[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But what's important to me, and I think getting overlooked in this orgy of fingerpointing going on on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, is where to go from here? Do we recognize that the approach of the 1990s failed, and do we understand that it shouldn't be repeated?

I particular, I, as a potential Kerry voter, want to know where he stands on this. He's made some statements that makes it seem like he wants to go back to the law enforcement-only approach that I think helped make 9/11 possible. But he's also criticized Bush for not prosecuting the war on terror sufficiently. Well, which is it? What would his policy be if he is elected president? Shouldn't he make this most important matter crystal clear?

Kerry obviously doesn't want to get pinned down until it's absolutely necessary, but I infer that he doesn't so much want to go back to a reactive, hit-or-miss law enforcement approach as to put more emphasis on targeting actual terrorist threats, on beefing up intelligence, and on diplomacy and cooperative efforts, as opposed to the Bush administration's blunt and almost unilateral focus on Iraq, which some regard as a potentially fatal distraction, and even, as Clarke argues, a serious exacerbation of the terrorism problem. In other words, a determined but more nuanced approach. Kinda like Colin Powell might have taken, rightly or wrongly.

What I take from Clarke is that while the Clinton administration's response to the al Qaeda threat might have been inadequate, the Bush administration effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater and ignored the problem for 9 months, at least partly due to its seeming fixation on Iraq. Clarke is obviously angry to see the administration crowing about its counter-terrorism efforts when he feels that the administration's approach has seriously undermined those efforts.

It can be said that it's just sour grapes on Clarke's part, and to some degree it probably is, but he's not the first person, or even the first person from inside the administration, to make these assertions.

Listening to Clarke's testimony now, it's amusing to hear him talk about how carefully the administration edits its public rhetoric and how he was asked to "highlight" and "downplay" certain things on behalf of Bush and other Presidents. Yet some people here act shocked when I suggest that Bush is a political animal like any other. This should be assumed of any politician, Republican or Democrat.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by typoon:
Come one now you don't really believe what you just wrote do you?

1. Clinton was offered Bin Ladin several times and DIDN'T take him Even though Clinton Admin officials KNEW that he was responsible for the attacks on Kobar towers, USS Cole, first WTC attack in 93. If then President Clinton recieved so many warnings how come he didn't do anything about Bin ladin?

2. Clinton's team didn't feel they had enough evidence to indict Bin Ladin so they didn't actively persue him. That was also according to people like Albright why they didn't take him before.

3. What was the Clinton response to the first WTC attack? If they knew who did it why didn't they do anything about it?

If Clinton had done the job the first time we might not have had 9/11. Who said Bush ignored the warnings? More attacks Happened under Clinton's watch yet you hear nothing about those events since they probably could have prevent the much larger attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

Yes let the games begin. This is going to be fun to watch

It must be so easy to be a conservative. You are admonished of all blame by simply pointing to Clinton, and get to pick and chose the information you use to paint a purely conceptually, not reality, based case for policies.

The conservative mantra is "Make it work for me, make it appear to be in the public's interest."

This corrupt lying group of hypocrites exemplifies everything that is wrong with our society. It truly makes me sick to think I'm part of a country that could support an administration like Bush's.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Kerry obviously doesn't want to get pinned down until it's absolutely necessary

I think it is absolutely necessary.

[Nonsuch]

Kerry probably figures he doesn't need to offer his plan right now (assuming he has one): Bush is on the defensive from defectors from his own administration, taking the heat off Kerry and letting him (Kerry) talk about what he wants to talk about, namely jobs and the economy.

Hard to believe it's only March ... maybe having to put these fires out early will end up helping Bush?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Kerry probably figures he doesn't need to offer his plan right now (assuming he has one): Bush is on the defensive from defectors from his own administration, taking the heat off Kerry and letting him (Kerry) talk about what he wants to talk about, namely jobs and the economy.

Hard to believe it's only March ... maybe having to put these fires out early will end up helping Bush?

I realize that the candidates have a tactical campaign to run. But at some point, they also have to make clear where they stand on the important issues even, and probably especially, when they don't think it is their strongest issue.

Kerry comes across as hiding something about where he really stands. He's going to have to correct that if he wants to appeal to crossover voters. You can't just run a campaign by attacking the incumbent. In order for Kerry to be credible as a president, he has to be credible as a commander in chief. That means making his views clear.

[Nonsuch]

(Back on topic)

I just read that Clarke began his 9/11 testimony by saying "Your government failed you. _Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. _I failed you. _We tried hard, but we failed you...I ask for your understanding, and your forgiveness." Yowza ... when was the last time you heard language like that from a government (OK, ex-government) official?

[chris v]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Hard to believe it's only March ... maybe having to put these fires out early will end up helping Bush?

Except that these fires might not be going out. The hardcore Bush lovers here aside, I've taked to a pretty fair share of conservatives that are none too happy with things in Washington right now.

CV

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think it is absolutely necessary.

I don't blame you, but I don't think it'll happen for some time, if ever, first because Kerry is not exactly known for committing to a position, and second because the political calculations are different for him than for Bush. The incumbent, by necessity, has already taken a position. That's both an advantage and a disadvantage - Bush can run as a "wartime President," but it also makes him more vulnerable to criticism, since his policies are actually being tested. As the challenger, Kerry has the luxury of being able to criticize Bush's policies in action while making vague and untested proposals of his own. I expect that that will continue until he's forced to commit to something in debate or otherwise. Kerry also wants to wait and see how things in Iraq develop before he commits. I'm sure you already recognize all of this but I'm thinking out loud anyway.

It's sort of the reverse of Kerry's Senate voting record - Bush doesn't have an 18-year legislative voting record to scrutinize, and Kerry does, which gives Bush the advantage even though one could find inconsistencies in virtually any long-term Senate voting record.

I'm not sure how much it matters. As we've already seen, Bush's policies are subject to change, and anything Kerry says during the campaign will be likewise subject to change, especially as circumstances change, as they always do. I have relatively little faith in anything either one of them says, I'm only interested in what they actually do. My judgment is that even though Kerry hasn't committed himself, he's capable of handling the job. Indeed, I'd almost be more concerned if he committed to a position before the fact, or relied on bumper sticker solutions, which unfortunately he'll probably do, being in a campaign.

That's not to say that I don't want or expect him to elaborate, and I want to know his general philosophy, but I don't expect him to commit to details unless and until he's pressed to do so.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
(snip of a good post) I expect that that will continue until he's forced to commit to something in debate or otherwise.

just as an aside, I doubt that Bush will agree to a debate at all unless forced into it, and even then it will be under arduous constraints, like scripted questions given to him beforehand.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just as an aside, I doubt that Bush will agree to a debate at all unless forced into it, and even then it will be under arduous constraints, like scripted questions given to him beforehand.

What are you blabbering on about now?

8 Years of Bush baby. Get used to it now.

[dcolton]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Clarke is lying or trying to sell a book as he seeks revenge on Bush's administration.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That's not to say that I don't want or expect him to elaborate, and I want to know his general philosophy, but I don't expect him to commit to details unless and until he's pressed to do so.

I guess I don't consider this a "detail". I just want to know the broad brushstrokes, and I don't even know that. I don't expect him to submit a detailed plan, but some idea of whether he would continue the war on terror as a war or not isn't too much to ask. There isn't much room for nuance on a question that big. It's pretty much yes or no.

I guess I expected some fudging on this during the primaries. He was trying to appeal to the Lieberman wing as well as the Dean wing, even though they are diametrically opposed. The problem is that he's going to have to decide now that the primaries are over (sorry Dennis, Kerry won). Kerry either plunks for the Lieberman wing, and hope that the Dean wing will stick with him (and they might). Or he can plunk for the Dean wing and hope that defecting Bush voters will still cross over (some might, my guess is many will not).

The other reason I don't think he can fudge this much longer is because the national defense vote is primarily about trust. As much as the Dean wing pushes its "Bush lied" mantra, the reality in the polls is Bush is trusted on defense. People know where he stands, and that he considers it important. Kerry could win the defense issue on the merits if he could debate the issue and show that he can be trusted, he just has a different (and maybe better) approach. But he can't do that by trying to be all things to all people, or by appearing to be disinterested in, or scared of, a really pivotal issue.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Clarke is lying or trying to sell a book as he seeks revenge on Bush's administration.

Clark is a lying Sack of Shait and he knows it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What are you blabbering on about now?

do I stutter? I'm saying I doubt Bush will agree to a debate.

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
8 Years of Bush baby. Get used to it now.

You may well be correct, but I will never "get used to it".

[PookJP]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Clark is a lying Sack of Shait and he knows it.

Are you joking me? You really think this guy is lying? You really think that?


How many more high level officials need to come out and say they have been coerced or mislead before you just accept that something is amiss? Blix and Albaradi, Clark and O'Neill. These people aren't all ********ting us.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by PookJP:
Are you joking me? You really think this guy is lying? You really think that?


How many more high level officials need to come out and say they have been coerced or mislead before you just accept that something is amiss? Blix and Albaradi, Clark and O'Neill. These people aren't all ********ting us.

O'Neill repudiated the reports of what he said. Blix is self-interested. So is Clarke. Both have books out, and both have a stake in preening their reputations and vindicating themselves. Al-Baredai I'm not sure about.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do I stutter? I'm saying I doubt Bush will agree to a debate.

You may well be correct, but I will never "get used to it".

I couldn't tell by reading but if I had to guess, I'd say you don't stutter at all, rather I'm almost certain you speak in a melow convincing tonality. Something you cannot seem to convey in writing. If all politicians had to write and sign what messages they wanted to convey, we would be in a much more world of hurt, because then they would be accountable for their actual words, not some hearsay from a *former* and bitter government employee shlepping a book, interviewed by a company which is directly backing it's success.

I know you won't get used to it, and I find that quite satisfying.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
O'Neill repudiated the reports of what he said. Blix is self-interested. So is Clarke. Both have books out, and both have a stake in preening their reputations and vindicating themselves. Al-Baredai I'm not sure about.

And we all know that books are filled with lies! The very thought of a book containing accurate information, even if verified in a parallel fashion by other reports and books, is downright absurd! Let's not look at the content of the book at all and write the entire thing off as a self-interested pile of greedy crap. The chances of there being even a scrap of truth in such a publication would be as silly as saying the sun won't rise tomorrow!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I couldn't tell by reading but if I had to guess, I'd say you don't stutter at all, rather I'm almost certain you speak in a melow convincing tonality. Something you cannot seem to convey in writing. If all politicians had to write and sign what messages they wanted to convey, we would be in a much more world of hurt, because then they would be accountable for their actual words, not some hearsay from a *former* and bitter government employee shlepping a book, interviewed by a company which is directly backing it's success.

I know you won't get used to it, and I find that quite satisfying.

the 9/11 commission is directly backing the success of the Clarke book? Because they interviewed him today, too. I guess that means he's lying.






at any rate, while we're discussing the commission......why is Rice refusing to testify before the commission? If she felt so strongly that what Clarke has to say is revisionist, shouldn't she allow herself to be interviewed, just to clear things up?


Actually, if Bush is reelected, my personal discomfiture will the least of your concerns. You'll have far bigger fish to fry.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
O'Neill repudiated the reports of what he said. Blix is self-interested. So is Clarke. Both have books out, and both have a stake in preening their reputations and vindicating themselves. Al-Baredai I'm not sure about.

the White House has been sitting on the manuscript since November. If there was something in it that could be litigated, don't you think they would have done so?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by dcolton:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

Clarke is lying or trying to sell a book as he seeks revenge on Bush's administration.

Clarke explained to committee member Jim Thompson that he tried to "accentuate the positive" (i.e., spin it) when working at the behest of the administration, whether that administration was Republican or Democrat. He only offered his unfettered opinion after formally leaving the Bush administration.

It's funny; everytime a new administration whistleblower comes to the fore, talking about how the Bush administration quashes internal dissent/ignores inconvenient facts, I always think, "Now the scales will fall, and people will see." And it never happens. Always the source is impugned: he's writing a book. He's friends with a guy working for Kerry. She just hates Bush. Do you all really think this chorus of criticism from both within and without the Bush administration is motivated by nothing but jealousy and greed? Are Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld the only ones operating solely out of integrity?

I ask sincerely, because it literally baffles me how some of you can believe what you profess to believe.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Always the source is impugned: he's writing a book. He's friends with a guy working for Kerry. She just hates Bush. Do you all really think this chorus of criticism from both within and without the Bush administration is motivated by nothing but jealousy and greed? Are Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld the only ones operating solely out of integrity?
[/B]

The people who say these things, call them conservatives or Republicans or whatever, define the term 'Cognitive Dissonance.' For those who don't know, Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort felt when two conflicting bits of information enter the consciousness, and the reaction is to explain away the lesser in favor of maintaining the dominant.

The Conservatives in this country hold the belief the Bush administration is an honest, noble force that is acting in our country's best interests. Every time a piece of information comes out that undermines it, regardless of the source's credibility, knowledge, or power, they undermine it to maintain their faith in the administration. It's honestly amazing to watch them call a 12 year veteran of the NSC a liar who doesn't know what he's talking about and is acting purely out of greed. They are walking psychological test cases, and frankly, I'm embarrassed for them because their behavior is so simplistic and predictable.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by PookJP:
The people who say these things, call them liberals or Democrats or whatever, define the term 'Cognitive Dissonance.' For those who don't know, Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort felt when two conflicting bits of information enter the consciousness, and the reaction is to explain away the lesser in favor of maintaining the dominant.

The Liberals in this country hold the belief the Bush administration is a dishonest, unnoble force that is acting in it's own interests. Every time a piece of information comes out that supports it, regardless of the source's credibility, knowledge, or power, they undermine it to maintain their lack of faith in the administration. They are walking psychological test cases, and frankly, I'm embarrassed for them because their behavior is so simplistic and predictable.

FIXED.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
FIXED.

And there you go again. Instead of addressing a claim put before you, you just brush it aside using some form of smoke and mirrors.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by PookJP:
And there you go again. Instead of addressing a claim put before you, you just brush it aside using some form of smoke and mirrors.

What is wrong with my corrections?
Why should I reinvent the wheel when you seem to be doing such a great job. You might be backwards, but you get an A for effort.

F for substance.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What is wrong with my corrections?
Why should I reinvent the wheel when you seem to be doing such a great job. You might be backwards, but you get an A for effort.

F for substance.

So much for a constructive conversation, but I think I made my point loud and clear to anyone who is not so entrenched in cognitive dissonance they are deaf to it. Now go back to your happy dream land of a patriotic President who is victimized by a group of lying, self-interested money grubbers.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

at any rate, while we're discussing the commission......why is Rice refusing to testify before the commission? If she felt so strongly that what Clarke has to say is revisionist, shouldn't she allow herself to be interviewed, just to clear things up?

I think she did testify before the Commission. I think she's refusing to do so in the open-to-the-public sessions.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression that all of these people privately met with the Commission but are re-appearing for the public sessions.

[daimoni]

.

[Face Ache]

At this point if George Bush Senior criticized his son it would be "jealousy".

Vote Bush. Why half flush when you can full flush?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
What is wrong with my corrections?

Your lame parody did not address my question, in which case I can only assume you have no substantive answer to offer.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Clarke explained to committee member Jim Thompson that he tried to "accentuate the positive" (i.e., spin it) when working at the behest of the administration, whether that administration was Republican or Democrat. He only offered his unfettered opinion after formally leaving the Bush administration...

Well, that's his story now... from dcolton's link:

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct...

... ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.

QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?

CLARKE: That's right...

ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda -- did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?

CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.

QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?

CLARKE: Yes it did.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?

CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.

QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?

CLARKE: No, it was March...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the White House has been sitting on the manuscript since November. If there was something in it that could be litigated, don't you think they would have done so?

Who said anything about litigation?

[slow moe]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the 9/11 commission is directly backing the success of the Clarke book? Because they interviewed him today, too. I guess that means he's lying.






at any rate, while we're discussing the commission......why is Rice refusing to testify before the commission? If she felt so strongly that what Clarke has to say is revisionist, shouldn't she allow herself to be interviewed, just to clear things up?


Actually, if Bush is reelected, my personal discomfiture will the least of your concerns. You'll have far bigger fish to fry.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id...4|reuters.html

Rice is not testifying before the 9/11 commission based on a White House principle that a presidential adviser who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate should not give public testimony.

...

From Condoleezza Rice:
"I would like to be very clear that this is not a matter of preference. I would like nothing better than to be able to go up and do this, but I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."

She met with the 9/11 commission in private for 4 hours last month.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Your lame parody did not address my question, in which case I can only assume you have no substantive answer to offer.

Just as substantive as your original message. I will be big enough to admit it, they are both vacuous.

My apologies to all who have had to witness such rediculous rhetoric from the left.

[PookJP]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Just as substantive as your original message. I will be big enough to admit it, they are both vacuous.

My apologies to all who have had to witness such rediculous rhetoric from the left.

My apologies to humankind for having a member who demonstrates primate levels of analytic thought and judgment.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by PookJP:
My apologies to humankind for having a member who demonstrates primate levels of analytic thought and judgment.

I apologized first!

[PookJP]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I apologized first!

Someone should really put an age/maturity restriction on posters in this forum.


Good for you. I'll pat your head. I'm proud of you. We're all proud of you. Now sssshhh. The grownups are talking. Go annoy the kids around the corner in General Chat.

[Spliffdaddy]

When yer mom gets here I reckon there'll finally be a grownup.

PS, it's "The Lounge", not "General Chat"...lose the AOL.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by PookJP:
Someone should really put an age/maturity restriction on posters in this forum.


Good for you. I'll pat your head. I'm proud of you. We're all proud of you. Now sssshhh. The grownups are talking. Go annoy the kids around the corner in General Chat.

That would only insure that this was an all GOP forum then. Bring it on!

[slow moe]

- Clark's creative memory


http://nationalreview.com/document/w...0403241145.asp

...

WOLFOWITZ: By September, we said the goal is to eliminate Afghanistan as a sanctuary for Al Qaida, much more ambitious thing.

With respect to Mr. Clark and let me say, I haven't read the book yet. I was called by a reporter on the weekend with a quote from the book attributed to me. I tried to get the book. It wasn't available in book stores. It was only available to selected reporters. And I got it yesterday, but I did not have time to read it in the last 24 hours. I'll get to it at some point.

But with respect to the quote that the reporter presented as having been put in my mouth, which was an objection to Mr. Clark suggesting that ignoring the rhetoric of Al Qaida would be like ignoring Hitler's rhetoric in "Mein Kampf," I can't recall ever saying anything remotely like that. I don't believe I could have.

In fact, I frequently have said something more nearly the opposite of what Clark attributes to me. I've often used that precise analogy of Hitler and "Mein Kampf" as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein.

So I am generally critical of the tendency to dismiss threats as simply rhetoric. And I know that the quote Clark attributed to me does not represent my views then or now. And that meeting was a long meeting about seven different subjects, all of them basically related to Al Qaida and Afghanistan.

By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark's creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, "When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month," unquote.

WOLFOWITZ: In fact, the attempted assassination of President Bush happened two months later.

It just seems to be another instance where Mr. Clarke's memory is playing tricks...

ROEMER: You're doing pretty well for not having read the book, Paul.

(LAUGHTER)

WOLFOWITZ: I read the quote.

...

[Nicko]

nachos and beer anyone?

When does rice testify?

[gadster]

I am *so* looking forward to November.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
[url]quote:
Rice is not testifying before the 9/11 commission based on a White House principle that a presidential adviser who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate should not give public testimony.

...

From Condoleezza Rice:
"I would like to be very clear that this is not a matter of preference. I would like nothing better than to be able to go up and do this, but I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."

that's a mighty conveeeeeenient "principle". What is the legality of it?
It certainly has not prevented her from appearing on every talking head show imaginable to counter what Clarke says......so she IS allowed to discuss it publicly, just not under oath....riiiiiight?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
that's a mighty conveeeeeenient "principle". What is the legality of it?
It certainly has not prevented her from appearing on every talking head show imaginable to counter what Clarke says......so she IS allowed to discuss it publicly, just not under oath....riiiiiight?

I'm pretty sure there is no legal issues about her not testifying...the panel yesterday must have mentioned her atleast half a dozen times and how they wished she were there to answer their questions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
that's a mighty conveeeeeenient "principle". What is the legality of it?

Separation of powers and executive privilege, which has been asserted by every president since George Washington. She's a presidential advisor and the president is equal, not subordinate to Congress. She's not the head of a cabinet department that Congress has oversight over, she is a Presidential Special Advisor. Basically, it means that they can't demand her presence as her position is exclusively part of the president's office. Deposing her would be like deposing the President, which Congress cannot do (although they have tried from time to time).

Congress (again, since the beginning of the Republic) argues executive privilege very narrowly and usually some face saving compromise is hammered out whereby Congress and the President each show the other sufficient respect and deference. But this is a basic tussle that is inherent in the way the Founders constructed our government. It could even be argued that they did it that way deliberatly to make sure that no end of Pennsylvania Avenue gets too uppity. They have to negotiate with each other, they can't order.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Separation of powers and executive privilege, which has been asserted by every president since George Washington. She's a presidential advisor and the president is equal, not subordinate to Congress. She's not the head of a cabinet department that Congress has oversight over, she is a Presidential Special Advisor. Basically, it means that they can't demand her presence as her position is exclusively part of the president's office. Deposing her would be like deposing the President, which Congress cannot do (although they have tried from time to time).

Congress (again, since the beginning of the Republic) argues executive privilege very narrowly and usually some face saving compromise is hammered out whereby Congress and the President each show the other sufficient respect and deference. But this is a basic tussle that is inherent in the way the Founders constructed our government. It could even be argued that they did it that way deliberatly to make sure that no end of Pennsylvania gets too uppity.

I'll repeat the second part, which I think is more to the point:

It certainly has not prevented her from appearing on every talking head show imaginable to counter what Clarke says......so she IS allowed to discuss it publicly, just not under oath....riiiiiight?

If the goal of using the principle is to prevent her from public discussion of the issue, yet they have her speak publicly on the issue anyways, one can reasonably conclude they want her to shill for Bush but not have to swear what she says is true.

Now, why would that be?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Separation of powers and executive privilege, which has been asserted by every president since George Washington. She's a presidential advisor and the president is equal, not subordinate to Congress. She's not the head of a cabinet department that Congress has oversight over, she is a Presidential Special Advisor. Basically, it means that they can't demand her presence as her position is exclusively part of the president's office. Deposing her would be like deposing the President, which Congress cannot do (although they have tried from time to time).

Congress (again, since the beginning of the Republic) argues executive privilege very narrowly and usually some face saving compromise is hammered out whereby Congress and the President each show the other sufficient respect and deference. But this is a basic tussle that is inherent in the way the Founders constructed our government. It could even be argued that they did it that way deliberatly to make sure that no end of Pennsylvania Avenue gets too uppity. They have to negotiate with each other, they can't order.

True they can't demand her to show up, but what reason would she have for refusing?

What does she have to hide? One can only assume that she has something to hide.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nicko:
True they can't demand her to show up, but what reason would she have for refusing?

What does she have to hide? One can only assume that she has something to hide.

In fairness to her, she may have been ordered not to testify (and she even says something akin to that) by the administration.

So your valid question could be more appropriately phrased:

Originally posted by Nicko:
True they can't demand her to show up, but what reason would there be for refusing?

What does the administration have to hide? One can only assume that they have something to hide.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'll repeat the second part, which I think is more to the point:

It certainly has not prevented her from appearing on every talking head show imaginable to counter what Clarke says......so she IS allowed to discuss it publicly, just not under oath....riiiiiight?

If the goal of using the principle is to prevent her from public discussion of the issue, yet they have her speak publicly on the issue anyways, one can reasonably conclude they want her to shill for Bush but not have to swear what she says is true.

Now, why would that be?

There is certainly a political aspect to it. That shoudn't surprise any adult here. The whole thing is political. The White House perceives the 911 Commission to be a political dog and pony show run by their political opponents who are seeking to use this for their advantage in an election year. They aren't going to play by those rules. They are going to negotiate more favorable rules. Or, as they would probably see it, rules that are more neutral.

I expect that Rice will testify just like Powell did. But they will make sure that the Commission shows the proper respect owed a coequal branch of the government. That might mean, for example, that she would not testify under oath, and would reserve the president's right not to answer questions that the president (and any president, note) would regard as being privileged advice given the president by someone who is exclusively one of his advisors.

There is a constitutional aspect that goes beyond the politics of the moment. They will make sure that any assertion of the constitutional privilege of executive privilege -- which is the President's alone to make, but which a witness would have to make on his behalf -- will not be used to threaten Rice with personal criminal liability for contempt. They could do that if she was under oath. Presidential advisors cannot become political footballs between the branches of the government that way, because of the chilling effect it could have on the quality of presidential advice, and shift the balance of power between the Legislature and Executive in a way that no president would allow.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In fairness to her, she may have been ordered not to testify (and she even says something akin to that) by the administration.

So your valid question could be more appropriately phrased:

True enough.
Then again, she always has the option of resigning and then writing a whisle-blower-here-is-what-really-happened' book.