Rice to testify under oath

["Sixhits"]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040330/D81KUSV80.html

>>>
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush agreed Tuesday to do what he had insisted for weeks he would not: allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before an independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The White House also agreed that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would answer questions - together, in private - before the entire commission.

The turnabout reflected administration concern that the president's strongest point with voters - his leadership in the war on terror - could be eroded if the high-publicity dispute over Rice's testimony lingered.

"I've ordered this level of cooperation because I consider it necessary to gaining a complete picture of the months and years that preceded the murder of our fellow citizens on Sept. 11, 2001," Bush said.
<<<

I call bullshit on you, Bush. Rove decided you'd been checkmated by Dick Clarke.

Besides, if Bush really cared about the complete picture he wouldn't be putting limits on the commision to begin with.

At least the families of the 9/11 victims are happy. Er, or maybe not:

>>>
A group of relatives of Sept. 11 victims said they were pleased the commission would be able to question Rice in public, but lamented the commission would not do so with other White House officials.
<<<

I can't wait to see Rice perjure herself. That, or see her finally knock the house of cards down.



Of course, the Administration is still dance, dance, dancing around instead of being fully open.

The pres and the vice are going to do a closed door session together, instead of seperate. I guess Bush needs him brain in the room with him.

And then there's this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-033004assess_lat,1,3814027.story?coll=la-home-headlines   (free registration required)

>>>
President Bush's decision to allow his national security advisor to testify publicly was a concession to political reality that seemed long overdue to fellow Republicans, who saw his stubborn refusal to do so as a growing political liability for him and his party.

For many Republicans, the only question was: What took him so long to figure out that it would help his cause to allow Condoleezza Rice to testify before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks ? and that it was hurting to assert his executive privilege to keep her from testifying in public and under oath.

The controversy was vintage Bush, tapping into central veins of his administration: It continued his three-year-long effort to restore and build the power of the presidency. And it demonstrated his tendency to dig his heels in on core issues ? such as his refusal to accept questions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ? even beyond the point where other Republicans would cave.

"You could make a case that one of Bush's greatest strengths, which is resolve in leadership, can also be a weakness at times: my way or the highway," said a Republican strategist who works with the White House.

Bush's abrupt reversal today repeated another strand of his leadership style: His willingness to abruptly change course when political reality dictates.
<<<

Flippity, floppity, floooo!

[BFG]

I wonder if Mr. Bush will let Mrs Rice borrow "Mr happy" his sock puppet to help her out... Hell its how hes managed in goverment for the last few years, im sure Mr Happy the sock puppet could help her out as she lies her way through the proceedings...

Dick clarke... you are a very popular man right now

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Dick clarke... you are a very popular man right now

Dude, you are a moron.  Dick Clarke has flip-flopped more than John F'ing Kerry.  He has said one thing about our intelligence in the past, and now he says the exact opposite.

Yeah, that's real credible.

Just goes to show the Democrats will do anything possible, no matter how bad they have to lie, to win back the Presidency.

[seth]

Just goes to show the Democrats will do anything possible, no matter how bad they have to lie, to win back the Presidency.

and thats not what the republicans do to keep the presidency

[cO.gabe]

Bobby, although I don't entirely agree with GS' political views, I also think you should be commenting on the issue, mainly because you don't live in the U.S and know absolutely nothing about the government.  In every topic you find a way to piss me off.

[BFG]

Dude, you are a moron.? Dick Clarke has flip-flopped more than John F'ing Kerry.? He has said one thing about our intelligence in the past, and now he says the exact opposite.

hahaha... haha. haha. ha.... i was about to reply to that but im just gonna go have another drink

[BTs_FahQ2]

Actually GS is right on this one.  This guy has been lying to one side and then the other, it just so happens right now he is fullfilling the oppositions needs.  I am leary of anyone who comes out with a "tell all book".  If this retard actually cared about the families of 9-11 and was remorsefull, he sure as hell wouldn't of done it with a book deal and profit.  He states he is giving a portion to the families, but he must save some for personal expenses and needs.  Well, if I had information about someone knowingly let a huge number of people die, I would just go out and flood my information to all of the news outlets, not in a for profit venture.  

Besides, everyone is ignoring that this information was first presented to the Clinton administration and ignored then.  And we still don't know as to how detailed the intel was.  I mean, planes going to hit tall buildings.  Shit, just stop the whole U.S. and look up for a few months, that would of prevented it.

The people handringing here are out for money and to make a name, they really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.  His tell all book is as useful as a monday morning quarterback, the fucker has all the answers, but didn't really do shit on sunday.

As for Mrs. Rice.  I don't think most of you know that it is a long standing executive privelage to not have a president's administration to have to appear in front of Senate Assemblies.  Almost every president has done this since it first appeared.  And yes, this is an entirely political move in 2 ways.  

1.  To shut the public up and end the nonsense of bush letting those people die.  If you think he really did this then I guess we never landed on the moon also.

2. It's an election year, not doing this is political suicide, exspecially when the polls show the public favors this move.  You see, people do have an effect on politics, you can't claim the government does what it wants when it cowers to popular opinion.  Think about it.

[Ssickboy]

Dick clarke... you are a very popular man right now

Just goes to show the Democrats will do anything possible, no matter how bad they have to lie, to win back the Presidency.

Bro, you know he's a long time registered republican... right?  

[Ssickboy]

You guys ever consider stepping out of line from your position at whatever job you're at, and tell the increminating truths that make your employer look bad?  At the time, Clarke was doing his job by exagerating the positives and editing out the negatives for the administration.  Makes sense, we all do it.  In most cases it's required in order to maintain your job and support from your employer.  He's had this position for 2 decades under various administrations and parties.  

Now that you're no longer employed by this company, and your credability is already shot (9/11 on your watch) how do you publically come out and set the matter straight?  No better way than to write a book about the behind the scenes truth and get the ball rolling.  It's a vehicle to get your message out.  You guys forget the motivational power to be remembered kindly in the history books, or some people's will to do what's humanly decent (integrety).  As far as him making some money too, that's life.  Take it while you can get it.  

please read a little more before replying with "moron" this and that.  
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685
http://slate.msn.com/id/2098067

"One of the hounds that the White House did unleash?Secretary of State Powell?not only declined to growl, but practically purred like a kitten. Interviewed on Jim Lehrer's NewsHour, Powell said: "I know Mr. Clarke. I have known him for many, many years. He's a very smart guy. He served his nation very, very well. He's an expert in these matters." His book "is not the complete story," but, Powell added, "I'm not attributing any bad motives to it.""

[BTs_FahQ2]

One difference Sick.  My job didn't involve peoples lives.  This is where his personal needs were higher than those that died.  If he really thought there was a problem himself and people were going to die, then why did he let it go.  People go to jail for not preventing injuries that they knew about in corporate america.  

[Ssickboy]

you talkin about bush or clarke?  

clarke hasn't let it go, that's exactly the bush administrations problem right now

[seth]

you don't live in the U.S and know absolutely nothing about the government.

actually, i live in california, and as a taxpayer, i think i can state my point of view on what is done with my taxdollars !

[BTs_GhostSniper]

actually, i live in california, and as a taxpayer, i think i can state my point of view on what is done with my taxdollars !

Why don't you (and everyone else on this forum) fill out your profile so we all know where you live and a little more about you?  Come on, what are you hiding behind that you can't fill in your profile?  We are all friends here, right?

["Sixhits"]

Actually GS is right on this one.  This guy has been lying to one side and then the other, it just so happens right now he is fullfilling the oppositions needs.  I am leary of anyone who comes out with a "tell all book".  If this retard actually cared about the families of 9-11 and was remorsefull, he sure as hell wouldn't of done it with a book deal and profit.  He states he is giving a portion to the families, but he must save some for personal expenses and needs.  Well, if I had information about someone knowingly let a huge number of people die, I would just go out and flood my information to all of the news outlets, not in a for profit venture.  

Besides, everyone is ignoring that this information was first presented to the Clinton administration and ignored then.  And we still don't know as to how detailed the intel was.  I mean, planes going to hit tall buildings.  Shit, just stop the whole U.S. and look up for a few months, that would of prevented it.

The people handringing here are out for money and to make a name, they really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.  His tell all book is as useful as a monday morning quarterback, the fucker has all the answers, but didn't really do shit on sunday.

As for Mrs. Rice.  I don't think most of you know that it is a long standing executive privelage to not have a president's administration to have to appear in front of Senate Assemblies.  Almost every president has done this since it first appeared.  And yes, this is an entirely political move in 2 ways.  

1.  To shut the public up and end the nonsense of bush letting those people die.  If you think he really did this then I guess we never landed on the moon also.

2. It's an election year, not doing this is political suicide, exspecially when the polls show the public favors this move.  You see, people do have an effect on politics, you can't claim the government does what it wants when it cowers to popular opinion.  Think about it.

Have you read Clarke's book? No? I strongly suggest you read it, then revisit your comments.

The book itself it remarkably fair minded. Clarke is open about the fact that has his own perspective, colored by 30 years experience. I bought the book and expected to find a scathing retort to this administrations lies. I was disappointed.

>>>
I am leary of anyone who comes out with a "tell all book".
<<<

So I suppose you have no interest in hearing first person accounts from those who lived through historical events? Who better than a man with 30 years experience to tell all?

>>>
Well, if I had information about someone knowingly let a huge number of people die, I would just go out and flood my information to all of the news outlets, not in a for profit venture.  
<<<

Clarke's never alegeded that Bush knew 9/11 was coming. Instead, he makes a more telling point: Bush didn't care to know. He avoided the issue of terrorism until after the attacks on 9/11.

I'll cut it down to it's bare bone: Clarke's a good soldier. He did his job, despite a huge battle against ignorance and anti-Clinton anything. And, more interestingly, Clarke has said that Bush did a good job fighting terrorism after 9/11. That is, until he invaded Iraq and set the world a-blaze.

By now, I'm sure everyone has read the draft speech Rice was to give on 9/11, outlining the threats of the future. Those threats had nothing to do with terrorism and instead focused on a worthless billion dollar missile defense "shield".

You may read about this here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42287-2004Apr1.html

To blame Clarke, but not to blame Bush and his Administration is to avoid the truth: It is the fault of those that proclaim to lead us when they lead us a-stray. Not their advisors, and certainly not advisors who gave them correct advise. (again, read the book).

Btw, has the White House offered any evidence to refute Clarke's under-oath testimony? No? You know why? They have nothing. The issue raised by Bill Frisk that Clarke mighta, sort, perhaps perjuryed himself it more smoke up America's ass. He's admited he never read the transcripts of Clarke's previous testimony and he ignores the fact that at the time Clarke worked for the white house. As all good beuacrats do, he did as he was told. Finally, tired of it, he left.

>>>
Besides, everyone is ignoring that this information was first presented to the Clinton administration and ignored then.  
<<<

Which information are you referring to? I presume you mean the information that terrorists exist and want to kill Americans?

Again, read the book. In fact, do some research on the matter. This information was presented to Clinton. Guess what? He did act. One glaring example was the missile attack on terrorist training camps. Clinton repeatedly demanded boots on the ground in Afganistan to kill bin Laden. The Pentagan repeatedly dragged it's heels. Inform yourself, FahQ2.

>>>
The people handringing here are out for money and to make a name, they really don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.  His tell all book is as useful as a monday morning quarterback, the fucker has all the answers, but didn't really do shit on sunday.
<<<

This is the biggest bullshit you coulda spilled from your mouth.

You are saying that a guy who spent 30 years serving the country in an under-recognised capacity solely is out for personal gain? Yah, he was planning all this since day one. The fact is Clarke is a modern day hero, and as we live in a capitalist society, he deserves to profit from that heroism what he can.

Clarke spent months - in fact, tried right up to the week before 9/11 - to get the white house to respond to the growing clatter among al Quida. Instead of responding to the threat, Bush dodged. Instead of protecting America, Bush waffled. Compare this to Clinton, who during the Millineum event put America on a near war footing, busting ring after ring of terrorist cells, stopping at least two major terrorist attacks ... but then, ppl like you have been convinced by right wing propaganda that Clinton was a pussy foot. The fact that he checked al Queda for years and cleared bin Laden for assassination somehow has missed your radar. But the simple truth is, Clinton at least did SOMETHING to combat al Queda, and he took bin Laden's declaration of war seriously. Bush, he sat on his fucking ass and let thousands of Americans burn. Fuck him. How dare he wrap himself in the death shroud of murdered Americans when he was the one that husbanded their deaths.

The buck stops at Bush's feet. The blood is on his hands.

>>>
It's an election year, not doing this is political suicide, exspecially when the polls show the public favors this move.  You see, people do have an effect on politics, you can't claim the government does what it wants when it cowers to popular opinion.  Think about it.
<<<

By the way, it was the white house that delayed Clarke's book until now, thus making it "political".

Think about an Administration that wants to hide the truth of 9/11 behind executive privledge yet runs it's reelection on that sad event. Think about the vast amounts of time Bush, Rummy, Rice, Chenny have spent slandering Clarke on TV, but how little time they care to take in front of the 9/11 Comission. They have time to slander, but no time for truth. It's terrible. It's beyond terrible. It's a tragedy.

In sum, all this bruhaha about Clarke is a prime example of shooting the messenger. It's become a republican trademark. Bush shot at Amassador Wilson when he said there was no connection between Niger, radioactive material, and Iraq. Bush shot at Paul O'Neil when he wrote his book unveiling that from Day 1 the Administration had it's eyes on war with Iraq and that Bush was an irresponsibley isolated President, and he had a terrible one sided financial policy (tax cuts!). And now we have another example of the admisitration's lust for lying and misleading America.

This terrible man ishas been pretending to be honest, upfront, candid, and responsible.

But what has he or his administration done that was honest, upfront, candid, and responsible?

They are beyond the norm for potictians. They are thugs and theives, liars and brutes.

[BTs_FahQ2]

well I could write a lengthy rebuttle, but at this time I care not.  As for informing myself, I pretty much am.  I will admit though, I have not read his book as of yet, and I doubt I will.  I have only read briefs and such from other sources.

All I can truly say is that my comments were truly bi partisan and in no defense of bush. It just troubles me how you use the democratic point of view as to blame bush for all and to leave more criticisms of the Clinton administration out of this.  Bush was in office less than a year when clinton knew of bin laden's exploits for nearly 8 and even some of this intel carried over from George Bush I's retardation.

Not only this but you still praise the man for literally doing nothing when he saw no action being taken.  Let me ask you again, would you stand idle if you knew death was imminent for many people.  And then jump out of the shadows with a multitude of information right during an election year?  Doesn't that raise an eyebrow or two.  I don't say Bush was completely oblivious, shit they probably told him something, but to blame him solely in this fashion is just funny.  All I pretty much tried to say is why is everyone praising a man who admits to not doing much and then making a buck off of it through a book.  Someone  who actually claims remorse for not doing more would surely not go about it this way.

How about you wise up and get informed.

One more thing, my heros don't make cash out of other peoples death.  Capitalist society or not, his 30 years doesn't mean shit to me when he decides to tell the public after it happens.  Maybe just maybe, we could of used this information before hand.

["Sixhits"]

Your comments may be non-partisan, but they are still misinformed.

For one, I make no appologies for using my liberal point of view to blame Bush. I think the blame is well earned. He deserves the blame. My slant is harsh, but, today I perfer the sledgehammer to the scalpel.

As for Bush being in office for a year.

That's one year to learn, to address a known threat: one year to do anything.

I stand by the fact Bush did nothing. And I level blame on him personaly precisely because he is taking personal credit for the "sucess" of the war on terrorism and his war on Iraq. Thus, if he insists on pointing to these sorts of events as reasons why he's in anyway positive, I will thus point out how the reality differs. I need do little, though, than repeat what braver men than I have said.

As for Clarke literally doing nothing. Come on. Do you really believe that? Clarke did more than any other executive in the Bush White House. But there is only so much one can do when those that run the White House refuse to listen or are willing to believe only one thing.

Sure, he could have quit gone on shows and spilled the beans. Of course if he did I'd expect you'd criticize him still. I'm sure, no matter what way his views becamse expressed to America, people would find reasons to fault the methods of realise, the timing, or the intent. For an insider to step outside is always troublesome.

You blame him for seeking profit. I don't care whether he profits or not as long as he is telling the truth. That's what matters. And I think that's what differentiates you and I. Everything else is a opinion or bias: only whether he is lying or not matters.

My heroes do heroric things. They stand up to bullies. They fight back against tryany. They put themselves on the line time and again. Do I think Clarke heroic for writting a scandelous book? No. But I think it is heroic of him to put his body before the comission and under oath take blame, appologise, and then tell the truth.  

But your right, we coulda used his information beforehand. Instead, it was buried by the Bush's White House and a willfully ingnorant NSA.

To me, what your whole argument amounts to is that Clarke is the solely responsible person for any of the events preceeding 9/11. He is responsilbe because, as you believe, he did nothing and now seeks to profit. You forget that he worked for other people and that he had no authority on his own. He was an advisor. Advisors advise. Have you ever talked to a lawyer, not heeded their advise, and then suffered for it? Would you, in your suffering, then turn and blame the lawyer for failing to convince you he was right? It's the pot calling the kettle black. All this bruhaha about Clarke, his crediblity, his profiteering, his arrogance, and his oppurtunism ignores that nothing is being said in response to his actually point: that he begged for the chance to advise the president, he begged for a prinicpals meeting to discuss terrorism, he begged for the administration to combat terrorism. He was ignored, and the country thus ill prepared on 9/11. The fault is not his for being right.

Everythingis leveled at Clarke personally, so far, is a credit to the man since the repubs haven't managed to tear him down yet. How well would you hold up to such virlent assault? I know I'd crumble. Most people would. But Clarke can stand up because he is telling the truth and is not willing to hide anything. That's heroic, and we need to be praising it, not trying to squelch it.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Well basically your hatred for bush has clogged your mind young jedi.

You are arguing on one side of the fence when both parties can prove what really happened.  To use your lawyer argument, you are going solely by hearsay and nothing more.  We have no real insight or evidence as to what really occured because the multitude of the actual information is classified.  So you really have no basis as to why anyone acted the way they did.  I am not arguing for either of them because they are both inept, it just so happens bush is playing the Political game that all politicians do, be it democrat or republican.

You see I make my judgements on merit and fact, not just on one side.  Shit, books are chop full of a lot of things, but much like websites, it's sometimes hard to filter the truth from the crap.  That's why you have to go into it open minded and try to be as unbiased as possible.  Only then you will see Clarke is no better than Bush.  You also fail to realize that both parties have played this game in just about every international affair and/or conflict in modern times.

Also, at no time did I say he was solely responsible.  Where the hell do you see this?  I am just trying to point out that his actions are highly questionable in the logical sense. I can give a shit what the basis for them are, because he failed already.  Telling someone to look out for car is different from pushing someone away from the car when you have the oportunity to do it.  There was enough scepticism about this administration from the elections that if this guy wanted to find an outlet for this highly life threatening information he could of used it.  Not take the time to find a publisher, write a book, have someone check it over for legal purposes and so on and so forth.

Shit, if I knew someone was going to kill you, then I told the police but they didn't act.  Would I let you die, most likely not, I would keep harping to someone who would heed my call.  I would do what it takes to prevent the death of one person let alone thousands.  But just because a few people didn't believe me, well I guess I will wait to write a book and make a buck or two in the process.  Not my fault you died I guess.

You see where I am going?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Shit, if I knew someone was going to kill you, then I told the police but they didn't act.  Would I let you die, most likely not, I would keep harping to someone who would heed my call.  I would do what it takes to prevent the death of one person let alone thousands.  But just because a few people didn't believe me, well I guess I will wait to write a book and make a buck or two in the process.  Not my fault you died I guess.

Well, if it were Sixhits, Typhy, voodoo, BFG, or a number of other people, I think I would set up a picnic bench, have a nice ice-tea on hand, get out my digital camera, and enjoy watching them die!  hehehe

I am so bad, but I am so good at it!

-GhostSniper Out.

[Ssickboy]

jeez you guys write fast.  this is a reply to four posts up.  =\

fah, I'm in the same boat as you (having not read the book).? i think you can find six's rebuttal in his recent post.?? ?

The *press* (which you and I follow) from the commission has naturally turned into campaign issue.? 1. It's Bush up for reelection not Clinton, not Dick Clarke.? 2. Whether it was completely successful or not, Clinton made *attempts* at defending against Al Qaeda , and Bush, by ignoring his 30 veteran staff advisor, chose not to act against or even defend against Al Qaeda.?

you want to go back in time and lay blame:
Clinton administration - yay for securing yet boo's for failing to extinguish Binny.?
Dick clarke - for not pushing Condi and Bush harder, but how hard does he have to push to be taken seriously?
Bush admin. - for ignoring altogether
Republicans - for busying the country with concerns over blow-jobs in the oval office.

As far as I know there were conditions behind Clarke and Clinton following through.? Bush, on the other hand, had no political hang ups keeping him from following advice.?

The most drastic concern is the possibility (a stretch) that Bush intentionally let the guard down to have an excuse to go into Iraq.? Even if that's not the case, it's bad enough to have a president so blinded with self interest that he puts the country in a compromising position.? And the biggest knock, as six pointed out, is that Bush exploits this mistake to his political advantage.

dick clarke didn't see a 3,000 casualty terrorist act coming.  He knew of the strong possibilty of one, writing an urgent letters to Condi.  One asking her to consider how she'd feel with 400 deaths on her hands.  
 
*I keep editing this because of all the updated replies* and it's kinda lost all purpose now. this is it.  I'm done

["Sixhits"]

Yah, GS, on 9/11 I grabbed some coors and hot dogs, jumped in my car, headed down to NYC, and got drunk toasting pig pieces over the ashes of dead Americans.

Roasting Capitalist Imperial Dog adds such flavor to the meat.



Now in all seriousness, I think I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree with FahQ2. I could dig back in and counter everything he says, but I think we'd end up going back and forth a lot more until we just couldn't stand typing anymore.

I don't see validity in his points, he doesn't see any in mine, and we both think we're right. So, shrug.



This one's for Ghost: didja catch Bill O'Reilly's latest? He's called for a Final Solution for Fallujah.

"The colonel and I are disagreeing on the tactics, but we know what the final solution should be. Why hasn't the U.S. command done this? And why do they continue to absorb the level of terror that is coming out of -- this isn't a big town. We're not talking about Cincinnati here. Right? It's not a big town?"

Sadly, Fox makes you pay for transcripts, so I don't have a complete one.

It's lines like this that lend credence to the contraversy over whether Republicans are Nazi's or not. (tongue firmly stuck in my cheek)