Condi's the one "out of the loop"

[Ateo]

...the "loop of truth", that is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html
The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held public hearings without her this week. Thomas H. Kean (R), the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, observed: "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."

At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

Hmm. I wonder why she doesn't want to testify under oath? :confused

[aclu14]

Originally posted by tigsnort
...the "loop of truth", that is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html

Hmm. I wonder why she doesn't want to testify under oath? :confused

Same question for a lot of admin top dogs.

[w1che]

Give me one good reason why Condi should have testify in public when she is willing to meet with those deadheads any time & answer any questions they have? Have you seen that group of wacko's?

[Sjax]

Originally posted by w1che
Give me one good reason why Condi should have testify in public when she is willing to meet with those deadheads any time & answer any questions they have? Have you seen that group of wacko's? To wipe out any doubts. If she has nothing to hide, she has nothing to fear.

[aclu14]

Originally posted by Sjax
To wipe out any doubts. If she has nothing to hide, she has nothing to fear.

Same argument they use when they want us high schoolers to hand over cups of piss.

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
Give me one good reason why Condi should have testify in public when she is willing to meet with those deadheads any time & answer any questions they have?...

Because the Public testimony would be under oath whereas the private testimony is not. And that is a very good reason!

[w1che]

Where did you get that the private testimony is not under oath? Well where ever you got that idea was wrong and so are you KS. If Condi was a black liberal women & someone was calling her a liar you demorats would be all over them like white on rice.. What two faced jurks you are with no morals & no principles..

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
Where did you get that the private testimony is not under oath?...

Right here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040328/pl_nm/security_commission_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks feels unanimously that White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should testify in public and under oath when she appears before the panel a second time, the chairman said on Sunday.

Rice has refused to appear before the independent panel in public and under oath to answer allegations from former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke that the Bush administration neglected the threat from al Qaeda. The White House has asked for a second private session for Rice.


There w1che, I have done something that you never do, supply a source for my information. The testimony she is giving privately is NOT under oath whereas any testimony she would give publicly to the commission would have to be under oath. Do you have a problem with her putting her hand on a Bible an swearing to tell the truth? Or are you afraid that the truth will come out and find that Clarke (a Republican) was correct?

[w1che]

KS where does that say that private testimony is not under oath. It just wants to lead you to believe it's not.. The same people that put you under oath are in both meetings, are they not?.. Think about it. The only reason they even meet in private is because some of the stuff they want to talk about is TOP secret, not because they don't put people under oath..

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
KS where does that say that (her) private testimony is not under oath...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks feels unanimously that White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should testify in public and under oath when she appears before the panel a second time, the chairman said on Sunday.


Rice has refused to appear before the independent panel in public and under oath to answer allegations from former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke that the Bush administration neglected the threat from al Qaeda. The White House has asked for a second private session for Rice.

It says so right there. She refuses to testify under oath in private or otherwise. It's plastered all over the papers Liberal and Conservative rags alike.

BTW w1che, I went to a lot of trouble for you to see where it said she wouldn't testify under oath.

[w1che]

Why don't they put Condi under oath in a private meeting if they haven't already? What would be the differance other than the fact the dems want to make a public show out of it.. This is just more election year spin so I will just let it go.. :rolleyes:

[King Solomon]

She hasn't testified under oath, she continues to refuse to testify under oath. She has something to hide from the commission. Just more Bush administration smoke and mirrors so I will just let it go... :rolleyes:

Edit for this:

And to further prove my point read here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040329/pl_nm/security_rice_dc)

...willing to talk to the news media at every opportunity but unwilling to testify under oath...

Rice testified for about four hours Feb. 7 and she did not do it under oath, officials said.


Something smells fishy here http://rockbottomdlux.freewebspace.com/smilies/TroutSlap.gif

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
...dems want to make a public show out of it.. This is just more election year spin...

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks feels unanimously that White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should testify in public and under oath when she appears before the panel a second time...

Uh, I believe the commission includes BOTH Democrats and Republicans, so I don't think this can be called spin on the Demos part. But we'll take it if she is going to hand us her head like that :lol

[w1che]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON MARCH 29, 2004 17:04:22 ET XXXXX

1999: CLARKE DID NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH; CITING PRIVILEGE

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Monday continued to maintain her public testimony before the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks would represent a breach of separation between congress and the executive -- a claim once used by Bush critic Richard Clarke!

MORE

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!

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che

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! That's misleading & wrong. Clarke was ordered by his superiors not to testify; Rice refuses not because she's being told to by superiors but because *supposedly* the Constitution forbids it--which is bull, by the way, because she is not being compelled to testify.

[w1che]

I think I may have heard everything with that one Tigger.. :rolleyes:

[King Solomon]

The fact is that Clarke did not testify at ALL. Nor did he go on national television and tell his story to the world. He was ordered to say nothing and he said nothing during that time.

Rice, on the other hand, HAS testified, in private and not under oath,and has gone on national TV to tell her story. You can't have it both ways, you either testify or you don't say a word, and if you testify it should be under oath. If it's a matter of National Security then provisions SHOULD be made for the testimony to be private but still under oath.

Edit for update:

White House OK's Public Rice Testimony on 9-11 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040330/pl_nm/security_rice_dc)

In public and under oath, good :clap

[Ateo]

It's like pulling teeth with these people. It's taken months for Bush to agree to testify & let Rice testify. They're finally caving because the political pressure is just too much. :rolleyes:

Although Bush said today he's doing it "for the Merkans murdered on 9/11". Yep, and I poop mangos.

I said earlier Rice wasn't being told by superiors to testify--she was, obviously, but that wasn't the argument she was using--she claimed it was a constitutional matter (bogus). I misspoke.

Oh btw, I guess Clarke might be gay now. So don't believe him. There's nothing more dubious than a disgruntled out of the loop racist homosexual book peddler.

[DustyBottoms]

I am watching this situation unfold with great expectations.

If you are the president, and the security of the US is not hampered by open testimony of the incumbent cabinet, then by all means let the citizens get the information.

I fear that this might become a "precedent" that could encumber future secrecy necessary for our national protection.

At some point, we need to drop our political desires and look at the big picture. Liberal or conservative - The bottom line should be "tomorrow". :smash

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
At some point, we need to drop our political desires and look at the big picture. So we should not make any attempt to learn from our mistakes?

How does avoiding looking into where we failed on 9/11 make us safer??

The politicization of this is coming mostly from the administration's side, in case you hadn't noticed: Clarke testifies under oath, administration attacks.

[w1che]

Quote from Tig.. Clarke testifies under oath, administration attacks.
>>>>>>>>>>

Clarke lies under oath & no one should have said anything right Tigger? How does lying help with getting to the bottom of what really happen? How does attacking the President in public while the fighting in Iraq is still going on help anything other them the enemy? Reading your statement in the above post tig is almost more than a true American can take.. :mad

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
...How does attacking the President in public while the fighting in Iraq is still going on help anything other them the enemy?...

This goes back to a statement I had made in another thread. If nobody had protested the Vietnam War then the Administration would have thought it was OK and we would still be there to this day.

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
...I fear that this might become a "precedent" that could encumber future secrecy necessary for our national protection...

I feel that if it is in the interests of National Security then the testimony SHOULD be in private and not made in to a public specticle but it should still happen and still be under oath.

Originally posted by tigsnort
...Yep, and I poop mangos...

You too :eek: and here I thought I was the only one :lol

[w1che]

Big, Big, difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraqi war. I know you guys just love to make that comparison but it's just not close & I know you know it...

[King Solomon]

Originally posted by w1che
Big, Big, difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraqi war. I know you guys just love to make that comparison but it's just not close & I know you know it...

Your wrong, they are or were both wars that we had no business going into. The USA has got to stop trying to be the World Police.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
Clarke lies under oath & no one should have said anything right Tigger? How does lying help with getting to the bottom of what really happen? W1che you're so damn twisted. He lied (or exaggerated) when he was spinning for the white house. There is no, zero, nada proof that he lied under oath to the commission.

[w1che]

Yeah I know Tig.. You want to pick the time you think Clarke was lying & when he was telling the truth. Where is your proof that he wasn't lying before the commission when so many people say he was.. I thought you despised liars & said you could never trust one. Now, what do you do? You want to embrace one and call his lies just spin. Get real for a change tigger because I'm not going along with your word game..

[Ateo]

Where is your proof that he wasn't lying before the commission when so many people say he was.. Just because people say things it doesn't mean they're true. Especially when said people are partisans.

Someone who addresses the press as a representative of the administration obviously isn't going to offer anything negative. They only spin things positively. I'm sure you know that. They exaggerate, they embellish, they spin. That's what Clarke's '02 comments were. He admits it.

The guy served since Reagan. He's a Republican. He's highly respected. Even Bush and Powell speak highly of him.

Don't just say that he's a liar. Prove it.

[w1che]

Does this read like lies or spin to you Tig? It looks like out & out lies to me If he was telling the truth to the commission. There is a difference you know...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clarke interview 2002

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.

QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?

CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

[dave404]

So, if we accept that those statements are incompatible with what he said to the Commission (and I have don't have time to spend long thinking about it), which do you think is more likely - that he lied to the Press (not under oath, no legal consequences), or that he lied to the Commission under oath? I know which way I'd be betting.

I've heard some silly suggestions in my time, but the idea that someone would go on global TV lying under oath to a US Senate Commission in order to promote book sales, is one of the more remarkable.

Also, I think the Administration have shot themselves in the foot on this one. Maybe they have some actual rebuttals to the things Clarke is saying. But their ad hominem attacks have completely drowned out any such message, at least on the CNN we get here in Europe. Leaves them looking weak, to say the least.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by dave404
So, if we accept that those statements are incompatible with what he said to the Commission (and I have don't have time to spend long thinking about it), which do you think is more likely - that he lied to the Press (not under oath, no legal consequences), or that he lied to the Commission under oath? I know which way I'd be betting.



So we have establishied he is a liar....

Enough said. :smash

[Ateo]

If he lied during '02 press briefing, that means he wasn't telling the truth when he said Bush did a bang-up job on terror. I don't think you guys (wunch & DB) believe that scenario, do you?

So then you must believe he lied under oath to the commission. Okay. Give me an example. Just one.

Up to now all you guys have said is "he's a liar". Are you going to provide some specifics or just keep repeating the mantra?

[dave404]

No DB, we haven't established anything.

I said, even if we accept that he is (and I haven't), what is he more likely to be lying about?

I don't really care who's a liar and who isn't. I do care about what the truth is.

[w1che]

I just love the way you Democrats are always having to defend lying crudballs & the ways you pick to do that.. :lol

Lets pick Cheney, Bush , Rice , and a score of others.. Now they're ALL liars to you right Tig, but now you have NO proof that they are you just want to believe Clarke. I bet you won't have a problem saying Dr Rice lied under oath when she goes before the commission, will you?

I have no way of knowing which time Clarke lied & neither do you Tigger. It's just like when you're on jury duty & you find out someone lied on the stand. You have a right & duty not to believe that person after that because you have no way of knowing when they are lying & when they are telling the truth.

How many people have come forward (that has a way to know the real truth) and said Clarke was telling the truth before the commission & not telling the truth before the press in 02?

I feel sorry for you dems when your biggest hero's seem to always be liers & gutter trash..

Dave this didn't hurt Bush at all in fact his poll numbers went up. Most Americans know how the Democrats are & seem to be getting sick of their games already..

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
Lets pick Cheney, Bush , Rice , and a score of others.. Now they're ALL liars to you right Tig, but now you have NO proof that they are you just want to believe Clarke. I bet you won't have a problem saying Dr Rice lied under oath when she goes before the commission, will you?Cheney, Bush, Rice, etc: they're all different cases, but I'll use Rice for the sake of argument.

Here's the difference:

Clarke has admitted publicly that in the '02 press briefing, he embellished. I'm sure if he was asked about it while under oath, he would say the same thing.

If Rice would admit under oath that she embellished things, I would believe her.

She's made so many statements that outright contradict what she and other administration officials have said in the past, that there's no way she could have been telling the truth the whole time. So if she refuses to explain her contradictions while under oath, I'll have no other choice but to conclude she's a liar, because there's no way she could have said all the things she has said and been telling the truth 100% of the time.

Of course a lot of it depends on how good the questions are...I'm sure the Republican members will throw her softballs.

[w1che]

My case is closed Tig. Your above post just shows how hopeless you really are. What a bunch of garbage..

[Ateo]

Okay then, I'll wrap-up.

Charge from the right: Clarke is a liar.

Reason? He said one thing to the press in '02, and another under oath in '04.

I ask for proof Clarke lied. W1che posts transcript of the '02 press briefing, in which he praised Bush. Is W1che saying Clarke lied in '02, and that Bush actually sucks? Of course not. So again, I ask for proof Clarke lied, presumably while under oath in '04.

W1che responds that I accuse Bush, Cheney, etc of lying, but I give Clarke a pass. W1che also re-states that many right wingers accuse Clarke of being a liar, so he must be one. Rolleyes. But still offers no proof.

I respond by saying Clarke is consistent when he says he lied in '02 because it was his job to spin for Bush back then, and feels an obligation to tell the truth now that he's no longer obligated to lie. On the other hand Rice has made a multitude of inconsistent, illogical and misleading statements yet refused to testify under oath about it. I assert that if she admits under oath she was spinning the truth in the past, I would believe her. Hey, I'm a reasonable guy, right?

W1che says I'm hopeless and walks away.

I think I won this one.

[aclu14]

Plus, the example that was given of Clarke not testifying under oath was about Y2frickinK. Hardly comparable with 9frickin11.

[w1che]

You won nothing Tig. You make up crap & think you won something. How about you proving that Clarke DIDN'T lie before the commission when we all know for a fact he lied about the facts at one time or the other..

You do have the little girl backing you & trying to act big by talking nasty while at the same time she doesn't even know when or what we're talking about.

For your information Clarke was ask under oath about what he said to reporters in 2002 and that's when he said he was lying then. He couldn't very well say anything else at that point now could he? Everybody is a liar to you Tig but Clarke so believe what you want to because what you think means nothing in the big picture anyway. You are a big minority when it comes to believing Clarke so carry on..

[Ateo]

Originally posted by w1che
For your information Clarke was ask under oath about what he said to reporters in 2002 and that's when he said he was lying then. He couldn't very well say anything else at that point now could he? Everybody is a liar to you Tig but Clarke ...
I accept that Clarke lied. What you are failing to comprehend is that Clarke has admitted he lied and gave a very reasonable, logical, believeable explanation for it.

Rice, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do. Will she take the high road as Clarke did and come clean? I doubt it, since she's continues to be a Bush sycophant.

[weldordave]

Not that C. Rice is above the law but lets learn from our mistakes. Ken Starr spent about 50 million $$$ over an Oval Office BJ. If Rice is guilty of anything then she should be indicted by the US AG. If she has not broken any law, lets not spend millions of $$ that can be better used on our social welfare people that cannot put food on the table yet continue to squirt out kids.

[dave404]

I heard Clarke's testimony about 2002, and he didn't say he was lying. He did admit to putting a positive spin on things, which I think was probably an understatement.

But get real, people. The job of political spokespeople when things are going badly is basically to lie about things, in a way that can be denied later. Leave out the inconvenient, accentuate the irrelevent, find some misleading statistics. Just try to do it in such a way that it can be called a misunderstanding, rather than a cover-up. Reading between the lines of Clarke's testimony on 2002, the message is clear: "yes I misled the Press - that's what damage limitation is about". Trying to discredit his other testimony (which seemed to me to be clear, focused, and with remarkable attention to detail) on this basis, is not reasonable. I don't think anyone will be lying to this Commission, in public and under oath. Not on either side.

The trouble with this argument is that both sides, Dem and Rep, are more interested in the political fall-out than they are in establishing the truth. They want to know whether Clarke is a liar, or Rice is a liar. w1che's response to my point about the negative effects of attacking Clarke as a person is a good example. w1che, I don't care what Bush's approval rating is doing. You may think that if it goes up, that means he's doing the right thing. I don't. There's an awful lot of sanctimonious bull talked in US circles about 9/11 (reminds me a bit of the loss of sanity in the UK when Diana died). But this political back and forth shows quite clearly that neither side has anything like the respect for the issue that it claims to. Maybe if they'd kicked the thing off a bit sooner, when it was fresh in people's minds what they were talking about, there would have been more respect all round. I dunno. It's disappointing, frankly.