Getting Condi to testify reminds me of the battle for Nixon's tapes..

[TruthIsAll]

during Watergate and Nixon fighting their release in order to protect some nebulous principle of "executive privilege".

It was obvious Nixon had something to hide. He was concerned that John Dean's testimony would prove to be true, just like Bush is now concerned that Richard Clarke's testimony will be.

When the tapes were released, Nixon's credibility was immediately damaged. The long, slow process to get at the most damaging tapes took over a year. These tapes showed that Nixon wanted to head off the FBI from looking into the Watergate burglars (and Howard Hunt's) CIA background from the get-go right after the break-in..

Similarly, Bush doesn't want Rice to testify in public. This would just lend credence to Clarke's charges that, unlike Clinton, Bush did nothing when warned of an imminent Al Qaeda threat, and just used 9/11 to arouse patriotic fervor for the only things that really mattered to him: the 2002 election and a War in Iraq.

The failure to at least take preventative steps to foil the 9/11 attacks means that we will never know if they could have been averted.

And that alone puts the lie to the War President's only campaign
issue. The little fascist emperor would have no clothes.

[goclark]

1. Didn't Tenet Mention Tapes or Transcripts of Mtgs.

I thought I heard someone that testified at the Hearings refer to some tapes. Did anyone else remember hearing that?

[murielm99]

5. I remember hearing that!

I thought I was the only one. I yelled out loud to my husband, and asked him if he heard it. I said it could be like Watergate. He said he didn't hear it. I thought I was losing my mind.

Why hasn't someone made a big deal about this?

I am a bit worried about this current claim of executive privilege, though. I thought we had been there and done that with Nixon. But, if Cheney gets his way about the energy papers, we may not be able to get anything made public. They could try to apply it to tapes, or the meetings that Clarke has challenged them to declassify, or anything else they please.

This is a dangerous bunch. We have to get rid of them now.

[goclark]

6. I tried to do a DU search

No luck when I did the search.

I know I heard it too!

I know I read someplace else that they may be some tapes of meetings or something like that.

What can we do? Does anyone else remember ? Should we do a new post?

[Soup Bean]

2. This, legally, could be much worse than Watergate.

If it could be proven that they lied about starting a war, that's much, much more serious than the break-in at the Watergate. Outing CIA agents, laying down on terrorism before 9-11, then fighting a war against a country they pinpointed prior to their assumption of office due to oil reserves....Good Grief!

Just the stuff that is pretty much out in the open is enough for criminal prosecution. God help them if someone in this administration got a blow-job...then, heads would roll....

[Fovea]

3. And they have been way too uncooperative

way too early in the game. Had they been forthcoming about the Energy papers before 911, then their arguments for seperation of powers would be a bit more likely to be honored.

Truth be told, seperation of powers is no more sacred than the other checks and balances. Cheney has been all checks and no balance. I sense a serious shift in the ground under Cheney's feet. It is no more hallowed than 'executive priveledge', certainly.

I credit L'affaire Plame for this loss of patience with Cheney/Rove. They had gone far farther than anyone was comfortable with who didn't goose step to work.

Welcome to a bridge too far.

[Leilani]

4. The difference between Watergate & Now:

Back then there was much more bipartisanship.

Repubs worked with Dems to fix things for the good of the country.

Today, politics trumps all. The truth doesn't matter, the country doesn't matter, & we the people don't matter.