| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/3/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12910 Activity:kinda low |
3/29 What does Condi have to hide?
\_ yea, she's Black, she must be hiding something..
\_ What do YOU have to hide? Why do we have that pesky 4th amendment?
\_ What did Clarke have to hide?
http://www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm
possible news program talking about the same topic.
\_ I think the distinction here is that Clarke wasn't going on every
possible news program talking about the same topic. This is a
drudgereport flurry over absolutely nothing. Nobody is contesting
the claiming of separation of powers concerns. They haven't
subpoenaed her or any others. But members of the commission from
both sides of the aisle are urging her to come forward. The
distinction is not small. Now, if Clarke had criticized her and
the administration for doing this, that could be a legitimate
flash-in-the-pan topic, but this more of the same drudge drivel.
--scotsman
\_ She has offered to come forward in closed session. Only
grandstanding politicians are insisting on public testimony.
Specifically, Lee Hamilton said:
"But there's another whole dimension here, and that dimension is
the public dimension -- and I think the American public would
benefit from hearing Condi Rice testify under oath."
Isn't the panel trying to find out what happened? Why does
Hamilton think it needs to happen in public? Answer:
grandstanding politician.
\_ Except he is no longer a member of congress.
\_ she is National Security Advisor, i wouldn't want
her to divulge anything that might help the terrorist
alter their plans.
\_ but if it helps get Kerry elected..let the terrorist win
\_ I agree with you, but I don't see how this precludes her
testifying publicly. She's free to say, "I'm sorry, that
would violate National Security" if it comes up.
\_ no, that's exactly why it's a priviledge for NSAs
to not testify publically. |
| 5/24 |
|
| www.drudgereport.com/rc1.htm MORE 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. Senator Bennett: Before the committee comes to order, I have some information to share with you which Im 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. And the members of the committee will disclose that which we feel is appropriate to disclose based on his briefing. 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. |