NYT editorial: "disturbing conditions attached" to Condi deal

DeepModem Mom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-31-04 04:59 AM
Original message

NYT editorial: "disturbing conditions attached" to Condi deal

Of Privilege and Politics

Published: March 31, 2004

President Bush finally agreed yesterday to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify publicly and under oath to the panel investigating the 9/11 attacks. But Mr. Bush did the right thing only under intense political pressure and after he had already undermined the principles he claimed to be upholding. His reversal came with disturbing conditions attached, wrapped up in a volley of spin. All in all, it leaves the impression of a White House less interested in helping the 9/11 panel perform its vital task than in protecting the president's political flanks....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/opinion/31WED1.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RapidCreek

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-31-04 05:03 AM
Response to Original message

1. Disturbing?

Edited on Wed Mar-31-04 05:04 AM by RapidCreek

Sand in my shorts is disturbing....this isn't disturbing...on the contrary...it's par for the course. Why does everyone seem to forget that the "Kangaroo Commission" is a construct of the very people it is tasked with investigating? What's disturbing is the commission itself....it's a slap in the face, an insult to the families of the victimes of 9/11.

RC

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

althecat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-31-04 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. Hear hear...

Still at least they noticed... is this all a fait accompli yet? As I gather it is...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

no_hypocrisy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Mar-31-04 07:26 AM
Response to Original message

3. It's a set-up for Richard Clarke to be charged with perjury. Condi will

be under oath, will give testimony that contradicts Clarke's testimony, also taken under oath.

And the set-up: only one of them can be correct and therefore that means that either Rice or Clarke must have committed perjury while with the Commission. And Rice will attempt to be seen as immune from such insidious and unlawful action. This is what is called "rebuttal".

It's never been about assisting the Commission conclude what happened before or on 9-11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 08:02 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.