If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   An ad proving Bush's claim of "executive privilege" was nonsense is what forced Condi Rice to testify   (cnn.com) divider line 217
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

26954 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2004 at 2:03 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



217 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-04-05 09:12:31 AM
So...

Mission Acomplished?
-or-
Bring it on?
 
2004-04-05 09:19:13 AM
"I don't think the White House would change their mind based on one fax."

I'm not so sure. This administration has a rich and colorful history of changing its mind. One fax would probably do the trick.
 
2004-04-05 09:25:07 AM
how does opinion so often get quoted as fact? no where in the article does it actually show that is what happened, in fact there are other reasons listed as well, why aren't they the focus? by quoting articles like this you are a tool of the media (and that is not a liberal or conservative dig)
 
2004-04-05 09:32:05 AM
The point is farfromhome, that Bush likes to use "Executive Privelege" to worm his way out of anything that makes him uncomfortable. In this case, he tried to say that there was no precedent for a member of his senior staff to testify before the commision.

They showed that there was.

I'm sure there probably were other compelling reasons for him to capitulate, but as the article says, this was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

3Horn
 
2004-04-05 09:34:09 AM
Let's roll!
 
2004-04-05 09:34:21 AM
So since when are facts required to be the basis for an article on CNN? With the magical words "may have" they can write whatever will suck in the most ad viewers, and do.
 
2004-04-05 09:38:51 AM
Actual facts are a news story. "May have" is an op-ed piece.
 
2004-04-05 09:39:20 AM
MrBlueSky, and in that article, they repeatedly reinforce the statement that the fax was not likely the only reason the White House changed their mind. They even close with the statement "I don't think the White House would change their mind based on one fax."

The juxtaposed timing of the fax / changed minds in the White House is newsworthy, and they remain honest throughout their publication of it that other factors almost certainly exist, and leave the final opinion of the matter to the reader's own discretion. How is that so wrong?

 
2004-04-05 09:39:28 AM
I dunno...The media always blows things out of proportion.
Seems to me like it happened like this.

9/11 Panel: We need Condi to testify in public.

Bush Admin: Since Condi wasn't approved by the senate, in keeping with tradition, we'd rather her not testify in public. You can have her for private sessions though.

9/11 Panel: OK...if that's all we can get.

(after Clark testimony)

9/11 Panel: Hey guys, we REALLY need Condi to testify now. We have conflicting testimony from Clark. Public testimony is a necessity.

Bush Admin: Well, Ok then. But let's consider this a "special case" and not set a precedent for the future.

9/11 Panel: Ok...we'll put it in writing then.

Bush Admin: Agreed.
 
2004-04-05 09:41:42 AM
God, I wish I just could selectively ignore facts like some of you (last post, for example)
 
2004-04-05 09:43:23 AM
3horn- In Bush's defense, "executive priv" has been invoked by every president in recent memory for the same 'I don't feel like doing it' reasons. Bush didn't invent the game, but he certainly plays it alot.
 
2004-04-05 09:45:55 AM
What's the point of having executive privelege if you can't use it?
 
2004-04-05 09:50:18 AM
EatHam to use a phrase the Bushies are so fond of 9/11 changed everything.
 
2004-04-05 09:52:52 AM
2004-04-05 09:39:28 AM Bonkthat_Again

It didn't happen that way.
 
2004-04-05 09:55:01 AM
Bonkthat_Again
Bush Admin: Well, Ok then. But let's consider this a "special case" and not set a precedent for the future.


Though don't have to worry about that, the precedent was set in 1945.

3Horn
 
2004-04-05 10:11:34 AM
My point is simple. The media is blowing this up. I don't hear the democrats screaming about this either.
 
2004-04-05 10:21:42 AM
Ninja_Pancakes

Mission Acomplished?
-or-
Bring it on?


Oh...I think Condi will bring it on...
 
2004-04-05 10:38:40 AM
It would set a dangerous precedent allowing congress to have oversite over executive staffers eliminating seperation of powers. It is a legitimate concern for all presidents to come
 
2004-04-05 10:40:55 AM
I want to force Condi to testify... in my pants.
 
2004-04-05 11:01:31 AM
The gubment invokes 'executive priviledge' the way I use "I'm the Mom, that's why". Why? "Because".
 
2004-04-05 11:02:13 AM
privilege, even
 
2004-04-05 11:18:55 AM
Darkhorse- I always fark that word up too- that's why i just used "priv."...
 
2004-04-05 12:11:25 PM
I don't see why anyone would see this as a victory. All she's going to do is go there and tell them that she won't answer their questions due to her 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.
 
2004-04-05 12:29:12 PM
All she's going to do is go there and tell them that she won't answer their questions due to her 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

WTF?!
 
2004-04-05 02:07:36 PM
ReBurninator: All she's going to do is go there and tell them that she won't answer their questions due to her 5th amendment protections against self-incrimination.

Care to put some money on this well-informed, insightful prediction?
 
2004-04-05 02:08:47 PM
[The point is farfromhome, that Bush likes to use "Executive Privelege" to worm his way out of anything that makes him uncomfortable.]

As did Clinton and, unless i'm mistaken, Nixon as well. It's not an uncommon tactic.
 
2004-04-05 02:09:41 PM
Keep in mind that when Leahy testified in 1945, Roosevelt was already dead and the war had been over for four years. This doesn't exactly establish a precedent ...

/The left really sucks at blackmail
 
2004-04-05 02:10:13 PM
Chappelle Show in 5,4,3,2...
 
2004-04-05 02:11:11 PM
I've put off commenting on these pointless threads about Rice testifying. Allow me to say that, as a good blind follower, her testimony will resurrect 3000+ Americans and we'll all be happy again. She's definitely going to tell us everything we wanted to know and when she's done everyone will be satisfied and stop griping.
 
2004-04-05 02:11:33 PM
"Oh...I think Condi will bring it on..."

Someone need to post that pic of her in her hotpants from her yonger days.
 
2004-04-05 02:11:42 PM
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".....
"poppies, poppies, poppies.......
 
2004-04-05 02:13:21 PM
Let me take this to a different level.

Am I the only one who thinks Condi is hot?

I mean, in a School Marm sorta way.
 
2004-04-05 02:14:58 PM
"As did Clinton and, unless i'm mistaken, Nixon as well. It's not an uncommon tactic."

Comparing Bush with Clinton and Nixon... I'll go along with that. Any other criminally dishonest presidents you care to list?
 
2004-04-05 02:15:11 PM
Yeah right....

Condi's public testimony was a bargaining chip so Bush could bring puppet master Dick along with him when he does his private testimony.

Geez, even reagan testified at his Iran Contra hearings, and his memory was already shot by then. What's with bush's insistance on bringing cheney along to testify for/with him?
 
2004-04-05 02:15:57 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what the significance of this is.
 
2004-04-05 02:16:17 PM
Jeff A - I like your version of history. I wasn't aware that the war started the same year it ended. Thanks for the history lesson.

Leahy also worked for Truman - I'm pretty sure that Truman wasn't dead yet and was actually in office.
 
2004-04-05 02:16:27 PM
I think Condi's a damn cute name. Can we refer to the pres. as Bushy-wushy from now on? Or maybe use people's actual names and a spoonful of respect while talking about them? :)
 
2004-04-05 02:17:00 PM
JeffA -- Ah yes, WWII ended four years before November, 1945. Months, my boy, months.
 
2004-04-05 02:17:22 PM
I actually had to RTFA just to understand the headline, not in my opin well written.
 
2004-04-05 02:17:34 PM
rrtt22
It would set a dangerous precedent allowing congress to have oversite over executive staffers eliminating seperation of powers. It is a legitimate concern for all presidents to come

Oversight implies that penalties are involved for wrongdoing. This is an investigatory committee that will write a report of its findings, and nothing more.

And why is it so terrible if Congress and the people know what kind of advice the President is getting? Particularly if the President is using the "I would have stopped 9/11 if I had known" defense?
 
2004-04-05 02:17:44 PM
And the headline writer makes things up as he/she goes. Nothing new here.
 
2004-04-05 02:17:50 PM
Hey, why does Colin Powell cry during sex?
Mace!



Continue...
 
2004-04-05 02:17:59 PM
When Truman's chief of staff testified before Congress in 1945 the principle of executive privilege didn't even exist. The precedent for it was established during the Eisenhower administration. Richard Clarke himself refused to testify before Congress in the late 90s citing executive privilege as the reason.
 
2004-04-05 02:18:19 PM
What's with bush's insistance on bringing cheney along to testify for/with him?

Fear, the same rot that runs through this whole administration. The truth shall not set them free.
 
2004-04-05 02:18:51 PM
<i>And why is it so terrible if Congress and the people know what kind of advice the President is getting? Particularly if the President is using the "I would have stopped 9/11 if I had known" defense?</i>

you mean like Clinton knew?


/man, what is up with the farking HTML?
 
2004-04-05 02:20:29 PM
"It is a legitimate concern for all presidents to come"

Yeah. Totally. It would almost be impossible to hide future screw ups if White House staffers were answerable to the American people. Can't have that can we.
 
2004-04-05 02:21:05 PM
They are not testifying before Congress. It's an important distinction that seems to be lost in this argument.
 
2004-04-05 02:21:56 PM
I thought executive privilege involved interns.
 
2004-04-05 02:22:11 PM
so this story has to be true ...this is the same CNN that blatantly lied about the David Letterman video last week ...that didn't make a mistake or misread or misinterpreted an item ...THEY FLAT OUT BLATANTLY LIED and they were called on it. But now I can believe what they say ....yea right.
 
2004-04-05 02:22:55 PM
i like the original post; it's all because of a historian who piped up saying "see, this is why they pay historians."

was on myway.com, can't find the link now.
 
Displayed 50 of 217 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report