View Full Version : Rice Takes to Airwaves in Counterattack on Clarke
pechuna
March 28th, 2004, 7:18am
For your Sunday television viewing:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040327/ts_nm/security_rice_dc_1
advantage2000
March 28th, 2004, 7:49am
For your Sunday television viewing:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040327/ts_nm/security_rice_dc_1
Very risky for her to show her face on 60 Minutes... this should be a veritable blood bath!
Regarding that puss she always seem to have on these days... I think she didn't listen to her mother when she said "if you keep making that face it will freeze like that!"
carogonza
March 28th, 2004, 8:23am
Yes she'll go on 60 minutes, not under oath, and talk bad about Clarke and probably not tell the whole truth. Why is it not acceptable for her to testify in front of the 9-11 commission and yet go all over the "liberal" media to spread her story. Give me a break!
superchickee
March 28th, 2004, 8:56am
She has gone and testified with the commission under oath. Just not publicly.\For Four Hours
Article:
"Although she met privately with the 9/11 commission and may do so again, the panel is eager for her to testify publicly under oath. She has declined, citing the separation of powers between the White House and Congress. "
LastLaugh
March 28th, 2004, 9:29am
Condoleeza Rice testified privately but not under oath. therefore none of her statements have any accountability attached. she could have lied through her teeth at the private interview without fear of any penalties. I think the Commission wants her under oath because they have doubts about what she said in private.
superchickee
March 28th, 2004, 1:39pm
Where is it stated that she was not under oath? Please let me know. Thanks. Also, whats the deal with testifying and not being under oath? What kind of crap is that? I can understand not doing it in public for security reasons, but not under oath? That's crazy. (It was in private) :shocked3:
LastLaugh
March 29th, 2004, 7:44pm
"In a Feb. 3 interview the newly minted commission member Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, now the president of the New School University, said that Ms. Rice’s interview will not be held under oath, and the results of the interview are not to be made public."
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/frontpage1.asp
Why not under oath and in public?
If she testified under oath she would have 4 options.
1. Lie and face the possibility of perjury.
2. Claim the Fifth amendment - meaning that she her testimony would implicate her in criminal activity.
3. Refuse to testify - she could face contempt of congress charges
4. Tell the truth - The consequences of this must be so awful that the Bush administration would rather face media flogging and the contempt of the American public then to allow the truth to be told.
And i do agree, her not testifying under oath is crazy. Unless her testimony would do substantial damage to the Bush administration.