Rice seeks another private meeting with commission
She has granted public interviews with dozens of papers including the Irish Times but she won’t testify publicly under oath to the commission. There is something not right about this. EVERYBODY including Rice and Dubya should be required to testify publicly under oath — no special treatment. If this is as heinous a crime as Dubya claims it is, shouldn’t he be the first to publicly testify about what he knew so that something like this doesn’t happen again?
Refusing to testify really gives the impression that they’re hiding something…
Oh yes… and in case anyone wants to complain that Clarke is dissing Bush to be partisan, the guy is a Republican. Hardly partisanship.
They are hiding something…
Unfortunately, American citizens aren’t the only people that read the newspapers…
What get’s said in public to a committee will find its way back to a cave somewhere…
I know exactly who is to blame for 9-11… 19 terrorists that are roasting right now. 19 people decided to jump on a plane and steer it into buildings… only in America are we wanting to pin the blame on the victims of this crime, and not the people that planned, supported and carried out the deed.
Especially as, during the early days of the testimony, she was popping up daily to publicly rubbish Clarke. If only we could make this an impeachable offense…
Clarke’s actual comment was the last time he had to declare a party loyalty was to vote in the 2000 primary, and he asked for a republican ballot. Yet, he ended up voting for Al Gore in 2000, so I’m thinking he registered a protest vote for McCain in that primary.
Are you actually implying that party affiliation should have any bearing on whether the guy is credible or not?
No, I added that in case someone responded with “well, Clarke is a Democrat” as a reason for why he is dissing Bush. There are people from every party who vote for the other but party membership usually means loyalty to the leader of the party.
There’s nothing really that Condi can say that isn’t already old news — her testimony has to do with what they knew then, not what they know now.
This also isn’t all that far from the realm of public knowledge as others have been able to get ahold of the information on what the administration actually knew vs. what they say they knew.
There is apparently an understanding or a precedent or something that the national security advisor does not have to testify in front of Congress or a subcommittee, which is all fine and good… except that this concerns her behavior and her actions in that she possibly could have done something to prevent 9/11. They aren’t as misinformed as they say they are and there are documents in the public realm detailing the various information that existed on the attacks (i.e. the flight school stuff, the people in this country) while they were still in the planning stages.
The real problem is that all the parties with the information either ignored it or didn’t share it and we’re still not prepared if it happens again because none of these parties are talking all that well despite being in the same department.
If Clarke is a republican than the Pope must be Lutheran.
The following is from breaking news stories and you can look it up in the congressional record if you so chose…
“On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.
Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee — due to a directive by the National Security Council.
The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice’s testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!”
Did Y2K kill 3000 people in a move that could have been avoided? Different time and different necessity here.
I don’t understand how you can say 9-11 could have been avoided. Aren’t you amoung the same group of people screaming that Bush went into Iraq? That was preemptive and prevented a future 9-11. How do I know? I don’t, anymore than you do. On September 10, no one knew that people would hijack planes and fly them into building, what should Bush have done? I thought the airline security was up to par since Al Gore was put in charge of it, or did Gore not do his job?
September 11 happened, I doubt that anything could have been done to completely prevent it, maybe delay but not prevent. But I know now that this is absolutely NOTHING that can be done to un-do it now. Was the war in Iraq done absolutely the right way? I don’t think so, but the people of Iraq are now free and I think the world is a much better and safer place now that the weapon of mass destruction, Sadam, is no longer in control.
See my most recent entry.