Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Rice, among many others, has directly contradicted what he said, both in terms of factual allegations, and what she was doing while he thought she was doing something else.

Can you point me to where she has directly contradicted what he said? I've been looking but all I can see is her "scurrilous accusation" quote with no factual backup. I saw one of her morning show appearances (of the 4 she did yesterday) and she didn't really get into specifics, not that Today or the Early Show is a place to do that.

And, nobody who's "fairly representative of a significant portion of the right" uses a Jay-Z line for a sig. Get real, you liberal scab.

With the amount of $$$ he saved with the Bush tax cuts, I don't think it's altogether clear that Jay-Z is voting democrat these days. In fact, in some ways I would not be surprised to find out that Hello *is* Jay-Z.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you blame Clinton's perjury for 9/11? Is perjury a felony? Is forseeability an element of felony murder?

No. I've talked about this before, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again. I was talking about a practical reality of the tremendous problems the Clinton administration faced in trying to accomplish _anything_ in its last two years.

I would not say that either Clinton's perjury or the savage, irrational efforts by the GOP to destroy Clinton and his administration caused 9/11. I do think, however, that this political "perfect storm" surrounding Clinton during the latter years probably made the U.S. government less effective on all fronts.

One can debate "which came first" until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that everyone is responsible for their actions. I just don't think that Starr and/or the GOP has much to be proud of either re the "Whitewater" investigation.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I just don't think that Starr and/or the GOP has much to be proud of either re the "Whitewater" investigation.

S_A_M

agreed, although the impeachment was much more shameful. The only "good" is that ultimately, the right suffered somewhat from the whole thing. I had hoped the Republicans would learn to control going overboard from the incident, but sadly, I cannot listen to the radio in the morning.......

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There are sources for less biased views, and there have been panels that struck me as being significantly less political. Certain events deserve an airing that is at a higher level.

Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.

It's been interesting today to read the news coverage after following along with th testimony yesterday. I think the newspapers are playing the "partisan sniping" angle way up above the large amount of of information that was shared by all of the witnesses over the last few days. Which is to be expected, but I don't think that's a fault of the panel or the effort to learn more about what happened on 9/11.

To me it's more a symptom of the high profile of the inquiry itself combined with the horse-race election coverage template that the media seem unable to resist. Frankly I think the intelligence services are taking more of a beating than the admin, because it's not in anyone's interest to stand up for them (and I include Tenet's self-preserving ass in that statement). But unless you read the transcripts there's no way to know that because the pull out quotes of Clarke turning down a not-yet-offered post in the Kerry admin "under oath" are much sexier.

[andViolins]

aV

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.

It seems to me that the inquiry would most usefully focus on how to change the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. to prevent a recurrence. But to do that, you've probably got to can some people, starting (perhaps) with Tenet and Mueller. Not necessarily because they're to blame, although they may be, but because people below them won't talk otherwise.

Some kind of inquiry has long been necessary, and maybe it wouldn't have been so charged if it had happened earlier. Recall that the White House fought it for a long time.

And I still don't see a good reason for all this to be televised.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/000631.html

[Before & after pics: has W had a nose job?]

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And I still don't see a good reason for all this to be televised.

Again, because this is a campaign. Without the TV, people would be testifying much more candidly, without need for bytes, there would be fewer speeches from panel and witnesses, and we might even find out something. But that's not the purpose (as that purpose exists today.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private, but she has maintained that a member of the president's staff can't appear before a congressionally chartered commission without violating the Constitution's separation of powers.

Can we all agree this is a load of crap? No separation of powers problem if she appears in private, but the Constitution forbids her from testifying in public? Yeah, right.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


And I still don't see a good reason for all this to be televised.

Because the NCAA tournament isn't happening all week?

Why would career employees talk even with a director who's canned? They still have their bosses, and their bosses' bosses to worry about. Inevitably an investigation will start at the bottom and work it's way up the point where someone is forced to say "I received that email/memo/phone message, but I disregarded it." Unless that person is the director, the employee is still in a world of hurt. So, what do you do, promise a complete housecleaning for a screwup that's a lot easier to identify in retrospect?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

• Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private, but she has maintained that a member of the president's staff can't appear before a congressionally chartered commission without violating the Constitution's separation of powers.

Can we all agree this is a load of crap? No separation of powers problem if she appears in private, but the Constitution forbids her from testifying in public? Yeah, right.

Compulsion vs. voluntary? I.e., she'll do it on her terms, which is non-public only.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/000631.html

[Before & after pics: has W had a nose job?]

I believe his nose is just very flexible. Or, as Bilmore would say, "nuanced".

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

• Rice has spent several hours with the commission in private, but she has maintained that a member of the president's staff can't appear before a congressionally chartered commission without violating the Constitution's separation of powers.

Can we all agree this is a load of crap? No separation of powers problem if she appears in private, but the Constitution forbids her from testifying in public? Yeah, right.

My take is that she is cooperating with the commission, but will not appear in public and appear to be there at the directive of the panel, and perform as ordered before the panel, because this would give the public the impression that the executive branch executives can be so ordered by the legislative types. Most people don't have your nuanced understanding of the separation of powers, and she's not going to contribute to a further misunderstanding. While she is willing to share the info for which they ask, she's not willing to let them "order" her to answer in public. Big difference.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I believe his nose is just very flexible. Or, as Bilmore would say, "nuanced".

I would never use that term in a post.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by andViolins

They've cloned him!