CNN Breaking: Condi Rice Will Testify Publically and Under Oath

CNN reports this came from the AP... will search for link.

On Edit: Dana Bash reports that a Senior Administration Official tells CNN that Rice has offered, through the White House Counsel, to testify under oath and in public. In a letter to the chair and vice chair of the commission, The White House says that Rice can only testify if doing so does not set precedent.

United States 1, Bush Administration 0

Draw up the perjury charges.

Question: Is Saddam a Bad Man?

Question: What is your favorite color?

Question: What is your favorite dessert?

there are some open minded people here.

W didn't want the commission to start with

then he found out it was popular and FLIP FLOPPED

He wasn't going to testify at all

then he FLIP FLOPPED

He said he would do it only with the chairmen for ONE HOUR

then he FLIP FLOPPED

He said (arrogantly) he wouldn't walk out

then he FLIP FLOPPED

They didn't want Condi to testify in public or under oath

then they FLIP FLOPPED

you know there are more occasions than that, where this illegal occupation of the White house has flip flopped. I would ask to list them all, but the internet only has so much bandwidth.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954

:headbang:
rocknation

smell waffles. Lousy cretins.

Underpants......Way to tell it like it is!!!

Tooo funny!!!

Much more complete. Mine was just on one issue.

It's our "beautiful" (thanks Babs) open minds that set us aprt from the knuckle-dragging, trogs at Freeptonia. And let me give you some advice, since you're a newby and all, pay attention to Mobuto, you may not always agree with him, but his ideas are well thought out and he eats weaklings for lunch. Bank on it.

Oh, welcome to DU :hi:

:eyes:

All I said was that he does think things through and gives good arguments for what he thinks. Do I agree with him very often - almost never (we've had some pretty good fights), but because I think he is too conservative and reactionary (imo) doesn't mean I will disrespect his intelligence. He may be wrong, but he isn't stupid (and I know he will hate me defending him - which in a way is why I did. But don't tell him that).

:)

These people have passed the point of deserving the benefit of the doubt a long, long time ago.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/25_condi.html

Condi is already on record with a number of "inconsistencies," such as whether the notion of airplanes used as missiles had been contemplated. If she actually tells the truth, she will blow the lid off several levels of coverup. If she doesn't (the more probable alternative), she will be lying. These aren't assumptions on my part. They are conclusions drawn on the basis of hard evidence.

AP-APNEWSALERT

WASHINGTON (AP) - White House will let Condoleezza Rice testify in public under oath in Sept. 11 commission hearing, an administration official said.

That's all it says.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

use the Executive Privilege clause in her testimony, like a defendant using the 5th amendment?

Stewart was killing in the first segment... that was great!!!!

Q: What exactly did you do to response to the Al Qaeda threat before 9/11?

A: Dick Clarke is a liar.

Q: Why did it take 8 months for Clarke to get a full hearing on this matter?

A: Dick Clarke is a liar.

Q: Why did you say you cannot remember a meeting you were at in which Bush demanded evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, then concede you may have been there but that Bush just asked nicely, in direct contradiction of two other witnesses?

A: Dick Clarke is a liar.

Q: Why did the Bush administration fail to respond to the Cole bombing despite what Bush said about it in the last days of the campaign about it?

A: Dick Clarke is a liar.

It's in the contract.

Were warnings issued to the White House about the use of highjacked airplanes as weapons?

and condi will be terrific.

I'd still check through the window.

She's unbelievably bad. They know this, which largely explains, I suspect, their reticence to have her appear. She will fold like a cheap suit under any slightly skeptical inquiry.

Not reticence.

Look 'em up.

So much for my morning word usage rant. Other than that, I agree with your post.

That this was all strategy by Bush.

Summary of plan in Freeps minds: Bush/Cheney had planned on having Condi testifying anyway but allow the Dems to work up a huge head of steam and indignation based on Clarke's testimony and then when Condi does testify she'll blow everything out of the water and make the Dems regret having the commission to begin with. A big elaborate rope-a-dope in effect.

The thing is, they may be right.

The general populace won't remember all the objections and obstacles that Bush and Co. threw up every step of the way. They'll just see Condi testifying, figure "Wow, she really didn't have anything to hide" and in the end will declare this as a victory for Bush.

One Condi can't blow anything out of the water, because there is too much documentation that the Bush gang had put the "terrorist thing" on a back burner. Condi, herself, said "No one could imagine that they would use airplanes as missles". And "Bush/Cheney" with a "plan"? Are they kidding? These low-brow, numbnuts never plan anything; they just stumble-bumb their way through everything, banking on the stupidity of the American public (and in Freepville, they can't miss). No, I think at best (from the Bush perspective) Condi goes down in flames, but they manage to salvage her job; at worst, Condi must be shit-canned and Bush looks really bad while he's stealing the next election.

This is classic Rove to the mat politics.

that is what I was thinking too. Condi will be well coached and come off looking forthright and then the Democrats won't be able to say that the chimp gang is hiding out. I was really not happy to hear that she was going to testify in public and under oath.

this will be interesting, to say the least.

"We get to do it this one time, and one time only, because we want to and because we can, but if you ever want to do it for your side, nope, nope, nope, can't, can't, can't, cuz we said so."

Now, when it comes time that THEY want to use their own precedent, how much you wanna bet they'll claim it?

turds. they're all turds.

declaring the things they do doesn't set a precedent? First the SCOTUS chooses our next president and says that it doesn't set a precedent. While their ruling may not set a precedent, they did set a precedent of making rulings that doesn't set a precedent. (I think that made sense)

it doesn't even matter what she says for the most part... Now Americans will know what this board has known for years, whether you're LIHOP, MIHOP, or if you believe 9-11 was just dumb luck, this will prove once and for all that bush had prior knowledge

What I want to know, is exactly how much knowledge he had.

Get a Rope.

Betcha Condi wears a micro-mini the likes I haven't seen since High School days....

You made the image of Condi in the interrogation scene from Basic Instinct pop into my head. I have to wash my brain out with bleach after that one!

Edit: this was the image in my head!

bush had prior knowledge and let those people die

My best shot at surmise for the day (well, for quite some time) is that the neocon cabal kept Condi busy and Bush poised for propaganda as the neocons were making plans.

If anyone was "out of the loop", it was most likely Condi and Bush.

Her testimony may or may not expose the neocon loop, but it will certainly provide a bit more insight. I am still disappointed that Rummy and Wolfowitz weren't better pinned down and I believe Tenet should be fired for his failure to put the people's best interests above his career interests.

The neo-cons need to be forced into the daylight.

I think it's likely they conned bush jr. - not letting him off the hook, but it's pretty clear that's their Straussian philosophy, and it's patently obvious that the neo-con-in-chief Dick Cheney engineered the whole Iraq invasion.

Condi had to know what they were up to. She may not have been in the loop but she had to know what they were up to.

Did you see Powell the other day - forget which interview - he threw Wolfowitz overboard. Admitted that Clarke was right in that Wolfie was agitating for Iraq on 9/12.

otherwise. More people will be paying attention to her testimony than if she'd gone before the panel as a matter of course.

"The White House says that Rice can only testify if doing so does not set precedent."

Is this their "OUT"??? If Rice testifies than will this be the basis for dismissing any other testimony by Georgie, Cheney, etc???

The people want the truth, if they go to the voting booth unsure that Bushies are upfront and honest about wanting to get to the truth, they won't vote for Bush, if there is one shroud of secrecy or stonewalling left during this investigation, the public will be disgusted at the Bush administration and that will be the end of the Bush regime. If Condi pleads the 5th on questions, people will be smart enough to figure out who is telling the truth, the guy who says, DECLASSIFY EVERYTHING, OPEN IT UP TO EVERYONE, or, I PLEAD THE 5TH? If the truth doesn't prevail here, than humanity is in deep trouble, because we'll have a governing body that is so corrupt that a revolt would be mandatory. Americans have always been fighters, we just needed a reason to wake up.

that * and Unca Dickie will meet privately with the full panel (10 members) rather than just 2(?).

The administrations polling must show that this issue is hurting them otherwise they would never be doing this. So we should all relax about the CNN poll.

I just heard that to secure Rice's testimony the commission has to give up - in writing - the possibility of having any other top white house official testify live and under oath. They'll give her up to cap the gusher.

Tweety also said that Clarke may have done irreparable harm to the Bush campaign's focus on terrorism and 9/11, so they'll do anything at all to put out this fire. Even if it means sacrificing Rice to save everyone else's skin.

Even so, if that's true, it's regrettable. I'd love to see Cheney and/or Bush before the panel, but that's not going to happen - at least, not at this point.

her teeth (that's what the huge gap is for), call it a day, and the BushCo will say "OK then, case closed". I really hope they don't fall for this.

They should have let them stew over it again for a few days and let them
flip flop on that restriction to. What do they have to hide? Condi is the sacrificial scapegoat they are putting out there to protect themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35674-2004Mar30.html
Rice to Give Sworn Public Testimony
In a reversal, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as long as the panel seeks no further public testimony from White House officials, the administration said Tuesday.


White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Air Force One with President Bush, said the commission had unanimously agreed to the conditions.

Sonia

hell about this? Now is not the time to let up on public pressure. We want * and his Dick under oath, too.

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: MTP@NBC.com

MSNBC-Phone: (201) 583-5000

Opinions: mailto:letters@msnbc.com

News: mailto:World@MSNBC.com

Letters to the Editor: mailto:World@MSNBC.com

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

letters@latimes.com

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 237-5000

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
(714) 966-5600

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
(818) 772-3200
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
(805) 653-7547
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters@nytimes.com .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call (212) 556-1831 or send article to ped@nytimes.com" target="_blank">oped@nytimes.com . To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com

The Newsroom
news-tips@nytimes.com ; the-arts@nytimes.com
bizday@nytimes.com ; foreign@nytimes.com
metro@nytimes.com ; national@nytimes.com
sports@nytimes.com ; washington@nytimes.com

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
president@nytimes.com .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: (212) 975-3247

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: (202) 331-4060
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: (202) 296-5545

email: info@9-11Commission.gov

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And last but not least ... CHECK MY SIG LINE TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!

Thank you for all those resources.

:yourock:

damn - we can't let them agree to that

President Clinton & President Gore are to testify privately (but under oath), as well. Besides, if I had a choice between getting Condi under oath or getting Crashcart and/or the Chimp under oath, I'd rather see Condi. She's much more likely to crack (or at least slip up) than Cheney or Chimp are (and Chimp would most likely refuse to testify under oath for the same reasons Condi refused - exec privilege, and any effort to make him would most likely fail).

The good news is that Bush/Cheney will have to answer questions from Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Tim Roemer! :thumbsup::bounce:

Thanks for the link, just kind of wondering did *co dictate to Post for this article or was it just faxed over by them :D

of all of this Me-publican game playing. But I hope that they keep it up because the fat is in the fire, baby!

so we'll see

in effect they're giving immunity to the whitehouse in exchange for one liar ten run free. Anything of interest will have to be ignored.

And who is letting Bu$h decide the conditions here? The public has spoken loudly, we want all testimony public and under oath. We do not negotiate with the truth!

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: MTP@NBC.com

MSNBC-Phone: (201) 583-5000

Opinions: mailto:letters@msnbc.com

News: mailto:World@MSNBC.com

Letters to the Editor: mailto:World@MSNBC.com

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

letters@latimes.com

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 237-5000

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
(714) 966-5600

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
(818) 772-3200
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
(805) 653-7547
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters@nytimes.com .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call (212) 556-1831 or send article to ped@nytimes.com" target="_blank">oped@nytimes.com . To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com

The Newsroom
news-tips@nytimes.com ; the-arts@nytimes.com
bizday@nytimes.com ; foreign@nytimes.com
metro@nytimes.com ; national@nytimes.com
sports@nytimes.com ; washington@nytimes.com

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
publisher@nytimes.com .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
president@nytimes.com .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: (212) 975-3247

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: (202) 331-4060
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: (202) 296-5545

email: info@9-11Commission.gov

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

Gee, so now the appointed B.S. committee gets more stipulations handed to it. Really sounds funny to me,the last time I heard of any federal prosecutor being limited to the kind of evidence that could be looked at was during Iran /Contra hearings. Wonder what they want to hide?

Really though, how in the heck could anyone get close outing the hedged and tweaked lies without cross examination from a real federal prosecutors with supeana power and the ability to call any witness desired.

Somehow politicians questioning other politicians operatives doesn't sound like the best way to get to any substantive matters in the events

Not holding my breath on this one

Pay this one no mind.

Condi is the worst person from the admin to testify because she can make bullshit sound good to a lot of people. We should get * to testify and totally screw things up. ;)

for a funny video on bush lies...

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

What this means is that they now have the "redacted" email evidence that
Clarke lied and they think they have Condi sufficiently prepped to
get through the session.

I wonder how many "to the best of my recollection" like phrases we
will hear?

Sigh

need to know when to catch it (or listen from work)

Will the public pay half as much attention to her testimony as they would if it were Shrub or VP Crashcart? Or will this slip right under the public radar, especially if it's true that the Commission has agreed to let rest of the WH off the hook? That's the only reason I could see for them agreeing to this. Rice will take the fall so they can sweep something under rug yet again. How much you wanna bet we get another terra alert or major media diversion right around the time she testifies?

There will be some huge Koby or Martha splashjust at the same time and when Condi winds up giving stonewall, non-answers to all the questions no one will notice. Without a free media we are at their mercy in these matters.

Hey, Jay, that is a beautiful dog in your picture!

I miss the big guy :(. Can't wait to get home and see him again. The sig pic will have to do for now.

As for the Rice thing. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not getting good a feeling. It seems too orchestrated, too planned.

She'll just lie through those gapped teeth anyways. Sigh.

I'm sure she realizes she is being offered up as fodder. If it goes badly at all I expect some more defections as people start to realize they may be next.

Maybe we should send John Dean's email address to Condi. He might have some tips for her.

this will be on so i can listen/watch...I've got to see it, if for nothing else to see her squirm...

I just caught that on NPR. They will answer question not under oath and TOGETHER! wtf? I guess they don't dare leave the chimp alone for a few minutes. :grr:

you didn't think the puppetmaster could release the strings, did you?

Wonder if Dick has to hold his hand when they cross the street too.

nt

Smirky: What do you want to do tonight Brain?

Brain: Same thing we do every night Smirky. Try to take over the world!:crazy:

Most Americans can see through these charades of deception. They all have to ask themselves, why is this administration being so damn hard about just taking an oath, asking questions, and telling America the truth? Unless, there's something to hide, and that's the question that swirls around the squirrels!

No Oath, No Point.

Respectfully tell the commission.

... be in the same place, at the same time ... for security reasons ... can they ??


:wtf:

These clowns in the White House can't keep their stories straight.

nt

But Clinton and Gore have to appear and testify under oath? Why the two of them and not W and Dickie?

This is an important breach in the dam. They will try to keep the testimony to Rice alone, but these things have a way of gaining their own momentum. I don't think Rice will come off very well if there is any intense questioning. She is fine at handling puffballs, but she shows a lot of tension when the going gets a bit tougher. She often looks flustered, and that is bad television. Besides, the contradictions already on record will damage her, especially the "we could have never imagined that anyone would use planes as missiles". They should keep hammering at that one - it is something that everyone can 'get'. Then move on to how phony the Iraq invasion causus belli was.

Bush is spinning this as if he has done the US the most magnimous favor--ain't he wonderful?

My skepticism is grounded in some information I just read in RonSuskind's book about Treasury Secy O'Neil. He says the cabinet meetings were SCRIPTED. I could not believe that, but the proof is in the book, The members of the cabinet would receive memos telling them what to say and what not to say. Unbelievable.

I suspect that the members of the panel here will also receive their scripts from Bush. And, especially, so will Condi. She is a totally wasted soul--whose slavish and adoring dedication to a less than intelligent, war mongerer and murderer of innocents has sullied her previously good reputation as an intelligent,talented, well qualified, unique woman. Now people are saying things like her skirts will be worn six inches shorter for her appearance before the panel. I don't feel sorry for her, but it is sad in a way that she has been reduced to whore, essentially.

I hope there will be some who will turn up their nose in disgust at such cheap manipulation, of being scripted by the Bush sleezy administration but I doubt it--they are too scared and intimidated I am certain.

But on the whole, I do not think that Condi is going to blow it. She will be well rehearsed. Bush will be on the phone to the panel members. Kerrey will aske her about Clinton and she will gladly try to imply that it was Clinton's fault, because he did nothing.

If she does make a mistake or two, I am confident that the media will overlook it out of deference to her sweet innocent looking face that she will put on, like she did on 60 min ,more than usual thigh exposure, and cute ass.

Here's the $$$ question.

Will there be restrictions on the questions the panel may ask her?

Previously, panel members were not allowed to ask certain questions of certain witnesses. There were restrictions.

So will there be limits on what may be asked of her?

This could be critical.

"So will there be limits on what may be asked of her?"


My concern also. Although I hear this is a "bipartisan" commission, my impression is that it was set up by the white house with their players.

Will they ask the hard questions?

Remains to be seen. I'm doubtful. A commission with real teeth would not have agreed to the absurd condition of granting amnesty to the rest of the white house. I think this is just a show for the public. I don't think it was the commission's right to grant amnesty. America deserves the truth god-dammit.

I'm hearing that the commission has agreed to her testimony as long as no other white House officials have to testify under oath...meaning Bush & Chaney.

The plot thickens everyday :o

Rice to Give Sworn Public Testimony
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35674-2004Mar30.html

This morning the first few paragraphs of this story were simply this:
(snip)
In a reversal, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as long as the panel seeks no further public testimony from White House officials, the administration said Tuesday.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, on Air Force One with President Bush, said the commission had unanimously agreed to the conditions.
(/snip)


Note that the first story version said McClennan said the commission had agreed to those terms. Now the story has no mention of the commission agreeing to the offer but we have a new story that shows bu$h capitulating. Interesting.

(snip)
President Bush reversed himself this morning and authorized national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House announced.

Bush capitulated on a second point and said he and Vice President Cheney will appear in one joint, private session with all 10 of the commissioners, backing off his previous demand that questioning be conducted only by Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton.
(/snip)


Sonia

"Second, the Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."

What a pant load!

condition that i pray the 911 commission refuses to go along with ...condition #2: "that NO OTHER White House officials be called to testify"......WTF....this will really tie their hands!!!!

Oh, they probably did. I forget, the repukes have the majority!

and asked them to reject this offer from the WH.

It is a crock, that the people being investigated should decide the terms of the investigation.

The letter from the WH is calling for no other testimony from any other WH official, if Condi testifies under oath. I say go shove it where the don't shine.

on message soundbytes. Think about it. Clarke has already testified. The coverage of Bush, Cheney and Rice testifying will be HUGE and the number one story for days. I think Rove may have planned the whole thing.

If Shrub, Inc. refuses to testify anymore, those willing to testify can have the last word.

Do you think Lehman will hold up papers in each hand and say - "Dick Cheney said Clarke was out of the loop. You said he was at every meeting. Which one is true?".........Nah, he won't do that will he?

didn't she already go on record as saying that she was forbidden to testify? Is she lying now or was she lying then?

Expect nothing new or even relevant.

Why? Because that is what she's been doing for the last three years. Lie to help the assassins in the White House get their way. Plus, with the conditions the WH set for allowing her testimony she will have the last word, which is the only one that matters to a good portion of Americans. If not, at least it's the only one they will remember. After that it's cased closed and bring on the next scandal.