The lawyers won't let her testify. What a bunch of bull puckey.

[Robin Hood]

I keep hearing these liars come on TV to tell me how much Condi would luuuuvvv to testify but the lawyers won't let her because it would set a dangerous precedent with separation of powers,Balh blah, blah, BULL!!

The lawyers don't want her to testify because what's left of the house of cards would come tumbling down if she did. And what she would reveal would probably have criminal implications for all involved.

What they are left with is to spiel this bull that ends up sounding flat when it is spoken. I just heard Rummy the evil dummy echoing this line of spin. "Ohhh she would luuuvvv to testify, the president would love her to testify, But the lawyers won't let her". he then begins to explain why and you can see that he has no real reason why, and you can also see how he knows that you know that he is full of shit.

[teach1st]

1. She's testifying all over the damn place

Testifying ain't the hang up. The lawyers won't let her take an oath. It would violate some sort of administrative powers thingie if Condi had to promise to tell the truth - the powers of separation of administrator from job. Promising to tell the truth really WOULD set a dangerous precedent for Condi and her little Bush.

[goclark]

3. Isn't That A Denial Of HER Civil Rights?

Help me out, can the lawyer representing your boss deny you,the employee, from telling the truth?

If she really wants to tell the truth,isn't she being held hostage?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Don't give me the seperation of powers jive

I even heard them trot out the hoary excuse "executive priviledge". Come on, do they think we have all forgotten Watergate?

[monarch]

4. Blaming lawyers isn't a good strategy

It sounds too criminal. Even though everyone hates lawyers and loves blaming them for everything, most people think that lawyers who tell people not to talk to the authorities generally hang around with a bad crowd. The administration should try more high-toned bs like "constitutional scholars feel that letting her testify would do irreparable harm to our system of government." It has a much nicer ring to it.

[Cleita]

5. So it's a tonier class of manure then?

:boring:

[monarch]

7. Much nicer manure

Besides, I hate it when lawyers get blamed for everything.

[terisel]

6. Head of NSC is Hostage to Anonymous Group of Lawyers

who refuse to let her carry out her responsibility to the US. Are they Terrorists?

[jjmalonejr]

8. Hasn't Condi already testified under oath in private?

I don't really get the Administration's refusal to let her testify in public. It's really making them look bad. I think they will cave in eventually.

What is really motivating this stand? Did they just figure that public testimony would be too politically damaging and underestimate the furor that would erupt as a result of their refusal?

[Killarney]

10. Not under oath.

[brainoverload]

9. energy commission

If they let Condi testify it blows apart their justification for keeping the Dick's energy report secret. You know they've got to be worried about that one what with impeccably impartial jurists like AS(s) adjudicating the case.

[Robin Hood]

13. Bingo!!! Ding. Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner.

That is exactly why they don't want her to testify under oath. Plus, She will most likely lie and when they do release those papers because her testimony she will go to jail. But of course Bush will pardon her.

And when he does pardon her, the republican echo machine will all talk about Mark Rich.

[Killarney]

11. Huh, so the lawyers that represent

Berger and the other NSA's that agreed to testify must really suck.

;)

Lies, lies, lies.
Spin, spin, spin.
God, I hate this administration.

[snippy]

12. Others in her position have testified under oath.

Other presidential aides have waived their immunity; President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, did, as did President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. McCormack said the comparisons are not applicable because Berger did not testify in public about policy matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25177-2004Mar25.html

I notice that Rice's spokesman distinguishes only Berger's testifying without addressing Brzezinski. Apparently, this satisfied our obedient media.

I also notice that only national security advisers working for democratic presidents apparently are willing to testify under oath. Given that the republican party is a criminal enterprise and that Bush is the most compulsive and incessant liar in the history of American politics and the most corrupt and criminal president in history, it makes sense that Rice not testify.