Bush Agrees to Let Rice Testify Publicly
President Bush agreed Tuesday to do what he had insisted for weeks he would not: allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before an independent panel investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The White House also agreed that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would answer questions – together, in private – before the entire commission.
I’m pleased that the Administration finally chose to do the right thing, here. I do hope it is the right thing and that information shared, publically, won’t amount to tipping our hand to our enemy. However, I think if that were the case – the White House would continue to disallow Condi to testify.
I’m also pleased to hear that it is agreed that this will not set a precedence on the issue of separation of powers. I think this is an extraordinary case that calls for extraordinary means.
Will Rice’s testimony reveal Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger were lying? Will her testimony reveal Richard Clarke’s rhetoric for the book tour that it is? I hope, for the Democrats sake, that they know exactly what they are asking for and don’t regret the extreme pressure they’ve put on this case.
Condi Rice will help give the public a complete picture of the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks – and I do not believe the leftist spin that this is somehow a negative situation for this administration. I await Condi’s testimony with anticipation that it will shed the light that is being expected and demanded.
In the end, I hope her testimony helps answer some of the questions held by the victim’s loved ones.
I too am happy that she will testify, and that the seperation of powers will not be altered, but I really don’t think it will do what everyone presumes it will. If she doesn’t give the answers that people want to hear, all we will hear is liar, liar, liar!
I still think this thing looks like a witch hunt. I’m more interested in preventing further attacks than dragging the Bush and Clinton administrations through the mud.
I’m kind of excited about what she will say, I’m glad their not going to set a presedence, because that would seriously undermind the structure of seperation of power between the legislative and executive branch…
I’m sure that her testimony will blow Mr. Dick Clarke’s testimony out of the water, or blow the water out of it anyway… I hope all you liberals are prepared for the thunder that you called down because I have a feeling this is not going to look pretty for you.
Well actually this would not be te first time something like this has happened. Gerald Ford did go before Congress, voluntarilly, just after he took office.
Zelda- I see your point though. If I am to gauge the success by what I hear in the media, and not the testimony, this is really not giving me the info to say, okay, I feel better. But if I look at the actions of preventative measure that have been taken since 9/11, I know that we are at least making progress. Something is being done.
While I understand the reaons behind this, I feel it is a bad idea. The Legislative Branch has slowly been usurping the powers of the Executive Branch over the past 20-30 years, and this is only another step towards this, even with the agreement they have,
Ted
ted- I agree with you on this. There is a reason that this was put into the constitution. I heard someone refer to it as a silly and archaic rule?!? Huh?
todd-
1. this site isn’t publicly funded. It is Lisa’s. and she can and will talk to you anyway she sees fit. She offers many doors to exit through.
2. There will be specific questions asked to Ms. Rice. She is not going to go in there and answer just any question. Her testimony will be sensitive to her position. Common sense would have told you that.
Is Bush Waffling?
peejz,
Common sense? From todd? Are you making a joke here? The boy can’t even construct a feasible arguement to support his ideas. He isn’t even polite enough to answer questions that are asked directly of him.
He trolls, and that alone rules out any possibly of common sense in and of itself.
Ted
no zelda, waffling is when you take one side of an issue and then switch for no other reason than that is politically advantagous to you… Bush is allowing this so that the liberals who are screaming for blood will shut-up and the truth can come out about clarke… I think her testimony will do that, reveal that he is lying in his book and using 9/11 for financial gain.
Ted, I agree… Multiple choice question:
which definition of the word “trolling” best describes Todd:
a. To fish by trailing a line, as from a moving boat.
b. To wander about; ramble.
madbarr,
Neither choice, really. A troll on a BBS is someone who purposefully visits the site for nothing more than inciting the people who post there. They have no interest in truth or care little about people. Their only function is to lower you to their standard.They are nothing more than trouble makers.
There are several types of trolls, and I have seen them all. Some are more obvious than others. Some just cuss at you, call you names (like idiot, or something profane) and some are much more subtle in their approach. The objective is the same.
This is why (beside my response to him regarding the 9/11 victims) I have not rtesponded to todd. The boy is nothing but a troll and it is something I have little tolerance for.
Ted
Interesting theory on “waffling” goes like this: if a politican changes positions on something and people start asking questions, if the politican in question fails to describe the position change it can and should be called “waffling.”
In this case, the President’s team managed to get the concessions they asked for in regards to Ms. Rice’s testifying in public and under oath. The reasons for the position were addressed and thus the position was changed to reflect that the administration got what they needed out of the agreement.
Was that sufficiently nuanced for the trolls?
The liberal challenge is to show credible evidence that Kerry’s waffles were for any other reason than political expediency. Good luck with that…
thanks matt, couldn’t have said it better…
Very nice Matt-
However, I still think it is a mistake to allow Rice to testify.
Ted
Matt- nice job!
ted- I was just trying to be hopeful
I still think that it is okay for her to testify, but I am not too hopeful that it will be the answer that people expect.
Hey- I thought I would share John Kerry’s thoughts on this. “Well this administration is always late to get it done right. Late to testify and late on homeland security….” He was quoted today as saying this…When should Bush have implemented homeland security? I am a little confused..
Help us with what todd?
Todd – if your opinion is that this site is petty, then why do you stay?
I still think there are some things that should not be made public for mattters of national security…as I said in this post “I hope this doesn’t amount to tipping our hand to the enemy” – but am confident that the White House would still be stalling on this, if that were the case. Hardly scandalous.
How about you answer some of the questions posed to you in the past 3-4 threads that you’ve ignored addressing?
“Todd – if your opinion is that this site is petty, then why do you stay?”
the answer is simple- becasue he’s a troll.
Ted
ROFLMAO….I am sitting here reading and everytime Toddles pops up, I can’t help but picture this little stubby figure with long frizzy orange hair! and that “face”…the face of a “TROLL”…still lmao
Oh and Toddles, I am still waiting for an answer to my question ‘SEVERAL DAY’S AGO’…….