[eDebate] the condy deal
Fri Apr 2 07:59:46 CST 2004
throw your hopes behind mondale all you want.
> Maybe it will be followed by Colin Powell by himself about the report
> U.N. ...
> Maybe they'll just be very efficient in their Q and A.
> Maybe it isn't all as humbuggish as you suggest.
> "If Coach didn't want me taking that shot, do you think he's going to
> you to take it? Shape up." James Worthy in "Why Unselfishness
> The Carolina Way by Dean Smith and friends
> >From: "Jack Stroube" <stroube at ndtceda.com>
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: [eDebate] the condy deal
> >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:39:34 -0500
> >(March 31, 2004 -- 12:03 AM EDT // link // print)
> >I am a little surprised that the White House's new insistence on a joint
> >private meeting with President Bush and Vice President Cheney hasn't
> >elicited more notice.
> >In its Wednesday editorial the Times writes ...
> >Yesterday, Mr. Bush's lawyer told the commission that Ms. Rice would
> >testify. And after months of unacceptable delay, the lawyer said Mr.
> >Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would also talk to the entire
> >commission in private, not under oath. But the panel had to pay a price:
> >it agreed, at the administration's insistence, that after Ms. Rice
> >testifies, it will not call her back or ask any other White House
> >official to testify in public.
> >So the Times doesn't even mention the jointness issue or any problems it
> >could raise.
> >Now, amidst all the stonewalling and foot-dragging and character
> >assassination I guess this matter won't
> >The Democrats need your help to win big in November and take our country
> >back from right-wing extremists in the Bush administration. Click now to
> >get started with the Democratic Party. You can help us fight with action
> >alerts, campaign updates, and by volunteering. get top-billing. But just
> >what is behind this demand -- to which the Commission has apparently
> >All the other arguments adduced for ducking the Commission investigators
> >have had at least some conceivable constitutional basis, however weak:
> >testimony in private, testimony not under oath, privilege for White
> >House aides, etc.
> >(One might note that there will be no recording kept of this meeting --
> >just one sore-wristed Commission staffer allowed to take written notes
> >of what is said by the ten Commission members, the president and vice
> >In any case, clearly there cannot be any matter of constitutional
> >precedent or principle involved in needing the president and vice
> >president speak to the Commission together.
> >So, again, what's the deal?
> >Only three scenarios or explanations make sense to me.
> >The first -- and most generous -- explanation is that this is simply
> >another way to further dilute the Commission's ability to ask questions.
> >If, say, the meeting lasts three hours, that's three hours to ask
> >questions of both of them rather than three hours to ask questions of
> >each -- as might be the case in separate meetings.
> >That wouldn't be any great coup for the White House. But it would be one
> >more impediment to throw in front of the Commission's work, which would
> >probably be a source of some joy for the White House.
> >From here the possible explanations go down hill -- in every respect --
> >pretty quickly.
> >Explanation number two would be that this is a fairly elementary -- and,
> >one imagines, pretty effective -- way to keep the two of them from
> >giving contradictory answers to the Commission's questions. It helps
> >them keep their stories straight.
> >(It's a basic part of any criminal investigation -- which, of course,
> >this isn't -- to interview everyone separately, precisely so that people
> >can't jigger their stories into consistency on the fly.)
> >The third explanation is that the White House does not trust the
> >president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length
> >of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting
> >what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some
> >key fact slip. And Cheney's there to make sure nothing goes wrong.
> >These last two possibilities do, I grant you, paint the president and
> >his White House in a rather dark light. But I would be curious if anyone
> >can come up with another explanation for this odd demand
> >Phallus Jerkins Dabait League
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by
> ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn
Phallus Jerkins Dabait League
More information about the Mailman