« I've Got Two Words For You | Main | The Tuesday WTF: Condi Edition »


Breaking on CNN and Fox: White House will allow Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly under oath before 9/11 commission, a senior administration official tells CNN. Call me crazy, but I think this is the worst thing that could happen to the Democrats.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Testify!:

» Boiling Rice from Late Final
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify before the 9/11 commission. Atrios: "The issue of whether or not Condi should testify was never the issue. The point is, if you're still awake, what she'll say and how it fits in... [Read More]


I don't see Rice cracking under 'blistering' interrogation.

I agree - anything that prolongs the hearings is going to be bad news for the Democrats. There just isn't a lot of support for blaming Bush (or even Clinton) for 9/11.

Did everyobdy see Dean Esmay's post about Bush's "Shoot Me! Shoot Me Now!" strategy?

This campaign year made a lot more sense once I followed his analogy of thinking of President Bush as the Uberbunny, and the Democrats as Daffy Duck.

Whoops! Let's try that again, with a link that opens in a new window this time.

Dems pushed to have all the information released from the White house on the enregy policy meetings, now they have pushed to pierce the cloak of executive priviledge by having Rice testify in public.

Question that everyone should ask - how loud are the Dems going to scream when they finally get back into the White house (whenever that may be) and the Republicans want the same priviledges of having all notes turned over from the sitting president on and policy meetings, and to place their staff infrom of a open public hearing under oath? Do you think that anyone is going to want to advise the President in the future knowing that their name could be outed, and their lives drug through the political grinder out in front of the world? Do you think their staff would be any less wishy washy flip floppy than Kerry is now for fear of political suicide?

Rice already spoke to the committee and was willing to do it again privately. The Dems don't care about what she has to say, only about getting her to do it publicly under oath so they can site it as precidence in the future to bypass executive priviledge protections.

Our Government is under attack from within and its foundation is being shreaded before our eyes. Our enemy is a torch bearing mob fueled on soundbites and misdirection. Their only statisfaction, like our warm and cuddley jihadist friends in the Middle East, will be the total destruction of our political system and way of life.

Since anyone left of center thinks I am a nazi for being a republican, next time someone who is a brown shirt like Pat Buchanan runs I think I will just vote for them - so that the left can really feel the sting of a Jack Bootted thug stepping on their neck as the beg for the good ole days when things were much freer and nicer under 'Dubya'.

Condi is going to mop the floor with Richard Clarke.

The worst mistake he made was to make the totally smug and arrogant implication in his book (based on a facial expression!) that Condi had never heard of Al Q until HE informed her... not knowing that she is on record, on tape via an earlier radio interview discussing AlQ and Osama well before she even met Clarke.

I am beginning to agree woth those who joke that Clarke must be on the payroll of Rove.

Oh boy! A bright, articulate and Republican black woman is about to get grilled by a bunch of white male Democratic Senators! This is going to be the best drama TV in years.

Careful what you wish for boys, 'cause you're about to get it.

What? No Dead or Alive song for Condi and the White House? Nobody calling her a flip-flop artist?

Man. Why is it that whenever a (D) changes their mind about something they get mocked, but when the administration does, everybody's all "you better watch out now, boy, 'cause NOW you're gonna get it?"

Just wondering.

This is very good news. Hopefully, Bush will follow her lead and testify under oath as well.

If you want to call the administration a flip-flop artist fine, but didn't Rice maintain that she wanted to testify the whole time?


Can I get an A-men!?!

Yes, I think this may very well be the equivalent of sending Bush and Powell to "ask for U.N. support" right after 9/11 - total political jujitsu. These people know their stuff.

If anything, I think they may have been holding Condi back because they knew the words they'd have for the Dems that dropped the ball would be just a little too frank for political comfort.

She's been saying that a lot more recently, Enrak in an "I'd LOVE to, honey, but I CAN'T right now" kind of way, but even as recently as December, it was being reported that she didn't want to testify under oath.

RBK, to answer your question about why Rice is not a flip-flop artist: perhaps it is because the decision she is changing is not one of "I support this" or "I support that". Or perhaps it's because she is doing what she is doing, against her better judgement, to SHUT YOU (and your kind) UP.
You are correct, till now she has politely refused. When she walks into that committee she is going to be as mad as anyone who is being forced to do something they don't wish to do. It's the left who has forced this hand to be played. They can keep their tears to themselves when the cards hit the table.

Wow, Different Bill. Such hostility.

What exactly is "my kind?" And why on earth would Condi care what "my kind" thinks? I could personally care less whether Condi testifies in private or public, under oath, in a house, with a mouse, here or there or anywhere.

I just think it's funny that sometimes when people change their minds they're dirty rotten liars, but when others do the exact same thing, they're paragons of virtue. Indefensible on the one hand, but perfectly understandable on the other.

Condoleezza Rice herself is the worst thing that could happen to the Democrats, and they realized it a long time ago.

RBK, "your kind" are the kind that when something gets explained in very plain English they still don't understand. That's mostly because they have a preconceived notion stuck somewhere between the information gathering parts of their brain and their thought processes.

But hey, if you want to compare potatoes and tomatoes and call them both veggies you can. You'd be wrong, but you can certainly do it.

Condi is great. I really used to enjoy reading about her when she was at Stanford. She's smart and articulate, and, unlike a whole lot of folks there (or in Congress), there's no bullshit about her.

But is this the WORST thing that could happen to the Democrats? As bad as nominating Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton for President would be? As bad as it would be if ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC became more interested in reporting news than assuring that Democrats are elected?

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Ah. Nice to see that even though you can't get my initials right (twice), you presume to know me well enough to be able to comment on my intellectual capabilities.

Let's see if this is plain English enough for you:
flip-flop: Informal. A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.
flip-flop: a decision to reverse an earlier decision [syn: reversal, change of mind, turnabout, turnaround]
For example, if my kids ask if they can go see Scooby Doo 2 and I flat out refuse, saying "NO," but then after an hour of whining and pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease, I capitulate and say "YES," that's a freaking flip-flop (even if I never said "I support this" or "I support that").

Allow me to repeat: to say you WON'T do something, only to later say that you WILL do that very thing is a REVERSAL of your position. That's the dictionary definition of a flip-flop.

I've never written anywhere that I think this is a BAD thing to do. In fact, I'd argue that it's perfectly acceptable to change your mind about things over the course of time. If I'd met a woman, for example, met her in a club down in old SoHo, where you drink champagne and it tastes just like cherry cola, well, I'd hope that later in the evening, after she took me by the hand, it'd be okay if I changed my mind about wanting to spend time with her.

The harder you push back on this one, Different Bill, the more you defend Condi because her situation is somehow different -- that when SHE changes her mind it's not flip-flopping at all -- the more you underscore the irony that I found so funny in the first place.


Basically think of it this way:

Don't think about what I am doing, just listen to what I am saying. I am going to stick to my guns on both sides of an issue == John Kerry.

Ok, kids, your badgering of me has finally worn me down to the point I will give you what you want, though I am gonna stick to my guns on the one side of the issue == Condi Rice.

If you think that both of these are 'flip flops' then there is no way we can really communicate is there?

fine, you're crazy.

Kong, now you're just spouting talking points. Pick up a print copy of the most recent issue of The Economist for a good article (you can't read the story online, but at least you get the headline) on why the "Kerry flip-flop" label isn't necessarily accurate or fair.

But more to the point, how does giving in to all the badgering by the kids illustrate that someone is "sticking to their guns?" I mean, wouldn't that mean "no means no?" I said I wouldn't testify and dadgummitall if I'm not going to stick to my convictions and absolutely positively NOT testify.

If you can explain how giving in to what somebody else wants is an example of "sticking to your guns" then maybe we can talk.

"Condi is going to mop the floor with Richard Clarke."

Is this the same Condi who can't even keep her stories straight?

Man, you Dittoheads crack me up.

(waits to see the people who've criticized Kerry for flip-flopping do the same to Bush)

(cue crickets chirping)

Man, you Dittoheads crack me up.

Yep. Never heard that before. Get a new goddam playbook, LOL. I mean, is it just me or is there some facility somewhere that clones you guys? The same tired arguments, the same snide (and boring) "dittoheads" insults, the same "your guys do it too" lines instead of actual arguments.

Heard it, LOL, answered it, bored by it. You're nothing new.

Uh oh, Evil Otto -- now you've done it. Now "LOL" is going to tell us we are so 0wN3D!

I agree Michele that it is the WORST THING that could happen to the Democrats. I don't think there is going to be any smoking gun. And Rice is one of those people blessed with being telegenic and believable on television. Her string of appearances to refute Clarke's charges didn't do the trick for one reason: it seemed contradictory that she was on TV talking but wouldn't give public testimony. She will definitely be prepped for her talk (and questions) but as I have said one of my posts on my site (after the 60 Minutes interview) I know of two academics who told me BEFORE Bush was elected that they wanted him -- because they wanted RICE in office. They knew her, felt she was solid personally, professionally and intellectually.

This won't remove the pre-911 issue from either the burner or the minds of swing voters, but it's going to defuse it because she is going to be great on the stand and come across very well on television. Woe to anyone who tries to push her around since she'll either successfully shove them down or look sympathetic. My 8 year old niece who was watching 60 Minutes with me said as soon as Rice's interview was over "SHE should be President." She is a rising political star (and this is NOT being written by a Republican...or a Democrat for that matter).

The Democrats and Republicans on the commission have forced this testimony which I believe was needed...but that having been done the major issue (why not testify under oath if there is indeed nothing to hide) has evaporated. I predict the rest of the bones of contention will be nuance rather than clearcut black and white issues (such as sworn public versus unsworn private testimony). The Democrats have lost an issue (no public sworn testimony) and now must tiptoe through a political minefield (how the treat her and respond to her).