why is Condoleezza Rice refusing? What is she hiding?

[SuperScout]

Larry,
First of all, I wasn't citing the Warren Commission in a comparative manner, but only to cite a precedence; admittedly, the final results of the Warren Commission was as far removed from reality than I am from becoming a liberal telemarketeer. Lighten up, FCS!

The issue of that of Executive Privilege, long established in law and in historical precedence; as a personal advisor to the President, Dr. Rice occupies a very special place, and cannot be compelled to testify without doing a serious weakening of the Office of the President. She has testified in private, answering all the questions that had been presented to her, and now, is willing to repeat the performance again.

This whole public performance has been ballyhooed way out of proportion to the final result of anything beneficial to the US. It was simply designed, pure and simply, by people who want to embarrass the current administration, being as this is an election year.

[BLUEHAWK]

Based on most of the questioning done with this current inquiry, from the little portion I am allowed to see off cable and out of loop (not affording the "competition will result in LOWER rates" rates) I tend to agree with Scout for the most part... I DO believe the inquiry was set up to embarass.

I have not seen or heard all that has transpired (DUH

However, I did take note of former Senator Kerry's close questioning of they giving testimony, with strong heart. His warrior sense, or maybe just his combat experience seemed real (as was his public shyness about having been given medals he did not believe he deserved or wanted.)

Where I disagree is that there could possibly be ANY weakening of Presidential anything by hearing the testimony of a National Security Advisor. If we can hear the Secretaries of Defense and State speak forth, then we can darn sure hear a presidential advisor, with alacrity any dang time anybody legally chooses.

Theoretically, in our Republic and democracy (lower case "d" used), by what or which act of whom or what did or does any security advisor receive the identical executive privilege as a President... and furthermore, WHAT specific knowledge would he/she have that would entitle him/her to such executive privilege?

A direct and specific answer is in order, at once.

[SuperScout]

A Case in Point about the circus atmosphere surrounding the hearings: Richard Clarke is treated as some sort of media idol, when in fact, he's unbelievable, due to conflicting testimony, letters, and documents. And then to have CBS pimping his book on "60 Minutes," with CBS owned by Viacom, which also owns the book publisher. When in doubt, connect the dots as they apply to the money trail.

[BLUEHAWK]

I felt the same Scout... he equivocated and parsed, my guess is that he did so primarily from fear, for himself, his family, his own actions, the actions he condoned and supported in a number of administrations... and understandable emotion in such times. I had no idea whatsoever the eliomosinary connections his publication have...

I'm not privy to his conflicting testimony, letters and documents... I just go by the eyes, perhaps the set of the mouth, or wrinkles in the brow. To wit, Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I am like a horse, or perhaps a dog... I know what I know. This savant instinct causes my life to hang by slender thread.

Clarke had a case well made, until by close questions he parsed and could not rightly vow. I credit him with good sense in such a case... but it does no good for the cause which is before us.

We, America, are under attack by an enemy who has realized (long long long ago) that they cannot, ever, defeat us in the field face to face. Yet, honorably, we persevere face to face with them.

Dare say I, should we keep to that tactic I shall be signing off to go it alone if I must. I will not witness a mighty justice become a forelorn hope.

The question remains, what now.

[MORTARDUDE]

"Either by valid precedence, or by force of law"

"in a comparative manner, but only to cite a precedence;"

"was as far removed from reality"

"When in doubt, connect the dots as they apply to the money trail."


....Brice :

Your logic, or lack thereof, is what is far removed from reality....Just IMHO. LOL

Larry

[SuperScout]

Excuse the *** out of me, but what does the Watergate episode have to do with the subject? You bash me for bringing up the Warren Commission, which I did only to show a precedent of the application of executive privilege, yet you bring this extraneous matter into the fray. And you fault my logic?

Dickie Clarke's remarks about Dr. Rice being uninformed about AlQaeda are laughable to the point of marginalizing any of his other testimony. He has contradicted his own prior testimony, his own previous written communications, and has trivialized his previous service to this country by his waffling attitude.

[Gimpy]

"waffling" and "side-stepping" is coming from the folks that Clarke has "outed" so effectively with his accounting of the TRUTH!

As stated below!
###

March 26, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Wrong War By BOB HERBERT



The most compelling aspects of Richard Clarke's take on the world have less to do with the question of whether the Bush administration could somehow have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks and much more with the administration's folly of responding to the attacks by launching a war on Iraq.

The United States had been the victim of a sneak attack worse than the attack at Pearl Harbor. It was an act of war, and the administration had a moral obligation (not to mention the backing of the entire country and most of the world) to hunt down and eradicate the forces responsible.

(I walked past the vacant acreage of the World Trade Center site the other day. It was a bitterly cold morning, and the wind slicing across the mournful landscape intensified the memories of the violence and horror ? the unspeakable agony of the thousands lost and injured, and the grief of a traumatized city brought temporarily to its knees.)

Mr. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, writes in his book, "Against All Enemies," that despite clear evidence the attacks had been the work of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, top administration officials focused almost immediately on the object of their obsession, Iraq.

He remembers taking a short break for a bite to eat and a shower, then returning to the White House very early on the morning of Sept. 12. He writes:

"I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were. . . . Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq."

Soon would come the now-famous encounter between Mr. Clarke and President Bush in the White House Situation Room. According to Mr. Clarke: "[The president] grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. `Look,' he told us, `I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' "

"I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. `But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this.'

" `I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred. . . .' "

The president wanted war with Iraq, and ultimately he would have his war. The drumbeat for an invasion of Iraq in the aftermath of the Qaeda attack was as incessant as it was bizarre. Mr. Clarke told "60 Minutes" that an attack on Iraq under those circumstances was comparable to President Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor, deciding to invade Mexico "instead of going to war with Japan."

The U.S. never pursued Al Qaeda with the focus, tenacity and resources it would expend ? and continues to expend ? on Iraq. The war against Iraq was sold the way a butcher would sell rotten meat ? as something that was good for us. The administration and its apologists went out of their way to create the false impression that Saddam and Iraq were somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, and that he was an imminent threat to the U.S.

Condoleezza Rice went on television to say with a straight face, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
With the first anniversary of Sept. 11 approaching and Osama bin Laden still at large, George Shultz, a former secretary of state (and longtime Bechtel Corporation biggie) ratcheted up his rant for war with Iraq in an Op-Ed article in The Washington Post. The headline said: "Act Now: The Danger Is Immediate."

Mr. Shultz wrote: "[Saddam] has relentlessly amassed weapons of mass destruction and continues their development." Insisting that the threat was imminent, he said, "When the risk is not hundreds of people killed in a conventional attack but tens or hundreds of thousands killed by chemical, biological or nuclear attack, the time factor is even more compelling."

Richard Clarke has been consistently right on the facts, and the White House and its apologists consistently wrong. Which is why the White House is waging such a ferocious and unconscionable campaign of character assassination against Mr. Clarke.
E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

###

###

[MORTARDUDE]

Brice :

No harm no foul. Those that have nothing to hide... don't. That is all I am saying. The Warren Commission and Watergate hearings are used as a cover for this....OK ?

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Well, one thing Dr. Rice AIN'T is "uninformed", that is for certain.

[SuperScout]

Like tracers crossing in the night, I think we both missed the targets!! A valid point is made that thinking any good will come of this "commission" will cause a serious bit of reflection on the respective good that arose from the Warren fiasco.

It's not as if Dr. Rice has anything to hide; she has testified, under oath, in closed session, answering all the questions posed to her. Any demands for open testimony is just blather and bluster, emanating from those with the express agenda of bringing harm to the President, not bringing light into the commission room.

And personally, I would have to go check a calendar, ask for a second opinion and still view with a cocked-eye evenin Bob Herbert told me today was Friday; his extreme left-wing bias and traditionally anti-American, anti-capitalist rantings make him as believable as Michael Moore. Little Dick Clarke has stepped on it, big time, and is simply pimping his book. If he had anything valid to say, with reference to our nation's security, why did he wait this long? His lies, misrepresentations, and mischaracterizations are sufficient for his own self-inflicted character assassination.