For some finger-wagging partisan scolds, Rice’s public testimony is an opportunity for the Truth to Set Us Free!™ (allpowertothepeopleamen).
But of course, this is nonsense, as Rice had already testified before the commission privately (and Richard Clarke, the catalyst for this latest dog-and-pony show, himself refused to testify publically in 1999, on the same principle of executive privilege the White House has been citing) — meaning all that’s really happening here is that a bunch of grandstanding politicians have succeeded in further politicizing national security, to the detriment of us all. Well, except maybe John Kerry. And Richard Clarke’s publishers. And a few media outlets.
So, yeah. Bravo!
[update: is there any doubt Donk webflack Josh Marshall is angling for a Press Secretary job in some future Democratic administration too horrible to imagine? Marshall asks, “Why is this is a joint session? Why can’t the president and the vice-president meet with the Commission members separately? Is there some, as yet unexplored, constitutional issue of the president and vice-president needing to appear jointly?”
Sure Josh. Let’s just call an Executive Branch timeout and put governing the country on the backburner. That way, we can all enjoy this partisan clownshow while you fill column inches at 2-cents a word. Hell, Kerry doesn’t have to show up for work, why should the President and Vice President, right?
update the second: Jeremy Olson finds some interesting rhetorical gymnastics in this Noam Scheiber TNR post]
Wahoo! I’ve been labeled! I have made it!
You sure have. Then you stepped in it, and now you’re tracking it all over the place.
Please, use the mat.
God I wish she would kick his ass!
If this was a democrat administration the press wouldn’t be repeating the “shroud of secrecy” surrounding the administration line of tripe—it would be about racism and sexism.
Where are the feminists?! Where are the African American activists?!
Bloated pasty-white bureaucrat can’t stand the fact that he’s been put to pasture by the Sista.
Of course, the fact that I don’t really care what you think must stick a bit in your craw…
Why? Are you somebody important?
Hate to break it to you, but you were a plot point. Is it surprising to me that you “don’t really care” what I think? Absolutely not. You’re a Democrat. Your mind has been closed since Al Gore skulked off to grow his beard and invent WiFi.
Why is it a joint session? Because you have to be pretty f-ing high to think this is going to make a difference. Well, other than Clarke walking a little funny after Rice gets through…
Of course, the fact that I don’t really care what you think must stick a bit in your craw…
“…which doesn’t even begin to explain why I felt the need to come back and explain that I don’t care what you think, even though my posting that I care not would seem to imply that perhaps I actually do, if only because traffic is cool.”
You know, just sayin’ is all.
P.S. Jeff – I hate you and everything you stand for – now link to me in a solitary post! Woohoo!
Bush & Cheney are too busyto meet with the commission individually. Got it!
Incidentally, do you actually believe that or was that just the best explanation you could come up with off the top of your head? I predict that if Bush conducts an opening day for t-ball in the next couple of weeks few Republicans will change their opinions about Bush’s busy, busy schedule.
Seriously, why do so many Republicans not seem to care about performing any investigation into 9/11? Clearly, if Bush and Cheney can barely be bothered to show up and answer questions the commission cannot be that important. But why is that. It’s hard for me to imagine how shining some light onto the process could be a bad thing.
Yeah, “shining some light onto the process,” right. That’s what this is about. Because the 24/7 Cable Channels and the Ted Koppel specials and the endless opeds haven’t already shined enough light on this. Because Rice’s 4.5 hour testimony in private before this very commission (well, the ones who bothered to show, that is) didn’t shine enough light on this. But turn some cameras on, and you can bet your ass you’ll see some first rate grandstanding.
Listen, not occupying the space between YOUR ears I don’t get to express how you feel, but for me, this whole exercise has become comical. If it weren’t so serious, that is. Because the two REAL offshoots of this debacle are that no President will EVER keep opposite party holdovers on as part of a security team, which will disrupt continuity and weaken national defense; and that executive privilege—an important component in keeping spin doctors and poll takers out of the executive branch’s inner sanctum—has been further eroded.
You want to play partisan politics and insist Condi Rice testify “publically,” fine. But she’s going to say exactly what’s she’s been saying. The only “light” being shed here will come from atop the cameras of a sensationalist media.
At least there’s grace and dignity in T-ball…
Seriously, why do so many Republicans not seem to care about performing any investigation into 9/11?
And here I thought there already had been an investigation into 9/11. Sadly, it was a find-out-who-did-it kind of investigation, rather than the scapegoat-nominating kind.
“Seriously, why do so many Republicans not seem to care about performing any investigation into 9/11?”
translation, BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! end of story
The only “serious” investigation for these characters starts with “it’s all bush’s fault” and works backwards from there.
Isnt the main point about Rice appearing in public that she will be put under oath?
It seemed to me that was the commission’s objective in pressuring for this (and may have been the White House’s main real reason for holding out). Incidentally that pressure was bipartisan, so claiming that they were just out to smear doesnt really wash.
Also why is ‘busyness’ being accepted here as an excuse to have the President and Vice President appear together? how does it free up time to have them appear simultanously? don’t they usually work independently of one another?
Isnt the main point about Rice appearing in public that she will be put under oath?
No. It’s so a bunch of media-needy jerks can grandstand.
Incidentally that pressure was bipartisan, so claiming that they were just out to smear doesnt really wash.
No. Dem partisans wanted Rice to testify publically so that they can grandstand and hopefully embarrass the administration; GOP partisans (some) want here to testify because they want her to refute Clarke’s testimony publically. And they, too, will grandstand.
Also why is ‘busyness’ being accepted here as an excuse to have the President and Vice President appear together? how does it free up time to have them appear simultanously? don’t they usually work independently of one another?
2 birds with one stone, that type deal. What, is Josh Marshall afraid they’re going to be passing notes and he’ll be left out of the loop? Poor baby. It’ll be just like junior high all over again.
’2 birds with one stone, that type deal. What, is Josh Marshall afraid they’re going to be passing notes and he’ll be left out of the loop? Poor baby. It’ll be just like junior high all over again.’ Posted by: Jeff G at April 1, 2004 10:32 AM
I think the fear is more that they (Bush and Cheney) will help each other out and the dual interview will insure that they keep their stories consistent when they might otherwise have had contradictions. Individual testimony obviously allows for representations to be vetted more extensively by interviewers.
I have never heard of testimony being given before by two individuals simultanously, though admittedly Im no legal expert especially in this area.
In my view its a mistake. It makes the President look weak – like he needs the Vice President to back him up, which just goes to the whole misperception of Cheney as the sinister power behind the throne.
I can see no good reason for it – what do you mean by ‘two birds with one stone, that type of deal’? the only people this conceivably saves time for is the commission itself, which is hardly the White House’s concern.
No, it saves everybody time, because it’s one less day of media distraction given over to this dog and pony show.
But its closed session – there wont be any media coverage – whether its one joint interview or two separate ones.
Um, maybe I watch too much cable news, but I can guarantee you we’ll be given 24 hours worth of speculating talking heads, dualing partisan spokespeople, “context,” etc.
No thanks. One less day of buildup and wasted air time. It’s a sideshow.
Sorry, I hate to be pedantic about this, but I fail to see how two closed session interviews will double the media coverage.
I thought that such closed session meetings are usually kept secret – the media is usually kept ignorant about when they take place which means they dont get to report on them as ‘breaking’ or even ‘current’ news, meaning its not a hot topic to get endlessy disseminated as you fear. I may be wrong though, and if so then I can see your point.
But even so, why cant we assume that the coverage would ultimately serve Bush well – the President and Vice President independently going to the commission to straighten things out, both definitively and consistently refuting Clarke’s testimoney and strongly showing that they are committed to the stated goals of the commission.
As it is the unnecessary White House position makes the President look weak with no clear upside. Though the commission is happy with it, I dont doubt that Kerry and co will soon exploit it mercilessly.
Well, I’m not married to the “busyness” argument. If I’m wrong about how reports on the testimony will be handled, I’m wrong. But that was really a throwaway line, because what I was reacting to was Marshall’s trying to make the joint appearance sound sinister. As you can see from the rest of my post—and from my subsequent responses—I think this public hearing bit is just so much political theater.
Translation: I was wrong, but that really is orthagonal to my point, isn’t it?
No, it says if I’m wrong, I’m willing to accept being wrong and stipulate the point, though the jury is still out. You translate with as much precision as you reason.
Further, the point in question—noted in an update—is, as you say, is “orthagonal” [sic] to the original post, which is about this Commission devolving into grandstanding political theater to detriment of NSC continuity and executive privilege.
My god! I misspelled orthogonal! Mortification!
You can backtrack all you like, but it’s transparent.
I have no idea what that means.
Well, see, transparent means “see-through”, more or less, and backtrack means “to step or trace back”, more or less, and so what I’m most likely saying is that I can see through your attempt to back away from your first attempt.
Or maybe I’m not. See, I’m just so enigmatic!
Oh, for some reason I read “backtrack” as “trackback”—a long day of trying to manage 6 or so different identities on Movable Type, plus answer all the emails and comments and take care of a newborn. My eyes are playing tricks, I guess.
Re: backtracking. I think I’ve touched on that above. Nothing’s changed, except that you seem to wish to belabor the point. So: If you honestly think that the substance of my post is affected by my exchange with valmurph, there’s nothing left to argue over.
I’ll say: Dog and pony show; detriment to executive privilege and NSC continuity; and who cares if the President and Vice President testify together…
…and you’ll say,
Aha!: the press might not give extensive coverage to the President / Vice President testimony. So time may not really be saved. Orthogonal backtracking, orthogonal backtracking…!
…And we can just leave it at that.
Ha! No rest for the snarky, I see.
Ok, let me be honest for a second, Jeff, and this’ll probably be the first and the last time I ever compliment you, so treasure the moment, since you’ll likely just end up pissing me off later: I enjoy your snark. Yeah, it’s a little shallow, but still, I find myself uncontrollably giggling every time you say “Vagina” at the end of your Joy Bahr polemics. It’s damn obvious that I’m never going to agree with you (ever, ever, ever. “So you agree with me that Paris is the capital of France? Good, we’re back in agreement.”), you do it with, well, if not class, then style.
Now excuse me. I need to go take a shower.
Apology accepted