Speakeasy forum

General discussion

9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath

by C1ay / March 29, 2004 11:31 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: 9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
NT - She doesn't want to say anything under oath
by Diana Forum moderator / March 29, 2004 11:53 AM PST


Collapse -
Re:9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath

Hi, Clay.

Everyone else has testified under oath and in public except for Bush and her -- they claim executive privilege.
I have to hope (pray?) this is not playing well in Peoria, though it hasn't showed up in the polls yet.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
You are again incorrect as several others...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 3:02 AM PST

have also been questioned behind closed doors.

The commission has required all witnesses testifying at public hearings to be sworn in, opening them to perjury charges if they are found to be lying, while all but a handful of the hundreds of witnesses questioned behind closed doors have not been sworn in.

Surely that is not too dificult to understand if one avoids skimming and actually READS a bit. Just in case though, "all but a handful of the hundreds" means MOST of them.

Rice has been ACYTIVELY looking for ways to testify that won't open doors to REQUIRING testimony of historically exempt aides. She knows that her sworn testimony would open Clarke to perjury charges for his conflicting statements. The Administration also knows that if one wants to keep a container sacrosanct one does not intentionally poke it full of holes so they can't just arbitrarily open the door to questioning Administrative Aides.

Collapse -
Rice will testify publicly
by Josh K / March 30, 2004 12:55 AM PST

I don't understand why the White House was saying she "can't" testify due to Executive Privilege. Doesn't that just give her the right to refuse to testify, as opposed to forbidding her from testifying?

Regardless, it's about time. None of this put the White House in a good light.
Collapse -
Re:Rice will testify publicly
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 30, 2004 1:46 AM PST

Hi, Josh.

Nothing much puts the WH in a good light lately, but they're pulling up in the polls thanks to the unremitting smear campaign <sigh>. We can only hope and prau the public wises up after a few more months of their gutter-sniping.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
The public has 'wized up' to the smearing throughout the...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 3:08 AM PST

Democritic primaries.

You really don't want them to as it keeps pulling Kerry down to his proper level.

Where, by the way, were your similar thoughts and slurs when the Clinton White House was doing the same thing to protect historically priviledged communications between Administration Aides?

Situational smearing now.

Collapse -
Politics trumps Precedant
by Evie / March 30, 2004 3:07 AM PST

The technicality had to do with separation of powers. Non-confirmed advisors have never testified before Congress. In 1999, Clarke himself declined on the SAME basis!.

I would like public testimony under oath. But I also worry about the bad precedent. Keane said on one of the Sunday shows that given the gravity of 9-11 that is overwritten. But where to place this "gravity bar" in the future now that the precedant is broken? Will advisors get routinely hounded into such testimony or be portrayed as liars?

I am further distressed with how this 9-11 Commission has turned into a 9-12 Commission in these hearings. Instead of examining what went wrong leading up to the attack so that concrete and constructive recommendations could be made to prevent future attacks, it's becoming all about what happened the day after the attacks and further.

Nevermind that Bush's prosecution of the war began with Afghanistan and remained there for quite some time before turning to Iraq, somehow asking if Saddam was involved in the aftermath has been spun into a Bush obsession that caused 9-11. BS!!!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Politics trumps Precedant
by Josh K / March 30, 2004 3:24 AM PST

Hi Evie:

I haven't watched any of the hearings so I don't really know the details of what they're covering. I do know that Rice's public testimony was agreed to on the condition that it would NOT set a precedent. That was put in writing.

Collapse -
Re:Re:Politics trumps Precedant
by Evie / March 30, 2004 3:46 AM PST

Hi Josh,

Well, that putting in writing won't mean much. Think about it, all that will do is keep the letter of the law the same -- IOW Congress can not now compel her public testimony under oath, and her doing so won't change that. It won't, however, stop politicians and the like from invoking that she and others in similar position could make an exception "if they wanted to" ... and for the same reasons as now. I agree with the move on principle because she has nothing to hide. I disagree with the general idea of "giving in" (which is exactly how Chucky Cheese Schumer described it before quoting Scriptures) just this once, because we all know there is now a precedant!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Politics trumps Precedant
by Josh K / March 30, 2004 5:08 AM PST

She can't be compelled to reveal classified or top secret information. I think her input is essential to understanding what was or wasn't going on in the White House during the first 8 months of 2001, and I'm glad she's going to testify in public. I'm sure there are matters that aren't suitable for public release that may still be discussed in private sessions.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that another terrorist attack must be prevented from happening if at all possible and the more we understand about all of this, the better our chances are.

Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Re:Politics trumps Precedant
by Del McMullen / March 30, 2004 6:33 AM PST

Hi Josh,

RE..... the more we understand about all of this, the better our chances..... we, meaning the government ?, or the public ?. The commission has already heard from Rice in closed door, so with the writing of their report, the government should have an understanding.

IMO, very few of the public are watching these commission hearings. The few that I've talked with who started to watch have since stopped because of the obvious political slants it has taken.

Regardless of how much/little the public understands will have little or no effect on actions in the future.
(Unless a..poll..is necessary before a decision is made. And I thought we elected people to make these kinds of decisions for us.)

Anyway, if TV had any amount of interesting programming the public wouldn't be interested in this kind of circus.

I find it interesting also, that Bush-Bashing is OK, but when turned the other way, it becomes Kerry-Smearing.

Collapse -
I agree but...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 7:59 AM PST

Rice herself has been actively LOOKING for ways to testify as she wants the truth about Clarke out and I will bet that Clarke is now "sweating bullets" regarding his various conflicting testimony.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?