Wednesday, March 31, 2004
"I would like nothing better, in a sense, than to be able to go up and [testify.] But I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing separation, constitutional separation, between the executive and legislative branch."
White House press briefing
March 24, 2004
"She's being asked to appear before a congressionally mandated commission under oath, and there is a presidential authority problem here. I have been a national security adviser and a deputy national security adviser. And I wouldn't have done it during the time I was there working for President Reagan."
Face the Nation
March 28, 2004
"This commission, it takes its authority, derives its authority, from the Congress, and it is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."
March 28, 200
Now the story is Bush will "let" Rice testify. No, allow her to testify. Does this mean he can set aside the Constitution at will or that Condi and others were making shit up obfuscating the reality that there truly was no reason she should not testify in the first place? Or does this mean Rice wanted to testify but Bush would not "let"
her before and that's why she sounded like Scotty reading off of cue cards. Ultimately Rice must feel the growing present danger -- she's going to be hung out to dry.
What really disturbs me is Bush comes out of the situation looking like a prince by "letting" her testify while she comes out looking like a liar and stooge. Of course, Rice may not of needed Bush's help on that order -- she was doing a good job of tearing herself apart -- and Bush does have a track record on leaving people to hang in the wind -- just ask Powell.
Rice will be resigning by the end of the term -- she might want to start collecting info for a book, or at least to protect her own ass, the Bushies are through with her.
On another note, what's up with the pres and vp having to testify together?