I have been hearing the right wingers and neocons praising Condi for "doing a good job." Good job? How difficult is it to simply tell the truth, and when you don't know say "I don't know" or if you don't remember say "I don't remember"? ----------------------------------------------------------------- When secrecy protects a lie By Walter Cronkite The initial refusal of President Bush to let his national-security adviser appear under oath before the Sept. 11 Commission might have been in keeping with a principle followed by other presidents - the principle being, according to Bush, that calling his advisers to testify under oath is a congressional encroachment on the executive branch's turf. (Never mind that this commission is not a congressional body, but one he created and whose members he handpicked.) But standing on that principle has proved to be politically damaging, in part because this administration - the most secretive since Richard Nixon's - already suffers from a deepening credibility problem. It all brings to mind something I've wondered about for some time: Are secrecy and credibility natural enemies? When you stop to think about it, you keep secrets from people when you don't want them to know the truth. Secrets, even when legitimate and necessary, as in genuine national-security cases, are what you might call passive lies. Take the recent flap over Richard Foster, the Medicare official whose boss threatened to fire him if he revealed to Congress that the prescription-drug bill would be a lot more expensive than the administration claimed. The White House tried to pass it all off as the excessive and unauthorized action of Foster's supervisor (who shortly after the threatened firing left the government). Maybe. But the point is that the administration had the newer, higher numbers, and Congress had been misled. This was a clear case of secrecy being used to protect a lie. I can't help but wonder how many other faulty estimates by this administration have actually been misinformation explained as error. The Foster story followed by only a few weeks the case of the U.S. Park Police chief who got the ax for telling a congressional staffer - and The Washington Post - that budget cuts planned for her department would impair its ability to perform its duties. Chief Teresa Chambers since has accepted forced retirement from government service. Isolated incidents? Not really. Looking back at the past three years reveals a pattern of secrecy and of dishonesty in the service of secrecy. Some New Yorkers felt they had been lied to following the horrific collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Proposed warnings by the Environmental Protection Agency - that the air quality near ground zero might pose health hazards - were watered down or deleted by the White House and replaced with the reassuring message that the air was safe to breathe. The EPA's own inspector general said later that the agency did not have sufficient data to claim the air was safe. However, the reassurance was in keeping with the president's defiant back-to-work/business-as-usual theme to demonstrate the nation's strength and resilience. It also was an early example of a Bush administration reflex described by one physicist as "never let science get in the way of policy." In April of 2002, the EPA had prepared a nationwide warning about a brand of asbestos called Zonolite, which contained a form of the substance far more lethally dangerous than ordinary asbestos. However, reportedly at the last minute, the White House stopped the warning. Why? The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which broke the story, noted that the Bush administration at the time was pushing legislation limiting the asbestos manufacturer's liability. Whatever the reason, such silence by an agency charged with protecting our health is a silent lie in my book. One sometimes gets the impression that this administration believes that how it runs the government is its business and no one else's. But this is a dangerous condition for any representative democracy to find itself in. Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies
photo caption: A wounded nine-year-old Iraqi girl Ahlam Sa'ad, who was shot in the neck, is cared for by medical staff at a small clinic in the embattled town of Falluja April 8, 2004. At least 450 Iraqis were killed and more than 1,000 wounded in fighting in the city this week, the director of the main hospital, Rafi Hayad, told Reuters. U.S. Marines launched a major mission last weekend to confront guerrillas in the town. The U.S. military said on Friday it had agreed a temporary suspension of offensive operations in Falluja. (Akram Saleh/Reuters) __ to
If I were Condi Rice I would have ended the interview as soon as they started disrespecting me, with a warning that the next disrespectful comment and the interview is done. Actually myself I'd be flipping them a few birdies as I walk out. There was no reason for being such idiot's towards her. They want to know what she knows? Then my God man let her speak, why keep interupting her?
Here we go again. More pictures to show what blood-thirsty, oil-hungry, evil imperialists we are. Odds are that poor girl was shot (and we don't know if she was shot by US troops or the enemy) because the insurgents were using her as one of their shields. TradeOff is yet another ETer who makes a fine propaganda mouthpiece for Al-Sadr and the Ba'ath Party.
You think that Condi was being "abused" and "interrupted"? My God, were you watching the same proceedings that I was? She spent much of her time filabustering for Christ's sake and taking up the time of other commission members that had specific questions to ask. She couldn't even answer a simple "Yes or No" question from Richard Ben-Veniste regarding whether or not she discussed the August 6th, 2001 PDB with the President! And if you think that people were being "rude" to her trying to get at the truth, then you must be really naive. Security has no partisanship. - - - Wait till next week when Directors Mueller and Tenet really get grilled and the hearing becomes pretty contentious. Get Real! It's all about the truth, and what we can learn so as to not make it happen ever again.
If you believe that you are even more naive than I feared. This is foremost about politics, but then everything in DC is about politics. We already know how to make it not happen again: secure cockpit doors. That's all it took.
Ben-Veniste is a major idiot that only wanted to manage the response to fit his scenario. He wasn't interested in the truth or the whole story. Yes or no answers is what he wants? LOL She could have emailed him yes or no. Like I said, I'd be flipping birdies while leaving if anyone were treating me like that.
That's a good point. "yes" or "no" questions are the tool of a cross-examining lawyer, not someone sincerely looking for new information to guide the Commission in its task. The first rule of cross examination is never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. He was just trying to score partisan political points. The sad fact is that for parasites like him, that is more important than trying to actually do something positive.