Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, it is a big whoop. Would you want to be the cited wimp for the next twenty years when some panel wants to compel testimony from a cabinet member and tells the court "We must have that power, there's precedent, Condi came when ordered!"?

So are you ignoring or distinguishing the several times when executive appointees have testified after being called before legislative bodies (most notably Clinton's NSA testifying before a senate committee in 1997)?

And I still fail to understand her testifying before a closed session of the committee somehow preserves the privilege to not testify before an open session. I thought privilege had to do with the information provided, not the circumstances of its provision. But I confess that my separation of powers chops have not been exercised of late, so be gentle if I'm more dense than usual here.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

A visit to the Infirm. Politics Board unearthed a reference to this, cahracterized as "the Greatest Post of All Time". Its very good, ina wacky sort of way:

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
A visit to the Infirm. Politics Board unearthed a reference to this, cahracterized as "the Greatest Post of All Time". Its very good, ina wacky sort of way:

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl

S_A_M

its good, but for touching sincerity with your laugh a minute guffaws I have to go with*
http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/cl...?msg_id=0029IG

*I assuming we still can't mention the "white type" incident. Atticus, is it safe yet?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
A visit to the Infirm. Politics Board unearthed a reference to this, cahracterized as "the Greatest Post of All Time". Its very good, ina wacky sort of way:

http://www.infirmation.com/bboard/clubs-fetch-msg.tcl

S_A_M

All I get is "Server Error", which may very well qualify for the Best of Infirm, but I suspect you meant otherwise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, it is a big whoop. Would you want to be the cited wimp for the next twenty years when some panel wants to compel testimony from a cabinet member and tells the court "We must have that power, there's precedent, Condi came when ordered!"?

They're talking to other people from the executive branch, aren't they? And the way for her to handle it is to agree to appear if they will agree she's doing it voluntarily.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So when we hear you say:
If you need that friendly a forum, your story can't be that good.

we should really understand:



She's working the press. It's the sort of thing politicians do. The only thing I was kvetching about was the legal justification she offered, but big whoop.

Try and keep process and substance distinct in your mind. What are you today, my personal stalking sock?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And the way for her to handle it is to agree to appear if they will agree she's doing it voluntarily.

Which is what she's doing. Are you pissed simply because she won't subject herself to the tv coverage that you yourself questioned?

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
If i truly believed a president was doing something so despicable i would be rioting in the streets/stealing socks in mexico/aztec dancing. that you are not Ty, shows you are not a man of conviction. I put it to you Ty, if you stand idly by while such wrong occurs in something as important as the country your children are being raised in, how can the administration here rely upon you to take action when necessary for the good of the PB. J'acusseTy. J'acusse.

Slave it is time to ask for Ty's resignation.

I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Try and keep process and substance distinct in your mind. What are you today, my personal stalking sock?

I am sorry. I like you Ty. And if it had been someone else asking about water pressure, you would have thought my response funny.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall.

You just don't want to have to take over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Which is what she's doing. Are you pissed simply because she won't subject herself to the tv coverage that you yourself questioned?

Am I pissed about it? No, not really. I would like to see her have to answer questions under oath, but I'm not pissed about it. If she had to do it on TV, I might watch some, but I still think it would be better for everyone if it happened behind closed doors.

I think she's taking a stupid position on the process point, but presumably she (they) will pay some sort of political price for it in the end, as people understand that she doesn't want to face questioning.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I am sorry. I like you Ty. And if it had been someone else asking about water pressure, you would have thought my response funny.

I hadn't even seen that post yet . . . .

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I want him on that wall. I need him on that wall.

Hey, Jon Steward used this language to describe Clarke last night? I remembered that someone used it here 2 or 3 days ago (referring to Lt. Weinberg), but it was weird hearing it come out of Jon Stewart's mouth last night then.

Hello

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
I remembered that someone used it here 2 or 3 days ago (referring to Lt. Weinberg), but it was weird hearing it come out of Jon Stewart's mouth last night then.

Yeah, me. Continuation of same joke.

And fuck Mo Rocca for stealing my material.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Mark Kleiman quotes Amy Zegart (a former student of Condi Rice's) as saying the following:

• 1) I couldn't help but think there was a certain Tweety-bird quality to the statements from both the Bushies and Clintonites. "Terrorism was, it was a priority!"
  
  2) The Commission asked the wrong question. Was terrorism a priority? Of course it was. The real question is how many other priorities both administrations were confronting. I'll tell you: too many. Clinton wrote a Presidential Decision Directive in 1995 that sought to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community. There were so many in the top tier, they actually divided them into Tier 1A and Tier 1B. But it gets better (or worse). There was also a Tier 0, apparently for the very very very top priorities. Note to self: when you can't list priorities with regular numbers, you haven't really made priorities.
  
  As time passed, priorities were added to the list but old ones were never removed. By 9/11, the National Security Agency had roughly 1,500 formal requirements, and developed 200,000 "Essential Elements of Information." I'm not making this up. See the Congressional Intelligence Committees' Joint Inquiry Report, December 2002, p.49. Intelligence officials told Congressional investigators that the prioritization process was "so broad as to be meaningless."
  
  This is not new. For the past 50 years, there have been more than 40 major studies about the intelligence community. A common theme among them has been the spotty and fleeting attention policy makers have given to setting intelligence priorities. One former senior intelligence official told me that during the Cold War, he was asked about the state of the Soviet economy exactly once, when the Secretary of Defense wanted to convert rubles to dollars for a budget presentation to Congress.
  
  3) Long-term priorities almost always get cast aside when there are fires to be put out. It has nothing to do with politics, morality, or stupidity. It has to do with human nature. I have a to-do list for the week, but I also have daily post-its for things that just cannot wait until the next day. In foreign affairs, answering the phone call from a head of state, reacting to the crisis du jour, preparing for the summit, responding to the latest suicide attack in Israel -- these things are the action-forcing events that jump to the top of the pile. The result is that longer-term issues naturally take a back seat, no matter how much leaders feel they deserve urgent attention.
  
  I have no doubt that terrorism was a priority. The problem is, when everything is a priority, nothing is.