Can someone explain to me why Rice won't testify?

[ObaMania]

A story in the Detroit Free Press says Condoleezza Rice won't testify before the 9/11 commission because "She has declined on the advice of the White House, citing separation of power concerns involving its staff testifying before a legislative body."

Please tell me what this means?

Does it mean that they are afraid she can't keep her lies straight and would crack under pressure?

[Sliverofhope]

1. It means

(1) She has something to hide

(2) She has something to hide

(3) Sheer arrogance on the part of the Bushes to not want to lower themselves to public scrutiny

(4) She has something to hide

[JHB]

3. That about covers it.

[shooga]

12. Only 3 nooses ..

.. at the Treason Hanging .....


1.) one for pork-chop boy (pace-maker boy)

2.) one for rummy

3.) third will be reserved for either 41 or 43 (41 is a better choice ... 43 is just a "monarch-trained", "brain-washed", "trance-formed" puppet)



http://atomic.freeyellow.com

[ithacan]

16. plus: She has something REALLY BIG to hide...

.

[Corgigal]

2. Don't you remember seeing her on national TV

right after 9-11 and some news crew reported threats with aircrafts mentioned? She was shaking and I believe she is the weakness link.
Bush can't afford Rice being left up there for hours and being asked questions. I hope the families lawsuits will force her to be one day.

[trotsky]

4. Unbelievable.

"Separation of powers" does not mean you aren't held accountable for your actions. In fact, the opposite is true. Checks and balances.

And just think how the Repukes had their panties in a wad over Clinton not wanting to testify in a bogus civil case.

[NormanConquest]

5. Just like how "Equal Protection" was perverted

in the Florida recount to suit their argument.

[readmylips]

6. Foot-in-the mouth weakest link Condi....

Bushie/Rove/Cheney don't trust her to speak under oath...they all would be facing a firing squad.

[Ilsa]

7. The mediawhores should be all over this today.

The public should be flooding the WH demanding that she testify under oath in public. Pressure should be brought to bear on this.

[DocSavage]

8. Not Appointed

From what I understand, The National Security Advisor is not a appointed position, by that I mean the person in that position is not ratified by the house.

During the time that there have been people in that position, no one has been forced to testify. Any testimony to any committee has been totally voluntary by the administration, which has not happened very often at all.

[daveskilt]

9. because pleading the fifth worked out so well for Ollie North

[sadiesworld]

10. She doesn't want to add "presidential pardon"...

to her dubious list of accomplishments?

[nostamj]

11. the president, certainly, in the interest of national security

could continue his unprecendented cooperation with the 9/11 Commission and request that his NSA testify so that the country can learn the truth about that terrible day.

/sarcasm

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Because she's weak and will buckle.

I don't know what she was thinking when she took this job. It must have never occurred to her that Bush might be wrong and she would be held accountable for being an accomplice. Now she's counting on the good ole white boy network to protect her. Oh, the irony.

[matcom]

14. because she is a LYING BITCH

who should go to jail with the rest of these murderers

</rant>

:)

[nwstrn]

15. * would never allow her to testify

She would be forced to answer questions about her meetings with Berger:

Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was.

. . . .

Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html

[polmaven]

18. That is exactly what she is avoiding

To top it off, The latest Bush TV ad says (paraphrased) "We can either go forward inn our fight against terrorism, or we can go back to the time when we didn't believe terrorists were plotting against us" ....No s**t!! That is what he is saying!!!

Ummm...You mean like 1/20/01 - 9/11/01 Mr. (p)resident? You mean the time when your National Security Adviser ignored warnings from the Clinton administration that bin laden was the greatest threat to the peace of the world? You mean the time when you were too busy being the unClinton to pay attention to anything his advisers told you?

Pieces of individual and collective scum!!!!! Every last one of them!

[kitkatrose]

17. Because she can't lie worth a damn. n/t