imported_memnuts
New member
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.
9/11 COMMISSION - Should Dr Rice testify?
- Thread starter imported_memnuts
- Start date
KRMan
No iPod Posts On Detail City
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
New member
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
Eric
imported_memnuts
New member
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
No iPod Posts On Detail City
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
That is all I will say on the topic this could get ugly
Spilchy
New member
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
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
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
Now get out and vote!!!
Max
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
Now get out and vote!!!
Max
imported_memnuts
New member
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.
Dr Rice is going testify publicly with borders as reported not this afternoon.
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
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
New member
Ice9 said: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
New member
yes she should..
the people have a right to know the truth,
the people have a right to know the truth,
OKCstanger
New member
preach it, ice9 and spilchy :xyxthumbs
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.
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
New member
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
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
i respect everyones opinions in this matter. that's the great thing about america; we don't have to agree. i personally feel that the bush administration has lied to the american people from day one. i feel that the truth is finally coming out, and the results will show in november. there were no wmd, and many brave american soldiers died who didn't have to. and that to me is very sad.
I am not an expert (or even close) on Constitutional law, therefore I disclaim my following statement and please correct me if I am wrong :
The reason that Gov. Tom Kean (R) requested that she testify was because he felt it was necessary and because this was not a congressional hearing. The protection that the executive branch is afforded in the case of congressional hearings comes from the consitution's attempt at maintaining a balance of power.
This commision is an Executive Branch commision called by the President. I believe it may contain certain congress members, but it could contain anyone in actuality. I know it contains some former senators like Bob Kerrey (D) from Nebraska.
Basically, there was no restriction on Dr. Rice's testimony. That was a misinterpretation by the administration. The president could still choose to not have her testify, but that is up to him. They were originally using the Constitution's power to prevent her from testifying, thus squashing any political implications.
Once it was solely at their discretion, they would be forced to say why she would not testify.
I would not be concerned that her job's integrity will be compromised. They are currently negotiating the bounds of her questioning. Neither Democrat nor Republican has any interest in smearing the job of National Security Advisor.
I do believe it is pertinent that she speak to the commission. She certainly has no trouble speaking publicly on talk shows. Oddly enough, a talk show host could probably push the questioning to areas that are more sensitive versus what the commission will do.
In the end, I think it will be much ado about nothing. These hearings have been quite benign because ultimately everyone is to blame, not just the government or the politicians as they are an extension of us (or our corporations, or somebody's monetary interests, or a corrupt electronic voting machine :angry).
Side note:
Interesting idea about Condi Rice vs. Hillary Clinton. I was not aware of Dr. Rice's aspirations. Is this something that is well-known or is it just speculation? I guess I am just unaware.
Later
Max
:The reason that Gov. Tom Kean (R) requested that she testify was because he felt it was necessary and because this was not a congressional hearing. The protection that the executive branch is afforded in the case of congressional hearings comes from the consitution's attempt at maintaining a balance of power.
This commision is an Executive Branch commision called by the President. I believe it may contain certain congress members, but it could contain anyone in actuality. I know it contains some former senators like Bob Kerrey (D) from Nebraska.
Basically, there was no restriction on Dr. Rice's testimony. That was a misinterpretation by the administration. The president could still choose to not have her testify, but that is up to him. They were originally using the Constitution's power to prevent her from testifying, thus squashing any political implications.
Once it was solely at their discretion, they would be forced to say why she would not testify.
I would not be concerned that her job's integrity will be compromised. They are currently negotiating the bounds of her questioning. Neither Democrat nor Republican has any interest in smearing the job of National Security Advisor.
I do believe it is pertinent that she speak to the commission. She certainly has no trouble speaking publicly on talk shows. Oddly enough, a talk show host could probably push the questioning to areas that are more sensitive versus what the commission will do.
In the end, I think it will be much ado about nothing. These hearings have been quite benign because ultimately everyone is to blame, not just the government or the politicians as they are an extension of us (or our corporations, or somebody's monetary interests, or a corrupt electronic voting machine :angry).
Side note:
Interesting idea about Condi Rice vs. Hillary Clinton. I was not aware of Dr. Rice's aspirations. Is this something that is well-known or is it just speculation? I guess I am just unaware.
Later
Max
former86camaro
New member
Why not... What will really happen if she says opposite what the other guy testified... NOTHING... We are to lazy to care..