Why Ms Rice won't testify under oath ?

I think she will take the Fifth.

She's on the board of Lies, Inc.

I'm a little confused, why is there a need for both swearing and affirming. What is the problem with swearing?

It was Rice, who declared after 9/11, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Turns out she had been briefed by her predecessor about precisely that threat from al-Qaida against key sites in the United States, and against the G8 summit in Genoa - which Bush attended, sleeping aboard a Navy carrier instead of a comfy Italian hotel - in July 2001. And a 1999 report by the National Intelligence Council warned that al-Qaida terrorists could crash an airplane full of explosives into the Pentagon.

Then there's the January, 2001 report by a national security commission chaired by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. (It was the Hart-Rudman commission, tasked by Bill Clinton to come up with a 21st century security strategy for the U.S. - and not George W. Bush - that originally proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security. The Bush team shelved its recommendations before 9/11.) Hart pleaded with the Bush administration to take the al-Qaida threat seriously throughout the spring and summer of 2001, with Hart even meeting personally with Rice just one week before the Twin Towers were attacked

Many people of strong religious convictions will not take an oath of any kind, and others will not take an oath which invokes the name of god.

Lies and Damned Lies
Bushco has told damn lies. Many Americans were upset and some still are that B. Clinton lied about a sexual matter but don't seem upset that Pres. Bush, VP Cheney and the rotten bunch of his cabal lied and lied and lied about Iraq and Saddam.

I shake my head in frustration.

OK, I still don't understand why? I have known some mennonites, jw's who will not pledge allegiance, go to war ect. But an elected official who will not swear an oath seems silly if not illegal. Why be in politics if this is against your religion.

Geeze, Ceili, are you tryin' to be thick?

BBB quoted this above, but, to repeat, the third paragraph of the sixth article of the constitution reads:


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Additionally, the eighth paragraph of the first section, of the second article (which deals with the executive, and hence, the presidency) reads:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Those who are unwilling to swear an oath are not required to do so--and may make the same pledge by affirmation. Note the portions of the text above which i have presented in bold-face.

So one can either take an oath (swear) or make an affirmation. The option of making an affirmation is a concession to the religious scruples of some citizens.

Sorry set, I won't bother again.

I had no idea an oath was a test of religious beliefs, nuff said.

I was rude, Boss, please accept my apology. The standard form for such oaths is to swear before god, and this is offensive to a great many deeply religious people.

Facts
Rethuglicans are always demanding facts. When they are presented they don't respond. Rethugs are like vampires demanding wooden stakes. When the stakes are shown the blood suckers run away.

Re: She's Liar.

Both are true, PO. If you read the news report you cite, you will see that the cut they mention--in a phrase that seems almost intended to be misconstrued as you have done--was to the requested INCREASE. The request was for an increase of $1.5B, but the White House only gave them an increase of $531M. That's an INCREASE in spending of over half a billion dollars. Hardly a cut, and certainly evidence that Condi was speaking the truth in your citation above.

Re: Facts


As a certified thug, I resent this.

Ok but...
do you deny it? :wink:

Amazing stories by Condi Rice
July 25, 2003

Interview of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Tom Brokaw, NBC
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 24, 2004
Interview of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Tom Brokaw, NBC
6:30 P.M. EST

Q Let's begin with that statement by Mr. Clarke, apologizing to the families, taking responsibility, asking for forgiveness. Will the President ever consider making such a statement?

DR. RICE: Tom, everybody feels that what happened to us on September 11th was clearly a deep tragedy. The President has encountered a multitude of families and families of the victims. He has talked about their loss being our loss. This was a terrible loss for the country. But we need to recognize that good people in the Clinton administration and in the first 200-plus days of the Bush administration were doing what we knew how to do to try and protect the country.

Since September 11th we have been able to do things in an all-out war on terrorism that the President has launched, that we hope will prevent further attacks on the United States. We are safer now, but not yet safe. But the events of September 11th, while tragic, probably could not have been prevented by the kinds of steps that were being discussed today. That's the hard fact.

Q Let me ask about executive privilege. You've been meeting with the commission in private, but you will not go before this very public meeting, citing separation of powers, executive privilege. But your predecessors have gone before Congress in the past. Even President Ford testified about his pardon of Richard Nixon. Executive privilege is really a flexible concept. Why not go to the President on this issue that is so profoundly important to America, and say, I should be testifying?

DR. RICE: Tom, I would like nothing better than to be able to testify before the commission. I have spent more than four hours with the commission. I'm prepared to go and talk to them again, anywhere, any time, anyplace, privately. But I have to be responsible and to uphold the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. It is a matter of whether the President can count on good confidential advice from his staff.

Over time, there have been cases, mostly related to -- they've been related to allegations of wrongdoing of one kind or another. This is not that kind of case. It would set a bad precedent. But I want the American people to know the story. That's why I'm here. After all, this President has a very good story to tell about the first 230-plus days of his administration and what he did in the war on terrorism, and certainly since September 11th, the war on terrorism that he has launched since they launched war on us on that terrible day.

Q Dr. Rice, with all due respect, I think a lot of people are watching this tonight saying, well, if she can appear on television, write commentaries, but she won't appear before the commission under oath. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

DR. RICE: Tom, I would like nothing better, but there is a constitutional principle at stake here. I'm here before the American people. We're not hiding anything. You can ask me anything that you want; any journalist can ask me anything that you want. The commission can ask me anything that it wants in private. It can put it in its report. The public will know everything that I know. This is a matter of constitutional principle. It is not a matter of personal preference for me.

Q Mr. Clarke said today that terrorism was the highest priority of the Clinton administration. It was important to you, but it was not the highest priority. Any student, I think, of the early days of your administration might have thought that China, Russia, Iraq, missile defense systems were probably higher on the President's agenda.

DR. RICE: Tom, I just don't think that the record bears out Dick Clarke's assertion. In fact, on January 25th, in response to a question from me to my staff to tell me what we should be worrying about, what we should be doing, he sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three-to-five-year period. We acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that, while Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn't follow them up, in August of 2002, in a press interview, he said that we had, in fact, acted on those ideas. So he can't have it both ways.

We were acting on issues like arming the Predator, so that we could have a reconnaissance plane that could also strike the target, cutting down the time between sighting a target and being able to hit it. The President increased counterterrorism funding several-fold in order to be more aggressive.

And most importantly, the President set out a new direction for American policy in the war on terrorism, to give us stronger, more coherent policies, and policies that were more robust, to eliminate al Qaeda, not just to roll it back. That strategy really did not take very long. In the interim, the administration was pursuing all of the avenues that the Clinton administration had been pursuing before. So it's just not right to say that this President was not focused on terrorism.

He met every morning with his Director of Central Intelligence and some 46 of his daily briefings were about issues related to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. So we were very active in the fight against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and preparing a strategy to become even more active.

Q Dr. Rice, I hope we'll have an opportunity to go over these issues again in the future, whether or not you appear before the commission. I do thank you for being here tonight.

DR. RICE: Thank you very much, Tom.

END 6:40 P.M. EST

I've not read all the available stuff on this, so would apologise in advance if question answered elsewhere, but the following interests me:

Could it be that the Bush administration knew enough about the coming 9-11 strike (but maybe did not have all the details or understand the severity or extent of potential damage), but did nothing DELIBERATELY so as to be able to win Congressional approval to mount a military campaign against Iraq (a pre-selected target) as a "retaliation"?

Is anyone investigating that possibility?

Re: She's Liar.

I'm sure not reading this the way you are. I interpret the above quotation as saying:

1. "We NOW know that the real threat had been in the US since at least 1999. The plot to attack New York and Washington had been hatching for nearly two years."

So, since she says we know NOW that the plot had been hatching for two years, why do you interpret it to mean that she knew for two years?

2. "According to the FBI, by June 2001 16 of the 19 hijackers were already here...."

You say, "So if they knew that these guys were here...and that they knew for two years that a plot was in motion to attack New York and Washington...why didn't they do anything...?"

The above quotation I have labelled as #2, says that the highjackers were already here, not when they knew it and understood its significance.

I believe that some of the basic facts that could have been put together to predict 9/11 were among the tons of intelligence in our possession before 9/11, but they were just bits of a huge volume of intelligence covering many topics and many real and potential conspiracies. It's probably true that the government should have done a better jobof processing its raw intelligence data, but I don't see anything in these quotations to indicate that the demon Bush and his satanic minions knew the highjackers were here, who they were, and what they were planning in advance of the event.

Yes, it could be. It could also be true that I'm Ludwig II, Mad King of Bavaria, however, it isn't true. Before investigating a conspiracy charge against the president, one would think there would have to be some specific evidence, as opposed to might be's and might have beens. Or, we could just call Ken Starr back and keep investigating a succession of unrelated possible conspiracies until something is found.

In all seriousness, I am still waiting for somebody to give a plausible reason as to why Dr. Rice refuses to testify before America at the 9/11 commission. Anybody?