Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (556211)	3/26/2004 11:04:41 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

Message 19954434

To: Skywatcher who wrote (556211)	3/26/2004 10:04:35 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: If Rice truly believes that Clarke is unfairly tarring the administration, she should publicly testify before the 9/11 commission. (Rice has met in private with members of the commission, but she has stated that it would violate the Constitution's separation of powers for a presidential staff member to appear before it. Although the president certainly has a right to confidential advice that won't be aired publicly, a 2002 Congressional Research Service study says plenty of close presidential aides have testified in the past, including national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger in 1994 and 1997.) Rice wants to have it both ways, denouncing Clarke publicly — to the point of releasing a previously classified e-mail from him to undermine his credibility — but not submitting to any questioning under oath. >>> Yep... pretty lame 'attack dog' tactics. If the public has to choose between one's sworn testimony, and another's talk show comments and un-sworn 'testimony', then I'll bet we know who's they'll choose.