Pressing for Rice to testify: Bush won't allow it

[jbfam4]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscomm293727266mar29,0,7911730,print.story?coll=ny-nationhomepage-headlines

Pressing for Rice to testify
Panel calls for national security adviser to appear at public meetings: She says she would if she could, but Bush aides say he won't allow it.



President George W. Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground, and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify. But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled the threat of terrorism.


Members of the Sept. 11 commission made clear they will not relent in their pursuit of public testimony from Rice, but said they were not inclined to subpoena her. The White House has declined to let her appear at the commission's televised hearings, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers; the panel was created by Congress.

"Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters. "But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that."


Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican, said Rice "has nothing to hide, and yet this is creating the impression for honest Americans all over the country and people all over the world that the White House has something to hide, that Condi Rice has something to hide."

[Homer12]

1. I wonder what they are trying to hide?

Repeat this to Bush backers and Republicans? It's a catch-22 situation.

[BOSSHOG]

2. "alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that?"

What would that be don, be expected to tell the truth? Something you and your kind are out the "practice of doing."

[Felix Mala]

3. Doctor Rice

Do we know what she's a doctor of? Usually, one doesn't use the title unless they've got an M.D. or have spent years in the lab... Having the credentials to teach an undergrad public affairs class on Tuesday nights doesn't necessarily make you a "doctor."

[HFishbine]

4. Ph.D's

Legitimately are adressed as "Doctor" too.

[Felix Mala]

6. What's up, Doc?

I disagree. A professor may be politely addressed as "doctor" in the context of a class or in introduction at a lecture. It's different when this same person goes on television and uses that term of address, aggrandizing their point of view while automatically tainting any opposing view. Under no circumstances should the recipient of an honorary Ph.D. ever use the term "Doctor." Pat Robertson and Jerry Foulwell are always doing this.

[HFishbine]

8. You can disagree all you want

But you're simply in denial of societal conventions, except for your understanding of honorary degrees.

[Canuckistanian]

5. "The lawyers???"

Since when do they give lawyers the right to decide public policy?
Are they afraid of getting sued? I thought lawyers were the scourge of working people.
You'll notice one thing about Republicans. As soon as it looks like they can't avoid trouble, they surround themselves with phalanxes of lawyers and then claim that they can't discuss the matter any further.
It's like the argument they always give when talking about loss of constitutional freedoms. All together, now, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to be afraid of".

[tom_paine]

7. The problem is: Sleezy isn't a good liar

An assisatnt ADA with a $3,000 budget could crack her like an egg.

[donhakman]

9. If

If they let go of the executive priviledge thing for Rice it is hard to defend an oath free testimoney from Bush.

[yellowcanine]

10. Not to mention what Ben-Viste could do with her in a cross exam

That is the real reason she doesn't want to testify in public, whether or not she is under oath.