Rice to Testify Under Oath


PDA






7.62FullMetalJacket
March 30, 2004, 11:14 AM
Rice to Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Commission
Tuesday, March 30, 2004

WASHINGTON — The White House agreed Tuesday to let National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) publicly testify under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.


In return, the commission unanimously agreed to a Bush administration request that Rice's testimony will not set a precedent that would require future White House aides to testify publicly.

An administration official said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (search) had already given a verbal assurance. The commission also agreed to deliver in writing a commitment that such testimony would not upset the concept of separation of powers (search) between the legislative and executive branch, the official said.

In a letter to the commission sent Tuesday by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (search), the White House asserted that any testimony by Rice "can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances.

"Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as a precedent for future requests for a national security advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body," Gonzales wrote.

In the letter, the White House also offered to provide President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath. Bush and Cheney, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, previously agreed to meet with the commission.

Rice has already appeared for four hours in front of the commission to answer questions in private about what the administration had been doing about terror threats. She rejected testifying in public, arguing that she is prevented by executive privilege (search) from revealing confidential conversations.

But many legal scholars and partisans had argued that Rice's appearance on television and in other media to defend her decision and discuss administration efforts to stop terrorism before the attacks undermined her argument of executive privilege.

"From a political standpoint, it's probably a wise move," said former Republican National Committee Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf (search). He said that the "fact of 9/11, maybe perhaps an equal of Pearl Harbor" gave the public and the commission the need "for closure," which could be achieved by hearing from all the officials who worked on counterterrorism prior to the tragedy.

Besides trying to dispel some of the characterizations made by Richard Clarke (search) — the former Bush and Clinton counterterrorism coordinator who claimed before the commission last week and in a recently-published book that the Bush administration had not treated the threat from Al Qaeda (search) with enough urgency — Rice's appearance is likely to blunt attacks from other quarters.

Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath.

The resolution, offered by Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, demanded that Rice testify in order to "make a full accounting of the
preparedness of the United States before, and the response of the United States to, the September 11, 2001, attacks."

In a letter to colleagues, Schumer and Kennedy said that "given her substantial security responsibilities, Dr. Rice is under a special obligation to share her version of events while under oath and her narrative is essential to providing the public with confidence that no stone has gone unturned in the commission's effort to protect the nation against terrorism."

Fox News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui contributed to this report.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, this is precedential and a bad idea for executive priv.

However, I think Clarke et all will pretty much be toast after this.

:D
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Rice to Testify Under Oath" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Leatherneck
March 30, 2004, 12:29 PM
So much for "Principles." :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

w4rma
March 30, 2004, 12:42 PM
Will she avoid directly answering the questions asked? Will the questions be softballs (the commission was appointed by Bush, after alot of pressure, not Congress)? How many times will she take the 5th?


First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official.

Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8312248.htm

7.62FullMetalJacket
March 30, 2004, 01:05 PM
Since the WH is breaking precedent in this case, do you fault them for requesting confirmation that it will not become routine? Further, this "victory" by the commission must not be construed as an invitation to start a bigger witch hunt thus the other condition.

Yeah, principles and separation of powers have been violated. Her testimony will clear the air and put this issue to rest (as well as Clarke, who had a distinguished carreer and reputation until this).

glocksman
March 30, 2004, 01:14 PM
Will she avoid directly answering the questions asked? Will the questions be softballs (the commission was appointed by Bush, after alot of pressure, not Congress)? How many times will she take the 5th?

She can't take the 5th unless she's asked to testify on something she's done that's criminal. It prohibits self-incrimination, not answering politically damaging questions.

If she did take the Fifth, say hello to President Kerry. :barf:

pittspilot
March 30, 2004, 01:25 PM
The WH has a good reason for doing this, although I do not know what that is.

Dr. Rice is no fool, and very quick on her feet. This could be a tactic to end this thing once and for all.

BTW, this tack by the Dems that the 9/11 thing was Bush's fault is a very poor tactic.

EVERYONE knows that we were poorly prepared. And that this poor preparedness far predated the Bush administration.

Clinton will not come out looking like a rose in this matter, and thus the damage will be put on anyone.

Furthermore, since everyone knows that we were caught with our pants down, it's a non-issue. The issue is what do we do now, something Kerry et al seem unwilling to clearly address.

Mulliga
March 30, 2004, 01:40 PM
She can't take the 5th unless she's asked to testify on something she's done that's criminal.

You're right that she can't take the 5th since this is not a criminal case (yet), but just to clarify...people who "take the 5th" aren't necessarily guilty - otherwise no one would ever do it.

Sometimes what people testify in a criminal case might appear to be highly damaging and so they can choose not to say it.

EDIT: I just read that people can "take the fifth" in any type of proceeding. In retrospect, this makes a heck of a lot of sense, since people "have the right to remain silent" and all.

No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

Personally I think this whole 9/11 commission is the biggest waste of time ever. Why are politicians wasting their breath and money pointing fingers when practically no one in the country ever imagined doing what the 9/11 attackers would do (except the sick Columbine killers, whose plan if I recall was to hijack an airplane and fly it into NYC)? Why are people blaming government inaction when we have a lot of work to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

bountyhunter
March 30, 2004, 01:44 PM
The WH has a good reason for doing this, although I do not know what that is. Duhhh. It's to try to stem the political damage Clarke's charges have caused. Rice is there to fire every gun straight into his testimony.

Dr. Rice is no fool, and very quick on her feet. This could be a tactic to end this thing once and for all. She has now been sufficiently prepped and the committee knows what areas they can ask about. This will be a public rebuttal to Clarke's testimony, not an inquiry into the facts. YAWN.

Smoke
March 30, 2004, 01:47 PM
I hate to tell the White House folks but as soon as Rice takes the stand the precedent HAS been set.

So someone says they won't do it again...anyone heard that before?

Once the Gov't does something once it becomes very easy to do it again.

I hope Rice's testimony clears things up, but I'd rather not see her take the stand. Principles, then there is that little thing about seperation of powers.

In a letter to colleagues, Schumer and Kennedy said that "given her substantial security responsibilities, Dr. Rice is under a special obligation to share her version of events while under oath and her narrative is essential to providing the public with confidence that no stone has gone unturned in the commission's effort to protect the nation against terrorism."

Sorry boys, she is under no obligation to tell you a damn thing.

Smoke

TaurusCIA
March 30, 2004, 01:56 PM
Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath.


They will use any crooked means to try to get what they want. I'm not just talking about Dems. What do these two issues have to do with each other. Do what we want or we will hold up the money and tell everyone its your fault.

You would think that they (as smart as these guys are) would know that blackmail is not an honorable method of persuasion. But they keep right on doing it because they can.

P.S. I forgot myself there for a minute...Since when has honor had anything to do with politics...

Don Gwinn
March 30, 2004, 02:18 PM
My first thought was that the commission can promise whatever it wants with regard to precedent, since it has absolutely NO power to decide what sets precedent and what doesn't. :rolleyes:

Precedent is a relatively informal thing, especially outside the legal system. The precedent that Presidential advisors cannot be forced to testify to Congress is much less than a century old--closer to half a century. It wasn't set because Eisenhower and a committee agreed that it was OK to set a precedent. It was set by the action.

The commission has no way of stopping the next commission from saying "Hey, Rice did it back in the spring of '04 when gas was only two bucks a gallon and there weren't any aliens, so why won't NSA Kloos testify?" That's all precedent really is anyway.

Sean Smith
March 30, 2004, 02:20 PM
I think the Democrats may have cut their own throats here. While public testimony by Dr. Rice may be problematic from the point of view of separation of powers, it is also likely that she will make the most convincing case to support what the Bush administration did and did not do about terrorism. The Democrats were probalby gambling on the administration NOT giving in and letting her testify, so they could make hay about Republican "cover-ups" without having to confront Dr. Rice's arguments.

The thing is, when Dr. Rice arrives at the hearing, the average IQ of the room will go up about 50 points. By making her testify, the Democrats are in great danger of having her make them look like sub-literate bufoons. It would have been much smarter for the Democrats to not push so hard for her testimony, then once the hearings are over make a big deal about it. That way they could have their cake and eat it too: discredit the Bush administration, but not confront the testimony of one of its sharpest minds.

Interestingly enough, the only counters I've heard from the Democratic Party for anything Rice has ever said are lesbian jokes. Ironic, is it not? ;)

Master Blaster
March 30, 2004, 02:25 PM
Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath.

The three branches of government and the seperation of powers exist for a very good reason, and even someone like w4RMA should be able to comprehend that setting a precedent that violates this principal is not a real good idea.

Lets suppose that Congress or the President could Order the Supreme Court to overturn ROE v. Wade. Or lets say that the president could issue an executive order compelling Congress to testify before a special executive commitee and gain approval before any legislation could be brought to the floor of the House for a vote?????

Would either of these things be acceptable to the left even?????

Congress has no authority to order anyone in the executive branch to do anything.

w4rma
March 30, 2004, 04:23 PM
Precedent has already been set by previous presidents and advisors who have testified under oath. Clinton testified under oath.

9/11/1997 - National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

Bush is still accountable to the people of the United States. He's not a king. He's a public servant.

Bruce H
March 30, 2004, 04:45 PM
She should have done it a long time ago. All of the posturing garbage has dug them a hole. What is so special about her anyway? We had a few over three thousand people killed and I wouldn't mind some answers.

mrapathy2000
March 30, 2004, 05:07 PM
Precedent has already been set by previous presidents and advisors who have testified under oath. Clinton testified under oath.

9/11/1997 - National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

Bush is still accountable to the people of the United States. He's not a king. He's a public servant.



has clinton and gore testified publicly and under oath to 9/11 commission yet?? last I heard they would only testify behind closed doors.

Clarke refused to testify number years back sighting same reasons people here dont want Rice to testify.

Bahadur
March 30, 2004, 07:58 PM
Precedent has already been set by previous presidents and advisors who have testified under oath. Clinton testified under oath.

9/11/1997 - National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

Bush is still accountable to the people of the United States. He's not a king. He's a public servant.Uh, no. You are confusing two different things.

Previous executive branch figures who testified for Congress did so for matters that are related to (IL)LEGAL and (UN)ETHICAL issues. They did NOT testify regarding advice they gave/received on POLICY issues. And the kind of questions that Dr. Rice faced in private, and will face again in public, are POLICY-related.

Coltdriver
March 30, 2004, 09:04 PM
One thing that many are not familiar with is the fact that Clark himself, while a member of the NSC under the Clinton admin, declined to testify before a senate committee on the exact grounds cited by the Bush Admin.

There is precedent, Sandy Berger testified many times.

This whole thing is nothing more than a political witch hunt and from a polls perspective it has backfired badly on the Democrats. Americans are not stupid and even some who are don't buy this nonsense.

Dr Rice will serve them their lunch in heaping plates of crow. I will try to catch this one just for the amusement it will provide.

Condi Rice demoted Clark because of his idiotic focus on cyber terrorism. I wonder if she will point this out in testimony.

w4rma
March 30, 2004, 10:12 PM
Condi Rice demoted Clark because of his idiotic focus on cyber terrorism. I wonder if she will point this out in testimony.First; the "Clark was demoted" bull????. He wasn't "demoted". His position was eliminated by Bush*.

February 2001....

President George W. Bush recently signed National Security Presidential Directive-1 (NSPD-1) establishing the organization of the National Security Council under his Administration. Among other things, the document abolishes the previous system of interagency working groups and replaces them with policy coordination committees (PCC).

This may have had something to do with Clarke wanting a new position in Cyber-Terrorism. He approached Rice with this request in March of 2001.

Secondly; What Did Bush* receive on August 6, 2001?

I have no idea what specific documents Bush* received on the morning of August 6, 2001 but the 1 1/2 page "document" in question was not a PDB. It was a analytic report submitted to him by the NSC (Rice). So, how does a report of this nature reach the President? Under NSC quidelines at the time; NSC Terrorism Response Policy Structure it would have started with;

1. The Counterterrorism & Security Group headed by Richard Clarke.

then on to...

2. The Counterterrorism & National Preparedness Policy Coordination Committee which is chaired by the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.

then it went to...

3. The NSC Deputies Committee. Who was on this committee?
Deputy National Security Advisor
Deputy Chief of Staff to the President for Policy
Deputy Secretary of State
Deputy Secretary of Defense
Depurty Secretary of Treasury
Deputy Attorney General
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
Deputy Director of Office Of Management & Budget
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Deputy Asst to the President for Intl Economic Affairs
Chief of Staff & National Security Advisor to the Vice President

and then it proceeded to....

4. The NSC Principals Committee. Who was on this committee?
Asst to the President for National Security Affairs
Chief of Staff to the President
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Treasury
Attorney General
Director of Central Intelligence
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Deputy National Security Advisor
Chief of Staff & National Security Advisor to the Vice President

Now we've all been told, like 1000 times, how if "they had known that terrorists were going to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC on 9/11 they would have stopped them." But that is not the point. Something pretty ????ing serious was going on that it actually went through this myriad of government committees to reach the President.

Links? Yea, I got your friggin' links...

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/wh051602.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30938.pdf

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020114fa_FACT1

It's kind of long, but, read this whole thing. Directly from the transcript:

ROEMER: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February.

Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those inter-related issues.

ROEMER: So as the Bush administration is carefully considering from bottom up a full review of fighting terrorism, what happens to these individual items like a response to the USS Cole, flying the Predator? Why aren't these decided in a shorter time frame as they're also going through a larger policy review of how this policy affects Pakistan and other countries -- important considerations, but why can't you do both?

CLARKE: The deputies committee, its chairman, Mr. Hadley, and others thought that all these issues were sufficiently inter-related, that they should be taken up as a set of issues, and pieces of them should not be broken off.

ROEMER: Did you agree with that?

CLARKE: No, I didn't agree with much of that.

ROEMER: Were you frustrated by this process?

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

ROEMER: When was this?

CLARKE: Probably May or June. Certainly no later than June.

And there was agreement in that time frame, in the May or June time frame, that my request would be honored and I would be reassigned on the 1st of October to a new position to deal with cybersecurity, a position that I requested be created.

ROEMER: So you're saying that the frustration got to a high enough level that it wasn't your portfolio, it wasn't doing a lot of things at the same time, it was that you weren't getting fast enough action on what you were requesting?

CLARKE: That's right.

My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, didn't either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem.

And I thought, if the administration doesn't believe its national coordinator for counterterrorism when he says there's an urgent problem and if it's unprepared to act as though there's an urgent problem, then probably I should get another job.

I thought cybersecurity was and I still think cyber security is an extraordinary important issue for which this country is very underprepared. And I thought perhaps I could make a contribution if I worked full time on that issue.

ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

CLARKE: That's right.

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options.

ROEMER: Well, let's say, Mr. Clarke -- I think this is a fair question -- let's say that you asked to brief the president of the United States on counterterrorism.

CLARKE: Yes.

ROEMER: Did you ask that?

CLARKE: I asked for a series of briefings on the issues in my portfolio, including counterterrorism and cybersecurity.

ROEMER: Did you get that request?

CLARKE: I did. I was given an opportunity to brief on cybersecurity in June. I was told I could brief the president on terrorism after this policy development process was complete and we had the principals meeting and the draft national security policy decision that had been approved by the deputies committee.

------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html

Clarke told them MORE than once that terror was a very serious threat to the US, and while he asked to brief the president on counterterrorism they didn't give him the opportunity for THAT, but for cybersecurity.

TaurusCIA
March 30, 2004, 10:56 PM
GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

CLARKE: That's right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20349-2004Mar24.html


Clarke told them MORE than once that terror was a very serious threat to the US, and while he asked to brief the president on counterterrorism they didn't give him the opportunity for THAT, but for cybersecurity.

And if they had it would have changed nothing You suppose that knowing of a general threat and being able to deter a specific threat are one in the same. "Clarke" said that his recommendations would not have prevented 9/11 but may have given us a head start in responding after.

In simple terms...Clarke said the things he was proposing were not going to help protect America from an urgent threat. So to say that Bush was not concerned about urgent threats because he did not implement a plan that did not address urgent threats is ridiculous. :banghead:

That is the only thing that relates to 9/11.

His only legitimate issue is his disagreement with the strategy after the attack. The rest of this garbage has been dreamed up by political strategists and has been promoted by their media buddies.

You and others argue like his recommendations would have saved the world. They were more like swatting at flies.

CLARKE: The Blue Sky memo I believe you're referring to was part of an overall update of the Delenda Plan. And it was a part generated by the Central Intelligence Agency. We, my staff, generated the rest of the update.

GORTON: And the goal of that plan was to roll back Al Qaida over a period of three to five years, reducing it eventually to a rump group like other terrorist organizations around the world.

CLARKE: Our goal was to do that to eliminate it as a threat to the United States, recognizing that one might not ever be able to totally eliminate everybody in the world who thought they were a member of Al Qaida. But if we could get it to be as ineffective as the Abu Nidal organization was toward the end of its existence; it didn't pose a threat to the United States. That's what we wanted. The CIA said that if they got all the resources they needed, that might be possible over the course of three years at the earliest.

GORTON: And then Delenda and that Blue Sky proposal, I take it, were pretty much the basis of what you recommended to Condoleezza Rice in January of 2001: covert assistance to the Northern Alliance, you know, more money for CIA activities, something called choosing a standard of evidence for attributing responsibility for the Cole, new Predator reconnaissance missions and more work on funding?

CLARKE: That's right, Senator.


Three to five years sounds like an urgent plan to me.

The whole Clarke spin is utter foolishness.:banghead:

w4rma
March 31, 2004, 12:15 AM
Three to five years sounds like an urgent plan to me.It's been over 3 years since Bush took office and about 2 and a half years since 9.11 and Bush is nowhere near rolling back Al Queda.

Cactus
March 31, 2004, 12:28 AM
It's to try to stem the political damage Clarke's charges have caused.

What political damage would that be precisely?:confused: The lastest polls taken AFTER Clarke's testimony show that President Bush's ratings have gone UP.:D

The American people have seen Clarke for the self serving liar that he is.

It's been over 3 years since Bush took office and about 2 and a half years since 9.11 and Bush is nowhere near rolling back Al Queda.

And exactly how far had Clinton rolled back al Qaeda 2-1/2 years after the first WTC bombing? Or 2-1/2 years after the embassy bombings?

You may want to check out the information gotten from the head of al Qaeda's planning section who was captured in Pakistan last year. He says that al Qaeda had plans for attacks in Los Angeles and Chicago shortly after 9-11, but due to the rapid and massive response by President Bush, they couldn't get them carried out.

Mr Clarke wrote that when he briefed Ms Rice on al-Qaida, "her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before".

Well, since Ms. Rice had given detailed interviews where she talked at length about UBL PRIOR to the election of 2000, I would say she had heard of al Qaeda before.:rolleyes: That excerpt from Clarke's book goes a long ways in showing his contempt for Ms. Rice since day one. Could it be that he was jealous of her getting the position HE desired? Could he be a sexist? I do know that it shows that he has NO credibility and is a partisan Democrat. Yes that's right, in case you missed it, Clarke admitted voting for Al Gore in 2000. So much for the "registered Republican" b.s.!

TaurusCIA
March 31, 2004, 08:30 AM
It's been over 3 years since Bush took office and about 2 and a half years since 9.11 and Bush is nowhere near rolling back Al Queda.

The "Plan" doesn't exist in a vacuum. The original recommendations did not consider the attack on 9/11. So the original time line would have changed as well as the strategies.

TaurusCIA
March 31, 2004, 08:44 AM
(Prov 17:28 NKJV) Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace; When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive.

Sorry Clarke. It's too late to pretend any longer.

(Prov 18:2 NKJV) A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.

And the bitterness overflows...:(

If you enjoyed reading about "Rice to Testify Under Oath" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!