0
   

Condi Rice now agrees to meet with 9/11 commission

 
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 04:55 pm
Members of the Bush cabal keep casting the web of "Executive Priviledge" wider and wider and wider.

Cheney is trying to play this card with the minutes of his secret energy meetings that involved ENRON and which lead to California's energy crisis.

The SCOTUS isn't back on his request yet.

Now, Condi "weasel" Rice is trying the same tactic.

Jeez, at this rate, the Bush twins will be hiding under "Executive Priviledge" the next time they get in trouble with the fuzz. ROFL!!!!!
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 05:12 pm
Testify
The Sec. of Defense and the Sec. of State both testified under oath in public. The American people aren't going to understand why Condisleeza won't do so. It appears like she has something to hide, which of course, she does.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 05:16 pm
Black Magic Woman
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040323/capt.cdh11303232213.bush_cdh113.jpg

I aint going to jail for Shrub, damnit!!!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 05:54 pm
I think that she does not want to contradict her statements that she has been making in the press and if she takes an oath she might trip herself up.

Didn't Rice work or chair or something like that at an energy company before working in the administration? Not that one thing has anything to do with another. I just find it curious, I am wondering if it is something in the atmosphere at those places that causes folks like Rice and Cheney to churn out of them.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 09:10 pm
revel wrote:
I think that she does not want to contradict her statements that she has been making in the press and if she takes an oath she might trip herself up.


Perhaps true, but still unacceptable.

Quote:
Didn't Rice work or chair or something like that at an energy company before working in the administration? Not that one thing has anything to do with another. I just find it curious, I am wondering if it is something in the atmosphere at those places that causes folks like Rice and Cheney to churn out of them.


Not to my knowledge. Her life has been limited to academics and politics ever since entering the University of Denver at the ripe age of 15.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 09:13 pm
Official Bio
Quote:
Biography of
Dr. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor

Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.

In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.

As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.

At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.

From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, and the University of Louisville in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.

March 2004


0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 09:19 pm
I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 10:19 pm
I find it very disturbing too. I don't get it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 11:15 pm
Re: Logic?
pistoff wrote:
Zbignew Brezinsky (Carter) and Sandy Berger (Clinton) as NSAs that testified in public session under oath to Congress.

I believe that she has no legal claim not to testify in public under oath. The White House Criminals don't want her to do so for fear of the actual truth to emerge. She wouldn't be able to tell lies and half truths and spin the crap as she is doing on TV because then she could be criminal charged as well as going down in history as a freakin' traitor.


I don't think the examples you give of members of a standing administration who testified were legally coerced. I think they testified voluntarily. My understanding is that they could have invoked executive priviledge, but chose not to.

Of course many of us think that Condy *should* testify under oath, but I don't think that legally she must.

My understanding is based on explanations I heard on NPR. I don't have references and I could be mistaken. But, this is how I understood it.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2004 11:35 pm
Again, what is the rational explanation for this?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 06:12 am
I don't think there is a rational explanation for her not wanting to testify under oath in public.

I have to admit though that she has a very impressive career biography. I thought I remember somebody mentioning that she had something to do with an energy company. Not that it makes her a bad person, I just find it odd that so many on the Bush administration have connection with energy.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 07:40 am
I believe that's Chevron, revel, where she sat on the board. Also probably the reason why there's an oil tanker named after her.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 07:50 am
Try reading back one page
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:47 am
I did a search on "executive priviledge". This is the best link that came up. The logic behind claims of executive priviledge lies in separation of powers.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

I am not arguing that it is ethical for Condy to refuse to testify. I am just saying it may be legally possible. Unfortunately this article is pretty murky.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:50 am
It could also be possible that she is privvy to much Top Secret information that shouldn't be exposed to the public or media and the administration could be concerned that the commission might ask some sensitive questions that under oath, in Public, Condi would be unable to answer.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 01:51 pm
Well, McG,
I'm willing to concede that, EXCEPT THAT these hearings ARE for the precise reason that some questions need to be answered, and the public has a right to those answers. If Berger and Clarke can do it, so can she.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
It could also be possible that she is privvy to much Top Secret information that shouldn't be exposed to the public or media and the administration could be concerned that the commission might ask some sensitive questions that under oath, in Public, Condi would be unable to answer.


Condie said that it was a matter of constitutional principle that prevented her from testifying in public. Could it be that she doesn't want to incriminate herself? It's just another example of how secretive some are in this administration and how worried they are about being re-elected. The bulk of her testimony should be public with any information that would adversely affect national security being in executive session.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:09 pm
As NONE of us are privvy to the exact reasons why, we can only speculate...Maybe it's because she is really an alien and she is afraid that the lights and camera's would be too stressful and she may change back to her natural form...

Who can say.
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:19 pm
McGentrix wrote:
As NONE of us are privvy to the exact reasons why, we can only speculate...Maybe it's because she is really an alien and she is afraid that the lights and camera's would be too stressful and she may change back to her natural form...Who can say.


She should resign while she still has an ounce of that hideous face to save.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 02:20 pm
Why? She is doing a fine job and has no reason to resign.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 12:20:23