Why Not Testify?

**Raven Soul** · March 29th, 2004, 12:56 PM

Rice declared Sunday night that "nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify" to the commission. But, she added, "there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress." She has appeared before panel members in closed session.

I say to her, screw the trend. The people want to know, and I for one think that they deserve to know. September 11, 2001 was not a day where a couple of people died. We lost 3,000+ people on that day. From all the stuff I have heard since the 2+ years since it happened, it seems like at least some of the "hijackers" could have been stopped or perhaps maybe they would have had to switch to a backup plan.

Interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes," Rice also said she'd like to meet with the families of the Sept. 11 victims.

I think the families want to hear her testify more under oath then to meet Condaleeza.

"I'd love to meet with (Rice) as long as it's under oath and it's live in front of television cameras," responded Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband Ronald died in New York's World Trade Center.

Well I would think that is what most families of victims want to see

Rice offered a rebuttal to criticism by Clarke on NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Clinton (news - web sites) "did something, and President Bush did nothing" before Sept. 11 and that both "deserve a failing grade."

If I recall, didn't Clinton attack a warehouse or something on information that Osama was in the area? Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Rice said "the war on terrorism is well served by the victory in Iraq."

Victory? We are still losing our boys left and right over there, I wouldn't call it a victory.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said, "My bias will be to provide this information in an unclassified manner not only to the commission, but to the American people. ... We're not trying to hide anything."

Then why don't they get Rice to testify, because from my standpoint, it seems like the got something to hide.

Clarke said he voted for Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000, but "I'm not going to endorse John Kerry (news - web sites)," Bush's presumptive opponent in November. "That's what the White House wants me to do. They want to say I'm part of the Kerry campaign."

That is the worse part of this, is that Bush is going to lose some voters over this possibly making him a one termer and making Kerry the freaking president. Then we will even be worse off then before.

Emperor Napoleon · March 29th, 2004, 01:07 PM

You make very, very good points Raven. For someone who does not like to get into discussions about politics, you certainly express yourself well and present solid ground for your views. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

**Raven Soul** · March 29th, 2004, 01:14 PM

It's not so much that I don't politics, but it is such a touchy subject for so many, that it usually just ends up with name calling and a lot of pissed off people.

Emperor Napoleon · March 29th, 2004, 01:15 PM

Oh yeah? Well SCREW YOU! [img]wink.gif[/img]

**Raven Soul** · March 29th, 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by G L:
Oh yeah? Well SCREW YOU! [img]wink.gif[/img]

I hate you so much. [img]wink.gif[/img]

**jumper69** · March 29th, 2004, 02:36 PM

I believe that Condi Rice might have some interesting information that should be public. But I do not think she knows anything that would be damning to the administration.

That being said, by her failing to testify publicly (past precedence be damned), she gives the PERCEPTION of hiding something. And we all know perception is reality.

Personally I cannot stand condi rice. Nothing would make me happier than to have her out of government. She's a token black woman. That's all. Go back to teaching.

**MIPS** · March 29th, 2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Jumper69:
I believe that Condi Rice might have some interesting information that should be public. But I do not think she knows anything that would be damning to the administration.

That being said, by her failing to testify publicly (past precedence be damned), she gives the PERCEPTION of hiding something. And we all know perception is reality.

Personally I cannot stand condi rice. Nothing would make me happier than to have her out of government. She's a token black woman. That's all. Go back to teaching.

You sound like a token bigot.

**MIPS** · March 29th, 2004, 03:17 PM

Raven you seem like a good Kerry supporter. Let me know your email address and I can send you info on how to get involved with the campaign. We CAN take back America Raven. VOTE FOR KERRY.

**Lew** · March 29th, 2004, 03:48 PM

Raven, I agree w/GL that your points are valid. But I must disagree with your overall thesis in that I do believe there could be national security questions involved. I will grant Jumper's concern about perceptions, and don't get me wrong- I realize that a lot of heads could roll depending on who knew what and when, and there is a lot of CYA going around.

Still...

National security does exist, it does need to be protected, and whether the info Condi has falls under that penumbra I don't know, but it shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

MIPS, if you weren't an alter, I would love debating you as to the merits of your conentions. Obviously, it would be like arguing with one of Phil Hendrie's guests, so alas, there is nothing to respond against....

**MIPS** · March 29th, 2004, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Oldie Blonde Kenobi:

Let's say, the investigation turns up they reasons for how 9/11 took place. The first thing the media and public is going to demand an answer as to what has been done to correct it? OK....now the media, the general public and every terrorist is going to know. How dumb is that?

No dumber than letting Dubya scrub steal the white house in the first place. VOTE FOR KERRY..

Thread: Why Not Testify?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions