9/11 COMMISSION - Should Dr Rice testify?

[imported_memnuts]

Please vote yes or no on your opinion about "public" testimony by Dr. Rice to the 9/11 commission. Keep in mind she has already testified "privately" with this commission.

[KRMan]

I really don`t see the purpose of a public testimony. You cannot change the past, so let`s remember who we have lost and move on.

[imported_elortt]

All that her testifying will do is start more controversy and that is the last thing we need right now. Whats done is done, everyone lost in 1 way or another so their is no need to do more finger pointing



Eric

[imported_memnuts]

The reason for the inquiry, beside the obvious politics, is to learn from our mistakes so this type of tragedy NEVER happens again. Learn and remember history. Forget and we are bound to repeat it. First time shame on them next time, if similiar warning signs are present, shame on us. :(

[KRMan]

Who really is going to learn from it? The government agencies all ready have more info on this than we can even fathom. There has all ready been private testimony so I don`t believe that is the reason. I feel the only reason is to appease the public and create more controversy. It is just wasting time and money.



That is all I will say on the topic this could get ugly

[Spilchy]

From what I have read, it isn`t customary for National Security Advisors to testify in public.



I think accurate information can be gleaned from Dr. Rice behind closed doors so as to prevent a political witch hunt in a public forum - which would be sad and defeat the purpose of getting down to the root cause analysis of how 911 occured and what can be done to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil.



The blame game is counter-productive. BOTH administrations failed miserably. A war on terrorism should have been covertly "declared" long ago with surgical strikes at key targets, counter insurgencies, psychological warfare, cyber warfare, supporting opposition leaders and assasinations in my opinion. We had Bin Laden on live footage from a Predator Drone. F15`s should have been hauled in ASAP to level the entire area with a rapid response special OP`s unit to go in under serious close air support to liquidate any remenants.



Too much bureaucracy, slashing of Intelligence spending and United Nations drivel. I kind of blame Clinton for that ;)

[Ice9]

Well said, Splichy!



There was a naivety and ignorance towards terrorism amongst the people. I don`t believe that any high ranking government or intel official was either naive or ignorant towards terrorism pre-9/11. They simply had their hands tied when trying to get resources to fight a "war" that is not recognized by their consituents. The action that Clinton took to remove Bin Laden was scorned...not because it didn`t work, but because most didn`t understand why we were wasting time or money. Mogadishu was the same thing. Ultimately, the politicians answer to those that brung em (hopefully that is the voters).



If you look at the cold war, you will see that the government had the support of the people due to the perceived threat posed by communism/Soviets. Many people had never heard of Bin Laden or al Qaeda prior to Sept 11. Why? I am not sure. I guess it never really hit home prior.



I would also add to your last comment concerning what the Clinton admin did, that without the actions of the Reagan/Bush-I admins, Bin Laden would just be wealthy construction magnate...and Saddam would never have had any weapons (although he isn`t directly pertinent to this discussion).



Were those mistakes by the Reagan administration? In hindsight, yes. At the time, it was debatable.



Al Qaeda was created from a countless number of influences. It could be surmised that the initial seed was the methods by which the middle east nations were divied up by the Brits, et al. Who knows?



Dr. Rice`s testimony is important due to the public accusations made about her. I believe she should have the right to decline questions declaring certain security concerns.



I hope I didn`t start a little war. Just some thoughts. Please just take this as a perspective. :argue :) :D



Now get out and vote!!!

Max

[imported_memnuts]

We have a lot of intelligent people who hang out here at Autopia. :xyxthumbs It is great to read others info and profound perspectives about what happening in the world every so often. Most members here respect other`s perspective and I do not believe an ugly discussion will emerge.



Dr Rice is going testify publicly with borders as reported not this afternoon.

[Ice9]

I know that we have a good group here. I just like to preface that because it is such a heated and personal subject. It can be difficult to know what will offend some people.



I don`t like to offend and I don`t like my thoughts and others` thoughts lost in the mix.



Discussions like this is what is needed in country...and not just amongst "officials". We need to co-educate each other. We need to debate our opinions and perspectives constructively.



We need to increased debate, increased education and higher voter turnout! Take back our government and our country!



(Stepping down from soapbox) :)



Max

[imported_memnuts]

Originally posted by Ice9

I know that we have a good group here. I just like to preface that because it is such a heated and personal subject. It can be difficult to know what will offend some people.



I don`t like to offend and I don`t like my thoughts and others` thoughts lost in the mix.



Discussions like this is what is needed in country...and not just amongst "officials". We need to co-educate each other. We need to debate our opinions and perspectives constructively.



We need to increased debate, increased education and higher voter turnout! Take back our government and our country!



(Stepping down from soapbox) :)



Max





:xyxthumbs :xyxthumbs :xyxthumbs :wavey

[Monk_04SER]

yes she should..



the people have a right to know the truth,

[OKCstanger]

preach it, ice9 and spilchy :xyxthumbs

[Scottwax]

I think that in keeping with exective privilage (which, by the way is what Richard Clark himself invoked so he wouldn`t have to testify under oath in 1999), she shouldn`t testify. If she does, that may inhibit her honest appraisals in the future knowing that anything she tells the President in confidence may be subject to inquiry.



That being said, politically, she should testify. Otherwise, the adminstration will be accused of witholding vital evidence.



In any event, all Presidents from LBJ on did not give enough attention to terrorism. All that changed on 9/11.

[Sveta]

Constitutionally speaking...no way. Bad move. BUT...

Bush has decided otherwise and I think Dr. Rice is very able and will do an excellent job. She can articulate issues and policy better then most, including G`Dub, and will do just fine. This may, IMO, backfire on the Dems and they better not try and beat up on a "minority woman" or they will shoot themselves in the foot big time.

You go, Girl! Rip `em a new one!:usa

[Scottwax]

I agree Marty. I am waiting for the 2008 match up of Dr. Rice vs. Hillary. Go Condi!