Rumsfeld - "I never said 'imminent threat'

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 29th 2004, 4:11 pm

At the end of 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl apologized for not mentioning the fact that Viacom owns Clarke's publisher in her story the week before. She called it an oversight. Of course, the scoop is that she knew that a conflict of interest existed before the story aired.

Like anything, the truth of what happened during the Clinton and Bush administrations with regards to Osama probably lies in between the stories from the administrations and Clarke. Could the Bush administration have taken more steps against Osama before 09/11? Yes. Was it as lackadaisical as Clarke portrays? No.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Mar 29th 2004, 6:50 pm

I think one thing that is perfectly clear out of this whole mess is that Rice has lied multiple times, and now refuses to go under oath to clear up inconsistanies. They're willing to take the political hit from her not testifying under oath, to dodge the bullet from what may come out from her testifying, and being held to the truth.

Way to get to the truth. Clarke went under oath, and is now telling Repubs to declassify all his testimony. So why won't Rice? You'd think that something of this importance would warrant her testifying under oath to the 9/11 commission. I guess she doesn't want the real truth to come out.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Mar 30th 2004, 10:28 am

Clarke went under oath, and is now telling Repubs to declassify all his testimony. So why won't Rice?
Because thats not how our government works. Theres a thing called The Separation Of Powers act that say that the executive branch does not have to appear before congress and justify itself and possible let out sensitive intelligence information.

And Let me remind you that your Clarke did the same thing back in 99' when he refused to talk to congress about Y2K when he was the National Security Advisor.
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 30th 2004, 11:06 am

Rice, Bush, and Cheney to testify before Congressional committee. Bush is making the smart play. The sooner things are in the open, the quicker any concerns about cover-up, etc., will disappear.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Mar 30th 2004, 2:27 pm

I figured that soon enough they would agree to testify. I doubt there will be any big admissions like "yes we were repeatedly warned about Al Queda threat but ignored it and went on vacation continually postponing meetings about it until after 9/11 gave us a kick in the pants". But what I am hoping for is that sooner or later they will be caught in a lie and then we can be treated to a Clintonesque investigation about lying to congress under oath except this time it would be about something that actually matters.

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 30th 2004, 4:17 pm

The fact is though that I don't think they have anything to hide. That's why testifying is so important. Let's not forget the lessons of previous scandals -- come clean or Katie bar the door. I still feel that if Clinton had said, "Yes, I slept with Monica," there would have never been an impeachment scandal, which crippled his administration. It's better for Bush to be honest than try to hide something.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Mar 30th 2004, 5:17 pm

TomSpeed wrote:The fact is though that I don't think they have anything to hide. That's why testifying is so important. Let's not forget the lessons of previous scandals -- come clean or Katie bar the door. I still feel that if Clinton had said, "Yes, I slept with Monica," there would have never been an impeachment scandal, which crippled his administration. It's better for Bush to be honest than try to hide something.
I wish I could agree that they don't have anything to hide, it would be nice to live in that fantasy land ;) . I just heard Bush and Cheney will both not be under oath during their testifying to the congressional comittee. Why wouldn't they be under oath? Hmmm....

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Mar 30th 2004, 5:42 pm

grim4746 wrote:But what I am hoping for is that sooner or later they will be caught in a lie and then we can be treated to a Clintonesque investigation about lying to congress under oath except this time it would be about something that actually matters.
There's plenty of chances:

* The Senate's top cop investigated Republican hacking of Democratic accounts and theft of thousands of documents. After finding probable cause for wrongdoing, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended the Justice Department undertake its own criminal probe.

* The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are both investigating intelligence lapses heading up to the Iraq War.

* The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Bush's pre-war lies about Iraq's WMDs and ties to al Qaida.

* Rove, Cheney's entire political team and others are being investigated by a Justice Department special prosecutor for leaking the name of a covert CIA agent (Plame) to discredit her husband -- a critic of the administration's trumped up charges that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger.

* Can anyone forget the 9-11 commission?

* HHS Inspector General Dara Corrigan is investigating administration lies about the true cost of the Medicare bill. Remember, not only did the Bush Administration undercount the costs (from $395 billion to $521 billion), but then threatened an auditor with his job if he revealed the true numbers.

* The General Accounting Office is investigating the fake "news reports" the White House created to promote the Medicare law's new prescription drug coverage provisions.

* And being the gift that keeps on giving, the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee and the Justice Department are both (and seperately) investigating bribery allegations as the administration and its congressional allies twisted arms to get the necessary votes in the House to pass the Medicare bill.

* Tom DeLay is under criminal investigation on whether his Texas political action committee (Texans for a Republican Majority) improperly financed the GOP's takeover of the Texas legislature. DeLay has already signaled he may be forced to step down from his leadership post (even if just temporarily) if indicted.

* Connecticut Governor John Rowland is being investigated by federal prosecutors for a shockingly brazen level of corruption. Even the state's GOP establishment has abandoned the governor, and impeachment proceedings are likely unless he resigns his post.

And just because Condi isn't compelledi to testify, doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. C'mon, they're the ones that keep saying 9/11 changed everything, and now she was afraid to testify under oath about what happened leading up to that day? Please. What a lame excuse to hide behind, when there's already been a whole list of examples people waving that priviledge in similar situations. Oh, and anyways, the commision isn't officially an arm of congress, so it doesn't count.

Its good that she's testifying. Now why the hell isn't Bush going to be under oath? What in the world would be a good reason for that? This is 9/11 people!!! If Bush wants to run on how well he handled it, can't he tell the truth under oath? What's the problem??
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 30th 2004, 6:11 pm

fnordboy wrote:
TomSpeed wrote:The fact is though that I don't think they have anything to hide. That's why testifying is so important. Let's not forget the lessons of previous scandals -- come clean or Katie bar the door. I still feel that if Clinton had said, "Yes, I slept with Monica," there would have never been an impeachment scandal, which crippled his administration. It's better for Bush to be honest than try to hide something.
I wish I could agree that they don't have anything to hide, it would be nice to live in that fantasy land ;) . I just heard Bush and Cheney will both not be under oath during their testifying to the congressional comittee. Why wouldn't they be under oath? Hmmm....
I don't know why they aren't going to be under oath. However, I doubt it is so that they can lie with impunity. I don't think taking an oath would stop them from lying. The fact is that anything they say can be turned against them in many different ways. The important thing is that they are getting out front on this issue.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Mar 30th 2004, 6:36 pm

TomSpeed wrote:I don't know why they aren't going to be under oath. However, I doubt it is so that they can lie with impunity. I don't think taking an oath would stop them from lying. The fact is that anything they say can be turned against them in many different ways. The important thing is that they are getting out front on this issue.
It is so they can lie without being called out on the same crap they critiscized Clinton for, lying under oath. We all know politicians lie, everyone lies. Lying under oath can be damaging, as we saw with Clinton.

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 30th 2004, 9:11 pm

fnordboy wrote:It is so they can lie without being called out on the same crap they critiscized Clinton for, lying under oath. We all know politicians lie, everyone lies. Lying under oath can be damaging, as we saw with Clinton.
Well, that's a good reason. I can't argue with that.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Apr 4th 2004, 6:14 pm

I like how our threads never follow the title of the thread. :) Oh well, when we're all this passionate about whats going on, its hard to stay exactly on topic.

Since this is now sort of the 9/11 panel discussion, I thought I'd add this. First off, you should know that Philip Zelikow the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. He is a close associate of Condi Rice and was one of the three principals who ran the Bush foreign policy transition team. So a conflict of interest was always very possible. But it seems he has risen above it (and I congratulate him).
The grainy photograph rolled off the fax machine at the White House counsel's office last Monday morning, along with a scribbled note that smacked of blackmail. If the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the 9/11 commission, it read, "This will be all over Washington in 24 hours." The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF TESTIFIES read the headline over the snapshot of Leahy's very public testimony. The point was clear: the White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent.
Sounds like Condi and the White house were caught in yet another lie, and it had to take the 9/11 Commission strongarming them to cooperate. Why isn't the country seriously concerned that Bush only seems to want to stonewall this commission? How can this not seem like he is just covering his butt? Again, if 9/11 changed everything, why aren't they doing everything possible to cooperate?

I'm glad Zelikow had the balls to do what he did. Now I just wish more Dems would grow some...
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
GaryEA
So-Called Addict
Posts: 773
Joined: Oct 30th 2002, 6:45 pm
Location: Exit 15W, NJ
Contact:

Post by GaryEA » Apr 5th 2004, 5:06 pm

My brain hurts. Here's why...

(mental checklist)

- Administration refuses to create an investigation

- Administration refuses to cooperate with investigation

- Administration refuses to testify

- Rice does a wonderful example of how to f up spin control in a matter of a week. (Now that's talent!)

- Bush announces that they will testify so that America has the whole story (In film language, that would be referred to as a "gaping plot hole")

- Bush will only appear WITH Cheney, presumably so that he can pull the string attached to Bush's jaw.

- They will not be under oath (thus going back to the "gaping plot hole").

(/mental checklist)

:roll:

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

clarke book

Post by lance » Apr 6th 2004, 6:24 pm

I have been reading Clarke's book. Fascinating stuff really. He discusses Reagan and Bush I as well as Clinton & Bush II.

One interesting point, he felt that Clinton could have done more against terroism but was distracted by the endless run of Republican inspired "scandals".

He also takes a good look at the law of intended consequences with regards to foreign policy.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests