9/11 COMMISSION - Should Dr Rice testify?

[Sveta]

This commision is an Executive Branch commision called by the President. Max

I'm not sure that is correct.



"Inside Politics" Wed., March 31, 2004 Posted 11:19 AM EST





"....Bush also defended his administration's cooperation with the panel created by Congress, saying that more than 800 members of the administration have been interviewed and......."



Could you be thinking of some other commission?:nixweiss

 

[Ice9]

Marty-



There is no doubt that I could be wrong...it would be the first time, but it is possible



I have read both accounts. I actually saw Gov Kean in an interview stating the points I said earlier. Maybe I misunderstood.



It is interesting that the Sec of Defense and Sec of State testified, but the Nat Sec Adviser resisted. I am not sure I see the difference. All three are cabinet level, they are privy to the highest classified info, and they have private meetings with the president.



Who knows? I will try to find an official statement.

 

[Iconoclast]

I respectfully disagree...provided Dr. Rice wins that is!

I''m not too political, but what the heck, I'll jump in with my observations.



Everytime I see Rice on TV she has that "deer in the headlights" look on her face . I don't know if testifying will be all that good for her.

 

[Joe K -- 01 Green]

The difference is significant---the President cannot attract the type of candid and independent advisors needed if they know that everything said is possibly subject to under oath review. You'll have advisors who either hold back, are less than candid, or plain afraid to speak their minds, certainly not Rummy's problem.



She can say anything she wants in an interview. Under oath is a different story.





Imagine you and your pals sitting around discussing your next moves in a divorce proceeding---asking for candid opinion; now imagine being subpoena'd --- what did you say and when did you say it--serious, joking, off the cuff....whatever.



Thgese are serious times....I for one am glad we have serious people in charge

 

[Joe K -- 01 Green]

ICE9---enjoyed your commentary but you need to go back further 1978 and the capture of Americans at the Iranian embassy and being held for 444 days--that's when they decided they could

p#$% in our soup and we would like it--thank you Carter.

 

[Sveta]

Marty-





It is interesting that the Sec of Defense and Sec of State testified, but the Nat Sec Adviser resisted.

Again, political hair splitting, but the Senate has "confirmation" rights over Cabinet Sec. This is more a political reality recognition that a certain amount of "cooperation" is required.

Dr. Rice? No. She's in the "kitchen cabinet". These people are "brain extensions" of the President and as such are part of the "Presidency" itself.

Let's face it, this committee is nothing more than political grand standing at best. If the game is "get Bush" then all others back to Carter will get theirs too.



My problem with this kind of "show commission" is that it IS FOR "show". Shame. I think we need to investigate how Lincoln screwed up and started the Civil War.

 

[Ice9]

Joe K-



Good point. That was certainly an important event in the growth of anti-American terrorism. Oddly enough, George H.W. Bush was the director of the CIA around that time...and I was just coming up on 1st birthday when the hostages were taken.



Ultimately, the funding and support of the Shah who was a dictator similar to Saddam (most material difference being cooperation with the US). This dates back to the early 60s (and the hippies can't be blamed for this one ).



Middle Eastern terrorism, in my opinion, is an outgrowth of the strategic and tactical actions taken in the Cold War. The middle east was and still is a pawn.



The world is an amazing place...why can't it just be a little simpler?

 

[Mr. Clean]

After watching some of the testimony this morning. What I saw/heard did not surprise me, and why I voted "don't care". She can't remember...it wasn't her (or the President's) fault, it wasn't my responsibility, it wasn't my job... blah...blah...blah...

 

[Scottwax]

After watching some of the testimony this morning. What I saw/heard did not surprise me, and why I voted "don't care". She can't remember...it wasn't her (or the President's) fault, it wasn't my responsibility, it wasn't my job... blah...blah...blah...

You must have listened to very little of the testimony because for the most part, Dr. Rice answered the questions directly.

 

[Mr. Clean]

Your evaluation of her responsiveness surprises me even less than her testimony. I know you missed those "don't/can't/won't" remember responses.

 

[Scottwax]

Your evaluation of her responsiveness surprises me even less than her testimony. I know you missed those "don't/can't/won't" remember responses.

Your attempt to characterize the whole of her testimony that way is completely wrong. Nice try though.