prosecuted for lying to the commission even if she's not under oath. I would rather just watch her squirm