Declassified material could hurt Clarke

[DKW 86 7,899]

Link

Watch the Dems run away from Clarke as this comes out. The damage could be huge if in the public's mind Clarke is damaging the Dems case during the Election.

I would lay even odds that the Dems line up to STOP the declassifying of material. Afterall, why let out anything that would let the truth out if it hurts the Dem Party?

We saw them stall for years with Clinton Administration. They will likely do it again here.

[TexasTiger 14,289]

Watch the Dems run away from Clarke as this comes out. The damage could be huge if in the public's mind Clarke is damaging the Dems case during the Election.

I would lay even odds that the Dems line up to STOP the declassifying of material. Afterall, why let out anything that would let the truth out if it hurts the Dem Party?

We saw them stall for years with Clinton Administration. They will likely do it again here.

Declassify everything that can reasonably be declassified, put Condi under oath and let the chips fall where they may.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Well, Dr. Rice can claim executive privilege if she wants, much like the entire Clinton Adm did for years.

She is a member of the Executive and does not have to at all. In fact no one in her position HAS EVER testified before Congress. Not ever.

Having said that, I hope and pray she does and wipes the floor with these pathetic bums.

[TexasTiger 14,289]

Well, Dr. Rice can claim executive privilege if she wants, much like the entire Clinton Adm did for years.

She is a member of the Executive and does not have to at all. In fact no one in her position HAS EVER testified before Congress. Not ever.

Having said that, I hope and pray she does and wipes the floor with these pathetic bums.

Now, there is a constitutional issue involved. But Rice is trying to get people to think that members of the White House staff never testify. And that's not even close to true. In my hand I have a 2002 Congressional Research Service study that lists a whole slew of presidential aides and advisors who've testified in the past.

Indeed, it lists two of Rice's predecessors as National Security Advisor who've given public testimony: Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Sandy Berger in 1997.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002762.php

Even if no NSA had testified before 9/11, haven't we heard that 9/11 changed everything?

[DKW 86 7,899]

Well, Dr. Rice can claim executive privilege if she wants, much like the entire Clinton Adm did for years.

She is a member of the Executive and does not have to at all. In fact no one in her position HAS EVER testified before Congress. Not ever.

Having said that, I hope and pray she does and wipes the floor with these pathetic bums.

Now, there is a constitutional issue involved. But Rice is trying to get people to think that members of the White House staff never testify. And that's not even close to true. In my hand I have a 2002 Congressional Research Service study that lists a whole slew of presidential aides and advisors who've testified in the past.

Indeed, it lists two of Rice's predecessors as National Security Advisor who've given public testimony: Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Sandy Berger in 1997.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002762.php

Even if no NSA had testified before 9/11, haven't we heard that 9/11 changed everything?

What part of

Having said that, I hope and pray she does and wipes the floor with these pathetic bums.

Do you not understand?