OT - 1945 Photo Compelled Testimony?

[NoMyths]

Bush camp either a) unaware of historical precedent, which is likely or b) caught lying again.

Link to Newsweek report: NEWSWEEK EXCLUSIVE: Before Rice Agreed to Testify in Public, 9/11 Commission Executive Director Faxed White House 1945 Photo Showing Presidential Chief of Staff Appearing Before Pearl Harbor Congressional Panel

Full Text:
NEWSWEEK EXCLUSIVE: Before Rice Agreed to Testify in Public, 9/11 Commission Executive Director Faxed White House 1945 Photo Showing Presidential Chief of Staff Appearing Before Pearl Harbor Congressional Panel
Sunday April 4, 11:00 am ET
Zelikow Warned White House Counsel That Unless Rice Testified in Public, Photo Would '...Be All Over Washington in 24 Hours'

NEW YORK, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Last Monday morning 9/11 commission executive director Philip Zelikow faxed a photograph to the White House counsel's office with a note saying that if the White House didn't allow national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public before the commission, the photograph would"...be all over Washington in 24 hours," Newsweek has learned. The photo, from a Nov. 22, 1945, New York Times story, showed presidential chief of staff Adm. William D. Leahy, appearing before a special congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The point was clear: The White House could no longer get away with the claim that Rice's appearance would be a profound breach of precedent.

(Photo: hxxp://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20040404/NYSU003 )

Zelikow, a University of Virginia historian, had been poring over records of the Pearl Harbor inquiries for months, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and National Security Correspondent John Barry in the April 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, April 5). Those probes, Zelikow believes, are the clearest blueprint for the 9/11 panel's work. "This is what happens when you hire historians," jokes commission chairman Thomas Kean.

A White House aide says it is "fatuous" to say the Leahy photo forced the White House to capitulate. But after battling with the panel for nearly a year over documents and testimony, the White House finally relented and said Rice would testify publicly under oath. Next week, the panel is slated to hear from Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Janet Reno, and two former FBI directors, Louis Freeh and his interim successor, Thomas Pickard.

People close to the commission are expecting a bitter confrontation between Pickard and Ashcroft. Pickard is expected to scorch Ashcroft for showing little interest in terrorism before 9/11, Newsweek has learned. The A.G. denied proposed funding increases for FBI counterterrorism programs. Ashcroft is expected to say that Pickard could have shifted resources if he thought it was so important. Commissioners will ask both of them why bin Laden family members were flown out of the country after the attacks.

The FBI lapses have led some commissioners to consider recommending an overhaul of U.S. intelligence in their final report, due July 26. That could include a proposal to break up the FBI and create a new domestic spy agency, similar to Britain's MI5, to hunt terrorists inside the country. "This is perhaps our most difficult choice," Kean tells Newsweek. FBI Director Robert Mueller is fighting the idea. A possible compromise: a semi-independent anti- terrorist unit inside the FBI.

[Chief Rum]

[sabotai]

Why roll your eyes, Chief?

[clintl]

That "separation of powers" excuse for not letting Rice testify was extremely weak, anyway.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Why roll your eyes, Chief?

If I have to explain it, you won't get it.

Consider the messenger. SOS.

CR

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If I have to explain it, you won't get it.

So rolling your eyes is the only response that could be given?

I don't mean to pick on you, but political discussions have turned into who can pull out the rolling eyes the quickest. It's gotten old. It was old awhile ago. Wouldn't it be better to explain why the source is a bad one or what is wrong with the article?

[JonInMiddleGA]

That could include a proposal to break up the FBI and create a new domestic spy agency, similar to Britain's MI5, to hunt terrorists inside the country.

This is definitely not the worst idea I've ever heard.

[Dutch]

I think the "rolleyes" was for the constant witch-hunt. Like this classic scene from Monty Python.

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
BEDEMIR: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEMIR: But you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't - no.
WITCH: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
BEDEMIR: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEMIR: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat - but she is a witch!
CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEMIR: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn her!
BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B -... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEMIR: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah, yeah... right.
BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks! (A fine example of scientific knowledge)
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches - churches! (How would he know?)
VILLAGER #2: Lead - lead!
ARTHUR: (Dramatically) A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
BEDEMIR: And therefore - ?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!

[NoMyths]

Nah...if he's talking about the messenger, he seems to be referring to me. I'll probably just have to cry myself to sleep tonight that Chief Rum thinks I don't post anything of value. Boo hoo.

Also, CNN is reporting the story now.

[wig]

Seriously, NoMyths, it's getting a little old.

[NoMyths]

wig, i don't recall ever asking your opinion, either before you were banned or now.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Nah...if he's talking about the messenger, he seems to be referring to me. I'll probably just have to cry myself to sleep tonight that Chief Rum thinks I don't post anything of value. Boo hoo.

Also, CNN is reporting the story now.

Never said you don't post anything of value, just nothing that isn't biased. Nothing that shows both sides. Nothing that even indicates for one second you have bothered to take a look at both sides even.

sabotai, NoMyths has it right on about why I did the roll-eyes thing. Had nothing to do with the message. It had to do with the value of that message coming from, again, this guy.

CR

[wig]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

wig, i don't recall ever asking your opinion, either before you were banned or now.

If all you do is post the the same anti-Bush rhetoric, your message loses all value.

All I know is that I can't take any of your political posts seriously anymore. If that was what you were going for, good job.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

wig, i don't recall ever asking your opinion, either before you were banned or now.

Funny, I wasn't under the impression that being banned had anything to do with the validity of his opinions.

A direct reflection of whether or not he behaved as an ass in the past, maybe, but, y'know, your little snipe there is probably the weakest straw man I've seen in a long time.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by wig

If all you do is post the the same anti-Bush rhetoric, your message loses all value.

All I know is that I can't take any of your political posts seriously anymore. If that was what you were going for, good job.

I put this post through the AltaVista Bullshit Translator:

Originally Posted by wig

If all you do is post political rhetoric I disagree with, your message loses all value.

All I know is that I will continue to not take any of your political posts seriously. I'll also continue to post my disagreement with them.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by wig

If all you do is post the the same anti-Bush rhetoric, your message loses all value.

All I know is that I can't take any of your political posts seriously anymore. If that was what you were going for, good job.

Please. As if you ever took anything I said seriously, except for an opportunity to draw some kind of attention to yourself. Why don't you go back to posting threads that you can later delete for your own entertainment?

Sack: You're using strawman incorrectly.

Everyone else: Ignore me...I'm not important in all this. The information is.

[wig]

NoMyths: Fair and Balanced.

[Bonegavel]

I still don't understand the bottom line... didn't she already testify to the Panel? (albeit in private) Are they going to ask her new questions in front of the cameras?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

I still don't understand the bottom line... didn't she already testify to the Panel? (albeit in private) Are they going to ask her new questions in front of the cameras?

There is no point...the whole thing is a giant pee party on both sides.

One guys hawking a book, another trying to get re-elected...

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Like this classic scene from Monty Python.

If there were Monty Python scenes posted in every political thread I'd be much more involved in political debate on this forum. It certainly made this thread worthwhile!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Radii

If there were Monty Python scenes posted in every political thread I'd be much more involved in political debate on this forum. It certainly made this thread worthwhile!

I'll see what I can do.