[zafer]

http://us.cnn.com/2004/US/02/25/911.commission/index.html

Earlier Wednesday, the commission said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had declined its request to testify at a public hearing next month.

"We are disappointed by this decision," commission members said in a statement. "We believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the commission."

Rice met privately with the panel February 7.

The statement also asked Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to reconsider their decision to be questioned only by the commission's chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, a Republican, and its vice chairman, former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.

The statement said Bush and Cheney "prefer not to meet with all members of the commission."

Former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have agreed to meet privately with all members of the commission, the statement said.

 

[Warzau]

now why wouldnt they want to testify?

 

[zafer]

Rice is not testifying before the 9/11 commission based on a White House principle that a presidential adviser who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate should not give public testimony.

What does this mean? Can someone explain please?

 

[keystone]

why does she have a choice? she should be forced to testify if she knows something and is covering for W.

 

[hhwc]

My understanding is Dr. Rice has given 4 hours of closed door testimony to the 9/11 commission.

 

[keystone]

closed door testimony and she won't have to be under oath. WTF!

 

[DaleB]

:19:

 

[hhwc]

closed door testimony and she won't have to be under oath. WTF!

Who said it wasn't under oath?

 

[keystone]

NYT 2/26/04

"The White House announced late Thursday that Ms. Rice was willing to appear before the panel again, but only in private and not under oath. Some Republicans said that Mr. Bush was being undercut by the perception that a senior White House official would not cooperate, while his aides were out pummeling Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief who has accused the Bush administration of not heeding warnings before Sept. 11."

 

[socalJD]

What does this mean? Can someone explain please?

It's the difference between a personal Advisor chosen by the President and a Cabinet Member that must be confirmed by the Senate. The National Security Advisor (ie C. Rice) is chosen by the president and does not require Senate confirmation. A Cabinet Member, like the Secretary of Defense (ie C. Powell) is also chosen by the President but also must be confirmed by the Senate before being able to resume duties. The difference is that a White House Advisor serves purely at the leisure of the President whereas a Cabinet Member is a servant of the public and not solely to the President.

 

[zafer]

White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission&printer=1

In a reversal, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice will testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as long as the panel seeks no further public testimony from White House officials, the administration said Tuesday.

 

[BaldEagle]

Evidently Richard Clark refused to testify to Congress in 1999 for the same reason Dr. Clark is not testifing. I still would like to see her have her say to the 9/11 commission.

 

[xfactor]

Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040330/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission&printer=1

I'm surprised the White House caved! ... very unusual...

 

[DaleB]

Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

I'm surprised the White House caved! ... very unusual...

Why not let her testify if they have nothing to hide...especially if her testimony counters Clarke, all the more reason they should be anxious for her to testify. I think she carries more credibility than the president, in the public's eye.

 

[keremoner]

Re: Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

Why not let her testify if they have nothing to hide...especially if her testimony counters Clarke, all the more reason they should be anxious for her to testify. I think she carries more credibility than the president, in the public's eye.

Here is the problem in a nut shell: If the Prez gives up exec priviledge, this has negative implications on the presidency. Presidents need to be able to have close advisers who can discuss issues/strategy with them without the risk of having to divulge their conversations. That is why Nat. Security Advisors are not confirmed by the congress.

 

[DaleB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

Here is the problem in a nut shell: If the Prez gives up exec priviledge, this has negative implications on the presidency. Presidents need to be able to have close advisers who can discuss issues/strategy with them without the risk of having to divulge their conversations. That is why Nat. Security Advisors are not confirmed by the congress.

If there is nothing to hide with regards to the subject at hand, nothing will be divulged that can not help the situation.

 

[xfactor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

If there is nothing to hide with regards to the subject at hand, nothing will be divulged that can not help the situation.

Well, there is always "something to hide". Now whether it is in regard to the subject at hand, maybe not. However, in the past, fishing expeditions have uncovered unrelated unsavory secrets that the Administration does not want aired... ergo, the Whitewater investigation leading to "Monicagate"...

 

[DaleB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

Well, there is always "something to hide". Now whether it is in regard to the subject at had, maybe not. However, in the past, fishing expeditions have uncovered unrelated unsavory secrets that the Administration does not want aired... ergo, the Whitewater investigation leading to "Monicagate"...

Of course, we only want to the truth. Nothing wishy washy.
If it shuts Clarke up, or reveals something we should know with regards to the question, privilege be damned.

 

[DaleB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: White House to Let Rice Testify in Public

Well, there is always "something to hide". Now whether it is in regard to the subject at hand, maybe not. However, in the past, fishing expeditions have uncovered unrelated unsavory secrets that the Administration does not want aired... ergo, the Whitewater investigation leading to "Monicagate"...

Yeah, maybe 'Stargate' is for real. Sorry, just remembering the context of the last seasons shows.

 

[DaleB]

She definitely said a lot of things that 'sounded right' if you thought there was no reason to question them. That's an art.


"You can fool some of the people some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time" ---- A. Lincoln