White House Agrees to Public Rice Testimony on 9/11

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Mar 30, 2004.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    I like the spin: "I caved out of principle."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040330/pl_nm/security_rice_dc
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    it's a good choice. now i can only hope that the process of declassifying the richard clarke emails, etc. will mean they're *all* declassified, not just the ones that benefit the bush administration.
     
  3. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    I was hoping she wouldn't testify as that would look bad for the administration. Hopefully her testimony will be even more incriminating than her silence.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    i understand the sentiment, but i'm really more interested in just figuring out the friggin' truth. not that i expect ms. rice to be forthcoming in that regard, but any moves towards a more transparent gov't i'm in favor of.

    i'll again note the idea of declassifying all of clarke's communications. that goes for ms. rice's, too. ALL of it.
     
  5. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    I agree that more transparency in government is good, and it would be good to know more about what went on. On the other hand, in an election year, unfortunately, prinicples take a back seat.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Did anyone else notice what the WH got in return? The blessing of having Bush AND Cheney testify together. Now there will be no chance to compare their testimony against each others, a common legal practice when trying to determine the truth. Whoever has the stronger answer will step forward to answer, with Cheney fielding the majority of the questions I imagine.

    On the plus side, it must have been a crappy day to be a right-wing conservative radio talk show host, trying to explain away a week or so of harping on the principle of seperation of powers. I'm sure they blamed 'the liberals' for the presidents flip-flop. Of course this is only the latest in a long line of flip-flops when it comes to the 9/11 commission.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    It's pretty pathetic that our President needs his hand held by the vice-president while being interviewed by a commission that he picked out. There is no question that this defies common legal practice and is a major concession for getting to interview Rice.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    i'm not sure why you're so concerned about the truth not coming out. don't you recall what bush said when he formed the commission?
    link
     
  9. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Another reminder: Originally, Bush had only agreed to give the 9-11 commission an hour of his time. He had to be shamed into indulging the commission's request for more, he had to be shamed into allowing Rice to testify publicly, he even had to be shamed into agreeing to the commission in the first place. It's so apparent that he's going kicking and screaming every step of the way on this. All of which raises an obvious question: why?
     
  10. vwcruisn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Monica, Ca
    #10
    ive said it before, and ill say it again. how bush's approval ratings stay high, ill never understand. I know poll numbers arent always accurate... but cmon america. pull the blinders off :eek:
     
  11. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #11
    how else could cheney work the puppet?
    ;)
     
  12. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    I was reading this article in the LA Times this morning and thinking to myself, why does George Bush have such a remarkably tin ear? Then I thought of the quote (from Molly Ivins?) about Bush being born on third base and thinking he hit a triple. Now I don't usually go in for amateur psychology but after watching GWB's behavior for over three years now, and seeing in particular his complete inability to admit fault, I'd have to call him a classic case of the silver spoon syndrome. I think it takes someone raised a spoiled rich kid to think that everyone should step aside when he's coming through.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess31mar31,1,7443814.story
     
  13. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #13
    i think the " born on third" quote was by jim hightower.

    having crossed paths with gwb a few times in my youthful dallas days...he's always had the attitude and smirk...like he'd actually accomplished something besides being a member of the lucky sperm club.
     
  14. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Right, as reported by Molly Ivins. GWB could be the poster child for inheritance taxes.
     
  15. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #15
    Did any of you hear the radio report about the campaign work he did in Alabama when he was supposed to be in the reserves? They said he was a glad hander and usually showed up at the office around noon and left at 5. Everyone else came in early in the morning. His conversation starter was always how much he had to drink the night before. Frat boy.
     
  16. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #16
    Did you hear that in exchange for having Rice testify under oath now Bush and Cheney will get to testify together, not under oath (OK to lie?) and no other administration officials will have to testify.

    Why do they want to prevent us from the truth? What information do they want to hide from us?
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Yes we did....
     
  18. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    "Under oath" is a bit of a technicality, since it's a felony to lie to a Congressional investigation in any case. The testifying together bit to so they can keep their stories straight, which in a way, is even more cynical then lying, IMO.
     
  19. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #19
    I just find it disheartening (disgusting, dismaying, unbelievable etc.) that in order to get to the truth of a matter of national importance they have to have some sort of exchange or gift. It's like they are little babies.
     

Share This Page