why is Condoleezza Rice refusing? What is she hiding?

[reconeil]

Try as hard as you like, but some people just don't get it,...and/or solely because of warped political reasonings REFUSE TO. If it doesn't make the Dems/Libs/Socialists look good,...IT MUST BE BAD. Such has been brainwashed so for generations. Thusly it's no wonder that Blacks in general most always vote Democrat and/or for: "The Carpetbaggers" that stole their land were party to lynchings.

Regardless, and even though longtime thinking that such political nonsense was worthless and meaningless (naturally not so to the career politicos and their adoring and duped followers),...during wartime such is no longer funny or entertaining.

People die, have died, and will die because of SUCH OPEN DISCLOSURES of America's weaknesses,...or even strengths.

Besides, what good can come from satisfying or gratifying our fanatical enemies by SUCH OPEN DISCLOSURES? Sure, The Democrats get to play their political oneupsmanship bit to-the-hilt. But,...who-the-hell-cares? Certainly no one that works for a living. Besides,...wartime is no time for silly, foolish and worthless to The People politics. I think SURVIVAL is much more important.

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

Warriors deal with what IS.

We need warriors now, today.

[melody1181]

I don't really care about Bush as much....but this Rice woman....she can go around spreading all this stuff in the media but refuses to do so at the hearing???? Confuses me is all.

[SuperScout]

What is she "spreading"? From what I've heard, she's only repeating the statements that Clarke has uttered previously, thereby contradicting his testimony before the commission. If there's any "spreading" going around, it's Clarke spreading a bunch of manure, in a desparate attempt to cover his tracks. For a bit of edification, I highly recommend a book entitled, "Losing bin Laden," by Richard Miniter; it details the entire episode of how the current war started against us.

[BLUEHAWK]

Here's the deal, plain and simple.

Ms. Rice has said she would be happy to give public testimony.

She also referred to some BS nonsense precedent so-called "policy" about "sitting" National Security Advisors not testifying. That amounts to what the meaning of "is" is. Bull... Some number of "National Security Advisors" HAVE given sworn testimony under oath in a public forum. Suck it up Dr. Rice.

Show me where an unelected presidential appointee can do any one of the three following things (for starters):

- Hold herself above the testimony of Secretaries of State and Defense (as two of several possible examples).

- Show that her special knowledge is superior to or greater than or more secret than either of the above two presidential appointees and thus deserving of presidential privilege. (IF it is, by the way, then we DO have a secret government in full operation! I do not recall any place in our founding rules of governance where a National Security Advisor is given special leeway, eh? In fact, I cannot think of any place where such an office is actually named )

- Hold herself above the scrutiny of the American people's representatives.

It sucks, hugely.

[MORTARDUDE]

They want her to take the fall and she is not going to do it..somebody will.. though....as soon as this RICO / Bush lawsuit goes forward....I say put 'em all in jail and just start over...LOL

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Who is "They"?

[phuloi]

Name one NSA who has testified before a commision in public,please.

[reconeil]

We can kick this political football back and forth all we like,...and just like all the other worthless and meaningless Political Games, The American People always come out the looser, and only some Political Party comes out the winner. Whoop-whoopy-do!!!

Thusly, and in that context, I have now been forced to believe that amongst most all Congressmen, Senators, Officials, and even The Press/Media,...Condoleeza Rice is the only one I've noticed to date, that's actually dealing with-a-full-deck during wartime, both logically and sensibly.

After all, only fools would want to PUBLICLY and worldwide display America's weaknesses in general during wartime.

Only fools would debate our intelligence failures PUBLICLY and/or for the entire world, and especially FOR OUR ENEMIES TO SEE.

Only fools would have PUBLIC HEARINGS, where solely our fanatically murderous enemies are the only ones whom could possibly derive any great satisfaction, gratification, glee or great pleasure seeing (plus world seeing their effectiveness also) how well they have killed The Infidel. Hell,...with such daily and perpetual help from America itself, terrorists actually don't need any foreign assistance or OTHER intelligence gathering venues, whatsoever. Sure, some Americans sell books and some Americans get to pompously strut-their-stuff on camera. But, so what? This wartime, and not just some media event for self/clique satisfaction or personal profit.

Hey terrorists,...just turn on America's News or America's C-span. Learn something valuable and our weaknesses IN DETAIL, while having yourself a chuckle over the carnival called: "Politics", which oddly enough makes your job much easier, and our job more difficult.

Only fools.... .... ......
Well you get the picture,...and Ms Rice the only non-fool, gets my vote over all the other enemy helpful blabbermouths.

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

Sorry Griz -

Aside from the fact that I mostly agree with what Recon just said...

I cannot produce what you asked of me this instant. However, several reputable people have been talking for days about it having happened and I have no reason to doubt their word at all.

I suppose an arguement could be made about whether the present NSA was to be, technically, speaking before the actual US Congress in any sense whatsoever, since it is actually only a Commission. And, no, I have no idea whether the other NSAs who gave sworn testimony did so before actual Congress or some other Commission in years past. The matter is moot anyway...

However, when I see (as happened tonight on the news) four different Editors in Chief of four different major newspapers (two repubs and two dems who normally agree on almost nothing), ALL completely agree that:
- other NSAs HAVE testified
- Ms. Rice needs to do so
Then I'd say its pretty much a lock that she oughta get up there and speak her piece freely and for as long as anybody can stand to talk or listen.

Of course, chances are she will not... which is too bad because she has some of the best arguements going with which to neutralize Mr. Clarke.

If the NSA has more pull than our Secretary of Defense or of State... then that seems like hogwash and needs changing, like right this minute. The NSA is not presidential wife, attorney, shrink nor pastor... and she herself has repeatedly stated that "...nothing would be better" than for her to speak (words to that effect).

What really ticks me off is that the president is gonna get blamed for this dumb ass political blunder when he had almost nothing at all to do with causing it.

Luckily it'll all be off the front page soon, maybe Kobe Bryant's trial will heat up or something, somebody will show a breast at a ballgame...