Why Ms Rice won't testify under oath ?

I thank you too Pdiddie. I got stuck on that last night and didn't know the answer.

0 Replies

Y'know, even if she does commit perjury, Bush can just pardon her. Sad

0 Replies

Clearly Rice has never been reluctant to answer questions on this subject, since she had both appeared on numerous talk shows to speak about it, and has previously testified before the commission behind closed doors. Her only reluctance has been to give formal testimony to the commission.

Question, was the commission created by, and therefore an arm of Congress? I sincerely do not know.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, the 9/11 Commission was created and appointed by President Bush at the request from many 9/11 families, and only after a lot of public pressure when he didn't act.

See my post:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=626512#626512

BBB

0 Replies

The commission -- formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- was created in 2002 through congressional legislation.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Yes, the president signed the bill, but then, he signs all laws and acts of congress. That doesn't make them any less congressional acts.

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, our statements are not inconsistent with each other. Congress acted after Bush finally caved to pressure from the 9/11 families.

BBB

0 Replies

Our statements are completely inconsistent. The commision was created by an act of congress. The president signed it as he does all legislation passed by congress.

0 Replies

BBB

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The president signed it as he does all legislation passed by congress.

Ever heard of a little Latin word meaning "I forbid it?"--veto?

I know the Shrub is several bricks short of a load, but i think it unrealistic to state that even he signs all legislation passed by Congress. You need to make better arguments than that, this stuff just looks silly.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

The 9/11 Commission is not part of any branch of the government, and most certainly not the legislative branch, as implied by Brandon and Scrat.

I neither implied nor wrote any such thing. If you failed to understand the purpose of my question to BBB ask me what I meant instead of pretending I meant something I did not.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Thank you Pdiddie for making it clear that the commission is exactly that, a commission which will make a report of it's findings to the American people. This argument that Rice kept mouthing about not testifying before "Congress" struck me as disingenuous from the gitgo.

Again, are you unaware that she did in fact speak to the commission, but was unwilling to be compelled to do so in a public setting?

My suspicion is that the administration's goal here was to avoid allowing liberals on the commission to make this political by attacking her in a public setting, hence the original decision to have her tell them what she knows in a closed session, but refuse the request to testify in front of cameras.

Sadly, liberals simply used this as another political football and the administration caved--due in part to the willingness of so many in the media to skip over the detail that Condi did in fact speak to the commission already.

0 Replies

Every time this issue has come up, i've heard the comment the Miss Rice had testified in closed session. The claim of ". . . the willingness of the media to skip over the detail that Condi [how cute!] did in fact speak to the commission . . ." is a red herring, and won't that won't stand up to scrutiny. Typical crapola, there, Shirley . . .

0 Replies

What do you expect will come out during the public questioning that did not or would not have come out during the private sessions?

0 Replies

Setanta writes:

Quote:

Every time this issue has come up, i've heard the comment the Miss Rice had testified in closed session. The claim of ". . . the willingness of the media to skip over the detail that Condi [how cute!] did in fact speak to the commission . . ." is a red herring, and won't that won't stand up to scrutiny. Typical crapola, there, Shirley . .

I wonder if you were as equally incensed when Bill Clinton would not allow his then security advisor, William Clarke, testify publically before a congressional committee for exactly the same reason that Bush resisted letting Condoleeza Rice testify?

0 Replies

What rot--in the first place, you don't know if i supported Clinton or not (in fact, i never voted for the man). Secondly, only people with a partisan dichotomous hostility bring up Clinton as an answer to the criticisms of the Shrub's decisions. Thirdly, my response was posted only to counter the unsupported and, in my opinion, specious contention by Shirley that the media have not mentioned that Miss Rice has testified in closed session--it is my experience that it is mentioned every time the story is aired or printed. Finally, I have not expressed an opinion on the subject of the relative probity of this particular policy decision, so you're talking through your hat in assuming what my opinion is.

Don't holler 'til you're hurt.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Every time this issue has come up, i've heard the comment the Miss Rice had testified in closed session. The claim of ". . . the willingness of the media to skip over the detail that Condi [how cute!] did in fact speak to the commission . . ." is a red herring, and won't that won't stand up to scrutiny. Typical crapola, there, Shirley . . .

Scrutinize this...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/30/terror/main609279.shtml

Quote:

Add to that Rice's recent blitz of the public airwaves to state her case -- while stonewalling the commission -- and it appears to some that the White House has badly stumbled.
...
Former National Security officials -- who themselves fought to preserve executive privilege -- say Rice probably now has no choice. That her recent TV appearances have completely undercut her case for a private session with the commission.

This is a lengthy article by a major source during which they touch on many timeline and periferal issues including the issue of a possible private confab with the commission, yet at no time do they mention the fact that she has already spoken with them.

The "crapola" is in the media's reporting of this story, not in my pointing it out. Cool

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The president signed it as he does all legislation passed by congress.

Ever heard of a little Latin word meaning "I forbid it?"--veto?

I know the Shrub is several bricks short of a load, but i think it unrealistic to state that even he signs all legislation passed by Congress. You need to make better arguments than that, this stuff just looks silly.

Since the commision was created by legislation, one can make a reasonable argument that a member of either of the other two branches cannot be compelled to testify before it.

0 Replies

Sheesh Setanta, I asked a simple question that drew no conclusions whatsoever. Well okay, the "anybody but Bush' crowd isn't willing to look at any precedent supporting what Bush does, and I suppose that was my point. And.....those who thought Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread often don't seem to want to look at any comparisons between the Clinton administration and now unless they can make 'now' look worse than 'then'.

But if you took that as a personal insult, that was not my intention and I profoundly apologize.

0 Replies

Quote:

"those who thought Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread"

this statement appears to be a recurring theme of the Bush defenders, and its bull, quite a large number of us "bush bashers" are not nor were not Clinton supporters.

0 Replies

Once again, the manichaean wordview of the avearage conservative manisfests. Life is made up of only polar choices. Black and white, good and evil, Clinton or Bush. How sad to live one's life that way. Sad

0 Replies

Why Ms Rice won't testify under oath ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know