BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: TIA
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:17 PM

If DougR or Teribus ever admit that their hero Georgie may just possibly have made even the slightest misjudgement, I think I will keel over on the spot.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:44 PM

And our troops in Afghanistan still won't be allowed to chase the Taliban and AlQ into our friend Pakistan's territory by our friend Musharraf.

DougR, the problem is, you are only willing to be critical of your sworn enemy. We will never get at the truth unless we are willing to examine our friends' houses too. And look critically at our own assumptions.

I have no problem whatsoever condemning Clinton's response to the worst national security threats, as I have no problem condemning Bush's response to those same threats.

You just don't seem to be able to admit your man may well have done some things badly, that he may have been wrong in his assumptions.

Why the partisan reaction Doug? If the 9/11 commissioners be act in a unified way to get at the truth, why the hell can't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:33 PM

"I would also remind you that the first act did not take place in Iraq, it took place against the Taliban in Afghanstan."

That act consisted of sending a small number of special forces troops to Afghanistan to help the existing rebel forces rout the Taliban government. Those special forces were then moved to Iraq to capture Sadaam. While they were looking for Sadaam, the Taliban regained control of about half of Afghanistan. Now they're back in Afghanistan looking for Osama.

The special forces apparantly are well trained to successfully fight the battle with terrorism. So why do we have 130,000 American targets in Iraq who are not trained to fight terrorism?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:29 PM

That's just the point! There is compelling evidence that Bush and Co. were more worried about an old grudge than about effective opposition to the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: mg
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:22 PM

I just don't have time to read all the posts here due to a computer problem, but I wish/hope/pray that our desire for a safe world and effective opposition to the terrorists (see today's Drudge report about Londona and Philippines) is outweighed by our desire to see Bush humiliated/removed from office etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:15 PM

GUEST: if you have been a member of this forum for long, you will know that I have not been uncritical. I have been very critical of the Clinton administration for lobbing tennis balls at Al Quida instead of taking a more aggressive stance.

On the other hand, I will admit, had Clinton chosen to do so, he probably would have been as crucified for taking such aggresive action and probably would never have won the Congress over to approve it.

9/11 changed everything.

Bush could take the aggresive action he took because of it. I would also remind you that the first act did not take place in Iraq, it took place against the Taliban in Afghanstan. Somehow this fact becomes lost in all the rhetoric about the Iraq invasion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:06 PM

"Your attitude, which is as cemented in stone every bit as much as mine..."

That's very honest, Doug - but is it really a good thing in either case?

There's a time for "no surrender" but there's also a time when it is necessary to be ready to withdraw. That applies just as much in arguments as it does in physical conflicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:00 PM

DugR, when there is conflicting testimony, the first thing I look at is what is the person's likely motives for saying what they are saying.

Clarke has nothing to fear. He can't get fired, because he isn't in the administration anymore. He apparently doesn't fear prosecution for perjuring himself, so presumably he either has the goods, or knows where the goods are at the very least, that would exonerate him of any such charge.

Now, what would Rice's motives be? To protect the president and his administration, including covering her own ass, so there are no more investigations into adminstration actions.

Let us not forget Doug, in the Watergate era, Nixon administration officials lied, engaged in a cover-up, and conspiracy to cover-up, lied again and again to Congress and the American people, and finally, did jail time. Quite a few of them, in fact.

These are serious charges we deserve to the answers to, yet you and some others here, are pretty damn glib about all this. You are prepared to dismiss anything former administration officials have said that is critical of the president and the current administration.

Why would you be so uncritical and unconcerned about these charges, given the history of such deceptions, conspiracies, and cover-ups being exposed in our recent history?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:43 PM

I disagree that because we live in "a house divided" as someone up the line claimed, that we can't get at the truth.

What we have seen in the past year, since the US invasion of Iraq, is the truth that was hidden from plain view, is now coming into plain sight. The facts, slowly but surely, have come out about how this administration pulled out all the stops to get the Congress to pay for an invasion of Iraq, when Iraq was the last place we needed to focus our attention, on a long list of neglected priorites.

But where I disagree with Clarke, is that the first priority should have been AlQ. The first priority should have been the nuclear blackmarket run out of Pakistan by our good friend and ally, on behalf of all our sworn enemies.

The second priority should have been Afghanistan.

The third priority, cutting off the head of AlQ's racketeering.

Killing Bin Laden, based upon what we all know now after all the testimony, revelations, and damn lies being exposed in the past year, should have been a bit lower on the list than what Clarke has said it should be. Nukes trump everything.

WMDs are the biggest threat to the national security of the US and to the world. But nobody, not the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration, gives a rats ass about them, because it is the monster we created, and it is a monster that makes a lot of very rich and powwerful men even richer and more powerful.

But nobody talks about that. Nobody batted an eye when the Bush administration unilaterally abrogated our nuclear treaties as soon as he got in office. How come that fact was never brought in the context of the need to find Saddam's WMDs, hmmmmm?

We all know now, we shouldn't have stopped with the invasion of Afghanistan, we should have gone into Pakistan too. Iraq was so far down on the list of threats it boggles the mind to think the mainstream media, the punditocracy, the policy wonks, everybody bought into the Iraq lie. It has to be the biggest of Big Lies that has come down the pipeline in awhile.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

"...Her horrible deeds she did not deny
For to do so she would have had to lie
And lying she knew was a sin, a sin
And lying she knew was a sin"

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:11 PM

so defending yourself is smearing the oppostition.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Barry Finn
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:08 PM

A very interesting article. Larry served with the CIA from 1985 through 1989 and worked in the State Department's office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 through 1993.


I also thought I heard on NPR that another official, maybe 3rd under Clarke came forward to back some of Clarke's claims.


The War on Clarke


By Larry C. Johnson, TomPaine.com

March 30, 2004


Richard Clarke must be wondering if explaining what the United States did not do in the war on terrorism is more dangerous than actually fighting the terrorists. Clarke, the former terrorism czar for both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is now being vilified by a host of Bush officials, including Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, as a liar.



The attack on Clarke, which consists of leaks, threats and intimidation tactics, has become the genuine hallmark of the Bush presidency. Previous victims of the Bush smear machine include:


Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who challenged the fantasy spun by Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and correctly insisted that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to pacify Iraq.


Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had provided the Bush administration with a report that Niger had not supplied Iraq with uranium yellowcake essential for building a nuclear device. Not only were his character and competence called into question, but his family's security was jeopardized by a White House leak that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative.


Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, who reported on the Bush administration obsession with Iraq and talk early on of removing Saddam Hussein. These smear campaigns were mild compared to the vicious assault now underway against Richard Clarke. What is the truth about Richard Clarke?


I was neither a personal friend nor fan of Richard Clarke when I was in government. Richard Clarke, in my experience, was arrogant and intense. He probably still is. (People who know me would suggest that I am the pot calling the kettle black.) However, Richard Clarke also is a competent professional who has served faithfully with Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1970s.


My first contact with Mr. Clarke came during January of 1991 in the operations center at State Department. Clarke, who was the assistant secretary of state for political military affairs, had been denied space in the task force area, and my boss, State Counterterrorism Chief Morris Busby, interceded for Clarke and carved out space for his PM unit. Our two groups shared space in the back rooms of the task force area.


In 1992, Clarke was exiled to the National Security Council over a flap involving Israel. I was told at the time that this move was intended to get rid of him. Those who hoped that banishing Clarke to the National Security Council would lead to his dismissal from government did not understand what a formidable professional he was.


I left government service in 1993 but continued to monitor Clarke's counterterrorism activities through friends and former colleagues in the various policy and intelligence bureaucracies. Some close friends complained (and still do) that Richard was too alarmist and too pushy on some issues. While some can quibble about his personality, there should be no dispute that Richard Clarke was an aggressive advocate for a tough response to terrorism.


Unfortunately, politicians in both parties chose to ignore him on key issues. President Clinton, for example, sat on the Presidential Decision Directive 39, which laid out his administration's plan for fighting terrorism, for 28 months after taking office in January of 1993. Clinton finally signed the document after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. Clarke pushed to get it done sooner but ran up against political apathy in the early days of the Clinton administration.



Clarke was just as pushy with the Bush administration. In the first months of the Bush presidency a terrorism issue unrelated to Al Qaeda, which first surfaced during the Clinton administration, came to the front burner. Four U.S. oil workers were being held by individuals tied to Colombian terrorists in the jungles of Ecuador. The U.S. Embassy requested the deployment of U.S. counterterrorism forces (civilian and military) to Ecuador to help find and rescue the workers.


Clarke chaired a meeting of the Counter Terrorism Support Group (CSG) at the Old Executive Office Building to consider the matter. He wanted to grant the request and was backed by the Department of State, the CIA and the FBI. The Department of Defense, however, balked. At the end of the day, the Bush administration, against Clarke's recommendation, chose to treat terrorism in Ecuador as criminal matter rather than a military issue. U.S. military forces stayed at home.



Clarke has told the uncomfortable truth in his book, and now finds himself the target of the full fury of angry Bush partisans, who insist that fighting terrorism was Bush's highest priority. The evidence shows otherwise.


For starters, Clarke presented a memo to Condi Rice outlining the URGENT (this tag is on the document) threat presented by Al Qaeda in January 2001. While Dr. Rice insists she made terrorism a top priority, one of her first decisions in the early days of 2001 was to downgrade Clarke's position as the National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. How is that making terrorism an elevated priority? It is not. Clarke also requested in January 2001 that President Bush convene a meeting of principal Bush officials (e.g., the secretary of state, secretary of defense and the attorney general) but this meeting was postponed by Dr. Rice until Sept. 4, 2001. That seven-month gap represents time that, in retrospect, could have been used to prevent the 9/11 attacks.



The Clarke bashers also insist that that no more could have been done before 9/11 than what was done during the first eight months of the Bush presidency. Oh? If that was the case, then why did Bush direct the airlines to lock cockpit doors after 9/11? Why did the Bush administration decide to arm pilots, put more air marshals on planes and federalize the security force doing screening at airports? Why did the Bush administration order attacks on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan if, in the words of the Bush spinners, "we did all that we could do prior to 9/11"? Why did Bush officials establish emergency financial task forces comprised of intelligence and law enforcement officials to hunt down the trails of terrorist financing if all had been done prior to 9/11?


The uncomfortable facts show that Richard Clarke proposed many of these measures in the early days of the Bush presidency. Action was taken only in the aftermath of 9/11.


Here is the bottom line – Richard Clarke was right, and the Bush administration and the people of the United States would have been better off if his warnings in the early days of 2001 had been heeded.


Rather than attack Richard Clarke's character, Republican operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this week's ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. As one American, I say: Thank you, Richard Clarke.



Larry C. Johnson is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He served with the CIA from 1985 through 1989 and worked in the State Department's office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 through 1993. He also is a registered Republican who contributed financially to the Bush Campaign in 2000.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: SueB
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:51 PM

"The pile of evidence that now exists that members of this administration have routinely intentionally mislead the Congress and the American people is insurmountable."

I don't disagree with this statement.

To say the administration lacks credibility seems to me to be belaboring the obvious.

I also believe Rice has deliberately and knowingly lied to the public. How she has managed to rationalize this to herself, I have no idea.

This doesn't mean I feel I can predict what will happen when Rice sits in the hotseat before the Congressional Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:47 PM

so it's come to this. There is nothing that either side can do or say to change the mind of the other. Mick has his (very good) mind closed before Rice testifies.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I don't give "us" long. Too bad. It was a cool run while it lasted.

Oh, I remember that same freaked-out feeling of Clinton's invincibility (teflon-coating) no matter what he did. But, just as you will all change your minds about presidential power when Bush loses in November -- and you remember back to thes wierd. kookburger, over-involved conspiracy schemes -- you'll see that there are things bigger than any single administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

Anyone who claims that it's obvious that the Bush administration (or the Rove/Hughes machine) planned all along to have Dr. Rice testify under oath should have predicted this beforehand. Did any of you offer up that prediction before today?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

One interesting aspect of the O'Neill and now the Clarke accusations is that the White House, rather than attempting to rebut the accusations with facts, have attempted to discredit the accusers.

Another interesting aspect is that to get Rice to testify under oath and in public, the White House struck a deal with the 9/11 commission: we'll give you Rice in exchange for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle not having to testify.

And people are still asking why the White House required 29 pages of the original report on 9/11 classified as Top Secret and not released.

If it looks like a duck....

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

Id tend in the direction of bungling megalomaniacs kept afloat by big money than evil genii - (I enjoyed that exchange btw SUe & guest)
either way though - if its a question of credibility? Id say the WhiteHOuse.

the facts
lets face it: the pretense for going to war was WMDs and the immediate threat to the west. when the wmds failed to appear (and as David Kay said they are not likely to appear) the focus became Iraqi freedom and democracy - but then the US is handing over power before free elections can be held - so forget democracy. Now they are saying
it doesnt matter about WMDs because Saddam was a bastard and the world is better off without him.

at the same time a CIA agent that infiltrated and exposed the nuclear black market operated by AQ Khan the pakistani father of the bomb - and the worlds most dangerous nuclear proliferator
sharing nuclear secrets with Libya, Iran and North Korea (hey isnt that the axis of evil - and pakistan our key ally against it?)

(who was immediately pardoned by Musharraf an unelected dictator). Even though Teribus tried to refute it - I didnt hear any complaints from the white house - and even minimal coverage in the press-

- wasnt the original focus of the war on terrorism - nuclear proliferation and the axis of evil - and are we safer after 9/11
with 2/3 of Alqaeda eliminated - well in the 30 months after 9/11
the attacks around the world increased and up to 1950 people have been killed. Compare that with the 30 months before 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM

SueB,

I meant the theory behind allowing Rice to testify; hence, the administration's. Surely they didn't think, even if it is "the truth," that her testimony matters BECAUSE it is "the truth." If that were the case they would not have resisted her testifying in the first place. Her testimony matters because of the image it presents of the administration.

Part of the set-up was to have Rice go on about how important a principle it is that the NS advisor NOT testify before Congress. Now it looks like the administration is bending over backwards to help out. It matters not what she says, or whether it is true: none of us will be able to verify it. What matters is the impact on that small group of voters who may be swayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:20 PM

If Clark is any field, I assure it isn't the left one. Not by a long shot. The guy is as conservative and gung ho military as they come.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: kendall
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:08 PM

Even if Clark is out in left field, what about Paul O'Neill and the Chairman of the joint chiefs? Are they all wrong too?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:57 PM

Well, my mind is made up, and I see no reason to give any creedence to her testimony. I felt the same way when Powell testified to the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq. This administration isn't credible to me. The pile of evidence that now exists that members of this administration have routinely intentionally mislead the Congress and the American people is insurmountable.

You are, of course, entitled to make up your mind in your own time and come to any conclusion that seems reasonable to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:54 PM

FYI.

Many people lie under oath. Not many of them get caught. But of the ones who do, there are legal repurcussions of lying under oath. Lying to Congress while under oath is a big deal legally, and can get you jail time. Which is why Republican Senate Majority Leader Frist's first response to Clarke's testimony was to accuse him of perjuring himself. That charge will never stick legally, of course. But that wasn't why he made the charge. He made the charge in the hope it would stick to Clarke in the public's eye. It played very well on Faux News and in the Washington Times, I hear.

In the courtroom where I just served jury duty, no one was sworn in using a Xtian bible, nor were they required to take the oath by saying "so help me God".

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: SueB
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM

I would rather see Ms. Rice's testimony, guest, before drawing any conclusions about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:45 PM

"Please let me know where I can sign up for your course in "Discerning Evil Genius."

Touche. Now that is a great comeback.

So SueB, am I correct in assuming then, that you believe Ms Rice to be a credible witness? One who can be taken at her word?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: SueB
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:44 PM

Whose, theory, Nerd?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Deckman
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

Sometime, somewhere, I would love to read a serious LEGAL discussion of just what "under oath," really means. Under who's oath? Under what oath? Which bible? Why the right hand? Does "under oath" mean that I cannot lie? Can a non-believer even take the oath? HMMMM? Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Nerd
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:36 PM

And DougR WILL believe Rice and will not believe Clarke, no matter what Rice says. Let's face it, there will precious little "evidence" that any of us will be privy to, anyway; it will all be "he said, she said" by the time this is over, so can you blame any of us, including DougR, for going with our political instincts?

There is only a small number of people out there whose minds can be changed by ANY testimony before the commission. This is why it WAS important for Bush and Co. to put her out there. By letting Clarke testify without a rebuttal, the administration risked losing those people in the next election. By letting Rice get the last word (for surely she will trump the previously obscure Clarke in the media), they insure the Lion's share of those voters. At least that's the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: SueB
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:27 PM

Any one who doesn't think exactly what you think is a gullible consumer of mainstream news? Hmm.

I'm glad some one, especially such a brilliant someone as you, guest, is privy to the Rove/Hughes strategy. And here I thought
young Bush and his cronies were just a transparent bunch of bungling megalomaniacs, kept barely afloat by the power of Big Money with the tacit permission of a public which is one part poorly educated, one part apathetic and one part knee-jerk reactionaries nostalgic for a "simpler, better" time when America was Number One!

(I'm leaving out parts, of course. This would be a good place for a Venn diagram.)


Thank goodness you have come along to show me, anonymously, the error of my ways. It turns out they're not a bunch of bungling megalomaniacs at all, they're actually devilishly smart! Smarter than any one else, except, of course, anonymous you! Who sees through it all, because you're so smart! Please let me know where I can sign up for your course in "Discerning Evil Genius." And please, don't hide your light under a bushel basket, but reveal your true identity, so we may all bask in the glow of your brilliance.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

GUEST: it pains me to reply to a "Guest" but I must.

Your post, in which you express your personal views, is well written but, in my opinion, off base.

You have no evidence that Powell, Rumsfield, or anyone else from the current administration lied to the commission. You just want to BELIEVE that they did!

Your attitude, which is as cemented in stone every bit as much as mine ...though we are diametrically opposed in point of view, is the very reason I think it is unimportant whether or not Condi Rice testifies before the committee under oath.

She is not going to say anything that she has not told the commission before, EXCEPT, she, more than perhaps anyone else, is in a position to refute the charges Clarke made against the Bush administration and she may do so. So those of you who are Bush haters may regret that she is testifying. She may burst your bubble! She may prove Clarke wrong.

But ...you will not believe her.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

Doug, anyone who has witnessed the Bush administration's full court press in the media in the last week already knows what Rice will testify to, and what she won't testify.

You think the oath means anything to people like them? The only reason why the oath part is meaningful to them is because of it's legal ramifications--they can get nailed with more criminal charges for what they say under oath. Which is why what we will get is nitpicking as a stonewalling tactic. Even when asked pointedly direct questions, these pros don't answer, they hedge, respond vaguely that they stand by what they said previously, they disagree with the interpretations of their critics, blah blah blah.

But they NEVER address the charges directly. Never.

We won't learn a thing from Rice's testimony, just as we didn't learn a thing from Powell's testimony or Rumsfeld's. None of them will ever admit the intentionally lied to deceive the American public and Congress, even though it is now the conventional wisdom that is exactly what the Bush White House does as standard operating procedure.

Even the majority of people in other countries believe that. Even half of the American voters believe it in this instance.

Only the blind ideologues like yourself can't see it Doug. But the rest of us have sat here watching the Bush deception unravel. All we are left to wonder now is, will the unraveling make any difference, or is their grip on power too great for our democracy to be saved?

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

Mick: even if Condi Rice's testimony refutes Clarke's testimony? So you are siding with Clarke even before she testifies under oath. Interesting.

Anyone interested can find the letter the White House sent to the Chair and Co-Chair of the Commission on the Drudge Report. It's also reproduced under the Associate Press News.

I don't know how widely it has been printed in other newspapers, but one of our state's senators (the effective one, Jon Kyl)wrote an op-ed piece for the Scottsdale Tribune that is most interesting. He chairs the Senate Sub-Committee on Intelligence, and Clarke appeared before his committee many times during the eight years Clarke served President Clinton and President Bush. I would urge you to seek it out and read it. Sorry I can't supply a blue clicky.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM

And of course, we all know that she'll only tell the truth and even if she does shade the truth, she'll never be punished for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM

The Bush administration had vetted Clarke's book for several months prior to it's publication.

Anyone who thinks the White House refusal to allow Rice to testify, followed up by the conservative outcry to let her testify, and the neatly wrapped gift of Rice's public testimony under oath laid on the doorstep of the 9/11 commission today, wasn't the Rove/Hughes strategy all along needs to stop consuming mainstream news so gullibly and readily.

This group is far and away the best group of devious and deceptive spinmeisters I've ever seen. What makes them such a tremendous threat to our democracy, as John Dean of Watergate fame pointed out in his book, is that their sole raison d'etre is to keep themselves and the boss in power by intentionally deceiving the public.

I can't believe how good they are at this.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:34 PM

even on macneil lehrer newshour all the journalists (including the republican ones) agreed she should testify - it is hard after all to appear on every talk show and than claim executive privilege not to testify. (of the 247 misleading statements about Iraq made by the bush govt, 10 were totally false and 4 of those were by Rice)

they also agreed to let her testify on the provision that there be no further public testimony from Rice or any other White House officials.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM

GUEST, sit down cause I don't want you to swoon, but I completely agree with you on this one. This is not bowing to pressure, this was the tactic from the git go. It is now up to progressives to not let the Bush-Cheney folks create enough premise shifting smoke to lose the substance of Clarke's charges.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:02 PM

Oh SueB, were it about what really happened leading up to 9/11. It is so not about that. It is all about the Committee to Re-elect the President politicking.

Do you really believe this wasn't the strategy all along? Now she will nitpick each and every little thing Richard Clarke said in his book and in his testimony, until it looks like a big pile of doubt.

That is what Powell did when he went to the UN to argue the "compelling case" in the lead up to the Iraq war. The Bush/Cheney team are masters at this. I've never seen anyone do evil with greater finesse than this group.

By the time Rice is done testifying, the Clarke case against the Bush White House will be made to disappear from the media (due to back channel pressure and interference from the White House), and the public opinion polls will show (as they already do) that the character assassination of Clarke was wildly successful. The American public not only will not believe Clarke, they will believe he had a personal ax needing grinding with the White House. He will be portrayed as an enemy of Bush state, and therefore, an enemy of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: SueB
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:33 AM

Interesting conclusion, guest. One could also conclude that Bush/Cheney had LOST in the public opinion polls, and have
had to cave in under pressure.

Shall we wait and see Rice's testimony before we come to any more conclusions?

Subject: BS: Rice to testify publicly, under oath
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:28 AM

Looks like Bush/Cheney campaign is going to win this one in the public opinion wars.

From GoogleNews:

White House allows Rice to testify in public