pudge's Journal: Rice Hearings

I don't care much whether Rice testifies in public under oath or not, but what I do find amusing is that so many people think the commission will be able to find out more information about what happened if she speaks in public under oath. A Democrat member of the commission said, "We have had private sessions with her. And we will have an adequate explication of what happened. I just think we're missing in terms of our public presentation of the facts the opportunity for the American people to hear her answer these questions as everyone else has."

So just remember, while you're listening today, chances are what you're hearing is not about the commission finding facts, but about hearing it in public. I'm not trying to diminsh the importance of that, but they aren't the same things.

The real questions

[nandorman]

The real questions are:

1. Pudge, what are you doing up at 1:30am on a worknight? Late feeding/pooping night for your young'n?

2. How could anyone even dream that Rice would say someting different in public, under oath, than she did when she met with them before? If she told the truth before, she'll tell the truth again. If she lied before, she'll lie again. Maybe she'll prove us wrong or the panel will prove us wrong, and she'll be caught off-guard - but I don't see it happening.

3. How does th

Re:The real questions

[pudge]

Pudge, what are you doing up at 1:30am on a worknight?

I stayed up listening to the Red Sox online and wiring up new pickguard/pickups/hardware for my old electric guitar. Tonight, I plan to put it in the guitar!

How could anyone even dream that Rice would say someting different in public, under oath, than she did when she met with them before?

Yes, she won't. This is all about the public record, not fact-finding, which is why right now I am seeing Rice battling with some of the commissioners to make s

Politics not truth...

[Cyberdyne]

Somehow, I doubt anything interesting will come out that hasn't already been revealed. Al Queda plotted to do it, then did it, and the US didn't manage to stop them. Obviously with hindsight we could have arrested Atta and co on September 10th (then been forced to release them, since they hadn't actually committed a crime yet besides overstaying a visa) - but then, with that kind of hindsight, we could have taken out Hitler back when he was just an enlisted grunt in the German trenches in WWI, sold all our

"under oath" seems important

[cascadefx]

I am wondering if the "under oath" part is going to play a role later. Just wondering.

I find it odd that to broker this deal the President and crew got assurances that no one else in staff would be called and that he and Cheney would sit for unrestricted private sessions but no public sessions. This is at least better than the one (and only one) hour testimony that the Pres (I think rightly) got a lot of flack over... even if all the questions were able to be covered in an hour, setting a hard limit like that appears fishy.

Bush seems like he is walking a fine line (and I am not talking about the truth) with regards to his credibility. I can concede that he probably is telling the truth, but this "gamemanship" appears to be affecting the "appearance" of his willingness to be straight with the US. That appears to be affecting him in the polls... at least in California.

Good topic as always, Pudge.

Re:"under oath" seems important

[M.C. Hampster]

Bush seems like he is walking a fine line (and I am not talking about the truth) with regards to his credibility. I can concede that he probably is telling the truth, but this "gamemanship" appears to be affecting the "appearance" of his willingness to be straight with the US.

Here's my analysis. There are two possibilites why this might be happening:

1. They knew more than they are telling and they don't want to let it out. Of course, if they are playing coverup, they may as well go ahead and all test

Re:"under oath" seems important

[On Lawn]

Yeah, it might just be as simple as Bush II might be a bit gunshy to bend over backward for congress after what happened to his Dad. Plus I hear GWB is by nature a rather quiet person with a disdain for public rhetoric and would rather just take care of business. That sometimes comes off as snobby.

Re:"under oath" seems important

[On Lawn]

While not always the case, I'm with Rush on this one. Bush is doing the rope and dope.

I'm sure that Bush wanted nothing more than another voice to add to his story. What better than Condi? Word on the street is that he let her testify, not as capitulation but that he was given a photo of a presidential adviser testifying publically before congress during the Pearl Harbor public hearings.

Either way, I need to go watch for myself but from what I've heard she's done a bang-up job. Maybe not stellar like Olli

House of Bush, House of Saud

[cascadefx]

Since you seem to keep up on this stuff, I was wondering if you were going to read this book. I am curious on your take of the matter. Excerpts are avialable on Salon.com is you don't want to shell out the bucks for the book.

Personally, I am picking up a copy from the library.

Rice testimony

[notfancy]

I've read the report on my local newspaper. It is presented as if she had done its job by alerting the President "in more than 40 occasions", but Bush hadn't listened; i.e. spinned à la Clarke (the translated headline would be "Bush knew of Al-Qaeda's dangerousness before the attack to the Towers"). I can't believe that nothing has been done when it could have been. Bush might be a substandard President, but I don't think he's a criminal.