{"id":649,"date":"2004-03-29T14:53:47","date_gmt":"2004-03-29T21:53:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-03-29T14:53:47","modified_gmt":"2004-03-29T21:53:47","slug":"parsing-rice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2004\/03\/29\/parsing-rice\/","title":{"rendered":"Parsing Rice"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p><em><strong>Rice, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/stories\/2004\/03\/28\/60minutes\/main609074.shtml\" target=\"_blank\">in a prime-time television interview<\/a>, reiterated the White House argument that the president&#8217;s top advisers should not be forced to testify in public.<\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"rice-inside.jpg\" src=\"http:\/\/ancapistan.typepad.com\/unfairwitness\/rice-inside.jpg\" width=\"180\" height=\"180\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\" \/><br \/>\nIn other words, <em>testifying in public<\/em>, Rice says that the president&#8217;s top advisers should not be <em><strong>forced<\/strong> to testify in public.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>So, all we&#8217;re left with are her objections to being &#8220;<em>forced<\/em>&#8221; and the one she left out&#8230;&#8221;<em>under oath.<\/em>&#8221;  Since the 9\/11 commission has said it is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ajc.com\/news\/content\/news\/ap\/ap_story.html\/National\/AP.V8663.AP-Sept-11-Commiss.html\" target=\"_blank\">reluctant to subpoena Rice and that it probably wouldn&#8217;t do so<\/a>, the only objection left standing is the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lasvegassun.com\/sunbin\/stories\/bw-exec\/2004\/mar\/26\/032606780.html\" target=\"_blank\">&#8220;under oath&#8221; objection.<\/a>  I think it&#8217;s fair to say that Rice will testify whenever and wherever she chooses as long as she can LIE.  This is such a transparently indefensible position that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.baltimoresun.com\/news\/custom\/attack\/bal-te.terror29mar29,0,1124776.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines\" target=\"_blank\">even Republicans<\/a> are <a href=\"http:\/\/www.newsmax.com\/archives\/articles\/2004\/3\/26\/222129.shtml\" target=\"_blank\">urging her to testify for the commission.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The only question left concerning Condoleeza Rice is <em>what is she lying about?<\/em><br \/>\n<HR>UPDATE:  Paul Waldman explains <em>&#8220;Why Condoleezza Rice won&#8217;t raise her right hand and swear to tell the truth.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/gadflyer.com\/articles\/?ArticleID=51\" target=\"_blank\">Pants On Fire<\/a><\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>ANOTHER UPDATE: <a href=\"http:\/\/blogcritics.org\/archives\/2004\/03\/29\/095134.php\" target=\"_blank\">Shark at Blogcritics.org<\/a> piles on: <a href=\"http:\/\/blogcritics.org\/archives\/2004\/03\/29\/095134.php\" target=\"_blank\">FRIED RICE: &#8216;Condi&#8217; Lies Again<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Insightful: Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to <strong>declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same &#8220;principle&#8221; of barring White House adviser&#8217;s testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9\/11 commission!<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rice, in a prime-time television interview, reiterated the White House argument that the president&#8217;s top advisers should not be forced to testify in public. In other words, testifying in public, Rice says that the president&#8217;s top advisers should not be forced to testify in public. So, all we&#8217;re left with are her objections to being [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=649"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}