X,
"Condi refuses to testify. Hmmmmmm."

Hmmmmmmm. No National Security Advisor has ever testified in open session. And none ever should.

We have elected, and in this case, appointed representatives of the American people to hear testimony, gather evidence, reach a conclusion, and report their findings to the administration and the American people.

In public testimony, anything that's discussed is available not only to US citizens, but to everyone in the world - even our enemies. Why expose our secrets to our enemies? Plus things that sometimes come out of public testimony are often taken out of context or misunderstood by those viewing it.

A perfect example of this is the above quoted statement. Dr. Rice HAS testified before this commission, TWICE. And she is likely to testify again. Her testimony, however, has been and should continue to be, behind closed doors in secret sessions.

Well said, MACS(SW).

Thanks 428cj.

MACS(SW)= Realist

I'm kinda like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have a dream... but until I take that eternal dirt nap, I will live in the real world and the reality is, people are corrupt and we ALL have a price.

Theologically speaking... Why did Jesus come down here to die? Because we can't be trusted with our own souls.

I don't know guys...
The main thing that troubles me is the constant assertion that this administration makes that nothing could have prevented 911.

On what factual knowlegde is that based?

Has an exhaustive analysis of every conceivable scenario been tested to prove this assertion as truth?

There is no way that could ever possibly happen. That is why there is no way in heaven or hell this assertion of an unavoidable 911 could ever be true.

I guess if this administration would fess up to the reality that they could have taken actions here or there that may have at least had a delaying if not preventing effect on the outcome and admit the truth that there is at least some possibility that they could have overlooked effective actions to prevent this calamity. That position makes so much sense and is much more honest than the position of infallability that this administration takes. If they could only admit they could have done a better job and may have overlooked or mis-prioritized circumstances pointing to the impending attack, I would immediately drop this as an issue. That along with the type of apology Richard Clark made... even though its 2 years too late would do a lot to make this a non-issue at elections.

But by maintaining this stance, and asserting that 911 was completely unavoidable, this can only continue to keep the honesty and integrity of the Bush administration in question.

dbguru

"the honesty and integrity of the Bush administration in question."

surely you jest. they are THE KINDEST, BRAVEST, WARMEST, MOST WONDERFUL HUMAN BEINGS I'VE EVER KNOWN IN MY LIFE.

At the very least they believe in GOD!

Rick, dbguru-- Step up to the plate and throw your hats in the race. I'd like to see you do better.

Eventually some senile, cigar smoking, chat room junkie is going to be criticizing you too...

Politics and religion... something we can all agree to disagree on.

MACS(SW)

i don't covet power and i wouldn't work for that kind of money.

Condi DID testify. My mistake. I still feel that she is primarily disseminating obfuscation and disinformation. That is the way this administration likes to do business. I find it troubling. And yes, if it was a Democrat doing the same thing, I would feel the same way. Nader looks better every day!