Puffed Rice...

Gonz said:
If she testifies under oath as the sitting NSA, it sets a new precedent. That means that furture cabinet members wil act out of thier own best interest, concerned with having to testify. With precedent set, they won't be able to claim executive privilege.

Oh, btw, stop defending Clarke. I can gather enough evidence in 5 minutes to show him as a pompus lying windbag beauracrat who has committed perjury. He's been shown praising Bush & defiling Clinton. He's already shown his only motivation is to sell his book & nothing more.


Where do you get this BS? Executive privilege would apply if she was choosing to stay SILENT. Not if she wants to be heard but not under oath. Thats another smokescreen and you know it.

As far as Clarke goes, I never said i didn't like him. I said i wasn't a fan of his. i.e. I'm not dying to go buy his book or get his autograph. Apparently, Everyone in Washington except for this administration has enormous respect for the man. So i tend to believe your access to immediate "proof' that he is an ass is from your close relationship with Limbaugh...:rolleyes:
 
freako said:
I only like his "aplogies" to the victims of 9/11

Why? Did he attack the US? Did he give the 747 keys to the highjackers? He has nothing to apologize for. If he did we had better go dig up President Roosevelt. He needs to apologize also.

Squiggy-just because you're losing the debates is no reason to get huffy.
 
I'm not losing anything, Gonz...Its her defenders who are throwing the lies out there hoping something sticks.
 
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the congressionally appointed 9/11 panel!

The congressional record; Senator Bennett:

Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which I'm sure will cause some consternation and disappointment.

We were scheduled -- at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.

He apologized to me for their failure to tell us that in a way that would have prevented our putting out the press notice in advance. I do not, in any sense, attribute any improper motives to Mr. Clarke. We had understood that the briefing could be held as long as there was no record made of it so that it would not be part of the formal hearing. And we were prepared to receive his briefing with the court recorder being instructed not to make any record of it and that that would comply with the rule.

As I say, last evening I received a call at home after the Senate had adjourned telling me that that arrangement would not be acceptable to the legal staff at the National Security Council and that Mr. Clarke, therefore, would not be here.

He said in our phone conversation just a minute or two ago that he would be happy to come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing. I suppose we could have cleared the room here this morning and allowed him to give that briefing to the committee, but I felt given the fact that so many people had gathered it would be an inconvenience for them if we were to do that.

So we will schedule a briefing with Mr. Clarke at some future time. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing.

We are disappointed. His conversation with me minutes ago make it clear that he is disappointed. I know he wanted to be here, but that is what has taken place in the last 10 to 12 hours.

So with that word of explanation and, as I say, disappointment to many of you, I will now officially call the committee to order.

The committee will come to order.

END
 
Gonz said:
Why? Did he attack the US? Did he give the 747 keys to the highjackers? He has nothing to apologize for. If he did we had better go dig up President Roosevelt. He needs to apologize also.

Squiggy-just because you're losing the debates is no reason to get huffy.



No but letting it happen. Having the information he had and not doing anything I think. Thats what i have been getting out of it
 
I notice you conveniently forgot to put the link to the source on that one, Gonz...have to wonder why....

First of all....its apples and oranges again. Or did you miss the part about him not being a confirmed member of the Whitehouse staff? TESTIMONY for the NSC is the duty of the NSA.... not the staffers...Furthermore, arrangements were made for his hearing to be held. THEY decided, as a matter of convenience, not to do it that day.
 
I am confused. I thought he still was a member? I know he was once. isnt he still? or wasnt he at the time of the trials?
 
Squiggy said:
I notice you conveniently forgot to put the link to the source on that one, Gonz...have to wonder why....

Drudge Report...I seldomly put the link on a full story :p
 
:lol2:

Denigrating an analogy by accusing it of comparing apples and oranges is, in and of itself, comparing apples and oranges--no??

"I'll go with the guy who has faith in what he's saying......Your willingness to condone the covert nature of this administration is the most subverting force that jeapordizes our rights...."

When the King of Covert--the original Slick Willie--didn't want his Dick to testify under oath, how is that different? Not saying anything means Clarke and Clinton had something to hide--right?? I mean when Clarke and Clinton refuse to answer it makes me "a little more than suspicious." Seems we could "never get answers from Clinton's administration--either they give no answer or lie." Where's the "faith in what he's saying"? Didn't we "deserve better from the Whitehouse?"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml

Former Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke refused to testify before the Senate Y2K Committee in 1999, citing the same rule invoked by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in recent days, with the Bush White House saying the regulation prevents her from testifying publicly before the 9/11 Commission.
The Congressional Record confirms Clarke's decision not to appear by invoking the same rule cited by Dr. Rice.
In Sen. Bennett's concluding remarks on the subject, he said that Clarke had offered to "come before the committee and give us whatever information we wanted in a closed briefing."
Dr. Rice has made the exact same offer to the 9/11 Commission, though it has done little to quell the media's outrage over her decision not to appear in public.
 
:rolleyes: Makes you wonder what they're trying to sneak by while everyone pays attention to this.
 
It's been verified by a reliable source (I know it's local to Unclehobart & HomaLAN so they don't get the evil eye)

I still don't like the precedent being set by the party that's out of power because the party in power is confused by the reversal.
 
Gonz said:
Please, be my guest, show me sworn testimony from a sitting NSA.


Not the point. Without researching it, I'm not sure there ever was a reason for an NSA to testify under oath before a Congressional Committee. (unless there were legal charges pending against someone) You have told us time and again how we should so willingly surrender our RIGHTS for this cause and yet you accept that those who ask us to surrender those rights are claiming 'PRIVILEGE'. I don't understand that at all...:shrug:
With regards to all of the references to Clarke not being allowed to testify, I'll point out the difference between fact finding hearings about past events and the request for information on an active and sensitive situation. The y2k information, if made public in 1999, could have been used by them 'evil-doers' to wreak havoc on the world.
Apparently, Dubya realizes that it was a blunder to push this one. You should too.
 
Gonz said:
It's been verified by a reliable source (I know it's local to Unclehobart & HomaLAN so they don't get the evil eye)

I still don't like the precedent being set by the party that's out of power because the party in power is confused by the reversal.


Who the hell is HomaLAN? :p
 
Back
Top