Happy birthday to Daphne!
In keeping with what is rapidly becoming a family tradition, I made a horrible horrible cake last night. Well, I haven’t tasted it yet, so I’m not positive that it’s that horrible, but it has no lift - both layers came out about one inch thick (I was expecting two).
I don’t know what is up with our household and cakes, but our options at this point seem to be either to purchase all future cakes from qualified professionals, or embrace our horrible-cake natures and just make it part of the family schtick.
Or maybe something’s wrong with our oven. Yeah, that’s it. Hardware problem.
Anyway, the frosting seems to have turned out okay, so at least we should have a pretty picture to post. :)
2 Comments
Uh, just kidding, Condi Rice is going to testify. The president decided to let her, because he understands how important it is for the American people to get “a complete picture” of the months before 9/11 (read: ‘introduce a counter-narrative to Richard Clarke’s testimony’). The fact that not letting her testify was starting to look truly seedy in juxtaposition with her constant appearances on talk shows to attack Richard Clarke - well, that might have had something to do with it as well.
But Bush’s generosity in allowing Condi to fulfill her dear, dear wish to testify in public and under oath did not come without cost. Specifically, the 9/11 commission had to promise, in writing, that no precedent would be set by Rice’s testimony. If I were White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, I would also have asked the commission to promise me a pony for my birthday, and for Jesus to return real soon now, two requests which the commissioners have just as much power to fulfill.
Holly shook her head and opined that they were idiots for caving on Rice’s testimony, and that no good could come of it (for anybody, on any side of the aisle). She might be right. I certainly don’t expect to see future policy shaped by the outcome of these investigations.It seems clear to me that the real product of the Commission will be political clubs for each side to wield against the other.
As far as political motivation goes, I admit I’m a bit confused about the reversal on letting Rice testify. To whom does this move seem honorable? If you thought that the initial resistance to having Rice testify was bogus, then this flip-flop just looks like they’re caving to outside pressure. If you agreed with the original argument that public testimony from Rice was barred by the Constitution, you’re left with the impression that the administration knew what was right, but abandoned it for a chance to rebut Richard Clarke.
1 Comment
