03-29-2004, 18:28
|
#1
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
Executive Privilege and the NS Advisor
Should Doctor Rice be forced to testify under oath before the 9/11 comission?
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:34
|
#2
|
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 1,012
|
With live coverage by CNN, FOX, etc., being broadcast around the world, or in private?
|
|
lrd is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:37
|
#3
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
My understanding is they want it in public.
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:37
|
#4
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 368
|
They can classify it, but she should be forced to testify. She's the National Security Advisor. If nobody testifies, she should.
|
|
Sigi is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:40
|
#5
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LA
Posts: 1,653
|
Why Sigi?
__________________
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimal food or water, in austere conditions, training day and night. The only thing clean on him is his weapon and he made his web gear. He doesn't worry about what workout to do - his ruck weighs what it weighs, his runs end when the enemy stops chasing him. This True Believer is not concerned about 'how hard it is;' he knows either he wins or dies. He doesn't go home at 17:00, he is home.
He knows only The Cause.
Still want to quit?
|
|
NousDefionsDoc is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:45
|
#6
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,822
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sigi
They can classify it, but she should be forced to testify. She's the National Security Advisor. If nobody testifies, she should.
|
Umm, Sigi, she has already delivered 4.5 hours of private testimony to the commission.
The NSA has NEVER been required to testify publicly about anything like this. Do you really want her having to answer questions about who had what intel, and what was its source? Do you think she MIGHT receive classified information in order to do her job? Do you really think the public has a need to know that classified info? Hello??? Public testimony is no longer classified.
If she sets the precedent, I don't expect to hear any snivelling during the next Demo administration when they get called to testify about intel publicly.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:45
|
#7
|
|
JAWBREAKER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gulf coast
Posts: 1,906
|
She has already been questioned for four+ hours by the panel. She volunteered then to come back at the committee's discretion. She has since offered to come back again if requested...
IMO, She should not be called in public. Sets a bad precedent and is not needed...
|
|
Sacamuelas is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:45
|
#8
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 368
|
She is the most important advisor the President has pertaining to Natl Security. She may take reports from subordinates, but she recommends what policy should be.
Not that I want to see her take all the heat, I feel that as the NS advisor she should answer as to what she took over from the last administration, what she recommened to President Bush, and where the failures were.
She is good people, and I like her.
I think they should classify it because there are some things I don't want people knowing. I am not sure what she knows or could say, so the prudent thing to do is classify it.
|
|
Sigi is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:48
|
#9
|
|
JAWBREAKER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Gulf coast
Posts: 1,906
|
SIGI-
I think you are confused. You say she should testify "classified" . She already did. It was behind closed doors. I assume you did not know this.
If you did, then please explain how you can testify publicly and discuss classified information at the same time without violating your responsibility with safeguarding the info and its means of collection???
|
|
Sacamuelas is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:48
|
#10
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,822
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sigi
She is the most important advisor the President has pertaining to Natl Security. She may take reports from subordinates, but she recommends what policy should be.
Not that I want to see her take all the heat, I feel that as the NS advisor she should answer as to what she took over from the last administration, what she recommened to President Bush, and where the failures were.
She is good people, and I like her.
I think they should classify it because there are some things I don't want people knowing. I am not sure what she knows or could say, so the prudent thing to do is classify it.
|
YOU CANNOT CLASSIFY PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
THE TESTIMONY YOU DESCRIBE WILL BURN SOURCES AND METHODS.
SHE ALREADY ANSWERED THEIR QUESTIONS PRIVATELY.
THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION TO PUBLICLY GRANDSTAND, AND KICK AN ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL AROUND.
TR
I like the way you are thinking, Doc.
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|
|
The Reaper is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:51
|
#11
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 368
|
Yes on making her testify, as many times as they would like her to.
No, on the public hearing.
My bad, I thought "classify" meant in private.
The 9/11 commission should not allow, let alone force, the NSA to testify in public.
My .02
I think I missed the spirit of the question.
|
|
Sigi is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:54
|
#12
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
|
Sigi:
She has already testified as to all the above.
It is just typical grandstanding. They, the Democrat leadership, are just trying to make it look as though this Administration has something to hide by not allowing her to testify in public. She has answered their questions once. They just want her to answer to allegations made by DICK Clarke.
As TR stated, the NSA has never had to testify under oath to Congress and doing so now would set a presedent. The information Dr Rice is privy to does not need to be broadcast to the public, not does it need to be under oath.
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman
"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
|
|
Surgicalcric is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:54
|
#13
|
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
|
Double Tap. Sorry
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."
"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman
"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
|
|
Surgicalcric is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 18:58
|
#14
|
|
Guerrilla
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 372
|
No
As The Reaper stated this is just political grandstanding.
Nothing will be gained by having her testify in public
__________________
“Its never too late to be what you might have been”.
|
|
DunbarFC is offline
|
|
|
03-29-2004, 19:00
|
#15
|
|
BANNED USER
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 368
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
They, the Democrat leadership, are just trying to make it look as though this Administration has something to hide by not allowing her to testify in public. She has answered their questions once. They just want her to answer to allegations made by DICK Clarke.
|
Nothing is off limits to the democratic party. I missed the mark on the question. Dr Rice should testify to the commission in Private, and her remarks and the questions she is asked should not be made public.
I was under the impression that NDD was speaking about a second behind closed doors questioning. I'll sit back and learn the rest of the way.
|
|
Sigi is offline
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
