White House Asks Sept. 11 Panel Meet Again With National Security Adviser

AP ^ | Mar. 25, 2004

[nuconvert]

White House Asks Sept. 11 Panel Meet Again With National Security Adviser

Mar 25, 2004 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday asked the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to give national security adviser Condoleezza Rice another opportunity to talk privately with panel members. The White House said, in a letter to the commission chairman and vice chairman from counsel Alberto Gonzales, that such a session would allow her to clear up "a number of mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions."

Rice still would not testify publicly before the panel, as the members and many relatives of victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks want. Gonzales wrote that is important that presidential advisers such as Rice "not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the Commission."

Rice had said Wednesday that she was willing to return for another private session with the commission.

"I also have a responsibility to make sure that the commission knows everything that I know, and that's why I spent four hours with them, and I'm prepared to spend longer with them anywhere they want, any time they want, answer as many questions as they have," she told reporters in a briefing. "And I hope we'll have an opportunity to do that. But I just have to maintain the separation."

But the letter from Gonzales to former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican and the commission chairman, and commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, represented the White House's formal offer of Rice's return

[Dog Gone]

The story kinda doesn't have an ending....

[mass55th]

Well, all those lefties said they had more questions they wanted to ask her. If they turn her down, then we know they only wanted to show her being skewered on TV.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The genius of Bush and Rove is that they are willing to take some shots in the court of public opinion, where rhetoric runs wild. This draws shooters out into the open. But they hoard their strength in the locus of truth.

We know Clarke's testimony privately to the committee wildly diverges from his testimony publicly. Let Democrats have some victories in the open hearings. But the commission's private meetings ... what they know privately ... is close to the truth. As it comes out, the truth makes those rhetorical shooters fade into nothing.

[CedarDave]

The RAT commission members will put up a stink -- they want to have her testify in public so that they can skewer her before the press and the TV media. They will go public saying she has something to hide by not testifying in public, yada, yada, yada. If she does testify in private, it will be short with very little questioning of her. They know Clarke is grandstanding and that she is the one with integrity. But their power trip only works if she is publicly trashed (the old when did you stop beating your wife type of questions). BTW, I have no doubt she can hold her own in any forum, hearing or inquiry.

[Old Sarge]

This is The Song That Doesn't End,
it just goes on and on, my friend,
some people started singing it,
Not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it
Forever, just because

This is The Song That Doesn't End,
it just goes on and on, my friend,
some people started singing it,
Not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it
Forever, just because

This is The Song That Doesn't End,
it just goes on and on, my friend,
some people started singing it,
Not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it
Forever, just because

This is The Song That Doesn't End,
it just goes on and on, my friend,
some people started singing it,
Not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it
Forever, just because...

[CedarDave]

Let Democrats have some victories in the open hearings.

If it was just that, I wouldn't be so upset. It's that the press and electronic media take the charges and run with them as if they were all true. And the mainstream media headlines are all the typical member of the public hears on the late local news between the breaking news of the latest drug killing and the TV weathergirl giving tomorrow's forecast.

[nuconvert]

Good point

[Gator113]

I am not being critical of Rice, but I am curious.

Why is it important for her to maintain this separation she speaks of???

It seems to me that by not testifying in public, it gives the Rats more legs and ability to play with this. Of course, I see this whole damn thing as a bad joke and only done as an attempt to take our President down.

[nuconvert]

Lol

[NutCrackerBoy]

[Democrats have some victories in the open hearings...] The mainstream media headlines are all the typical member of the public hears...

Yep, no question, that sure hurts. The biased mainstream media amazingly continues to do what they do best. A great majority of voters are not plugged into any fair 'n balanced outlets (let alone right-wing) outlets. But, thankfully, the change in information flow brought on by cable and Internet continues to work.

[mathluv]

She replied on H&C last night. It has to do with the separation of powers act. she said it was the law.

[hobson]

Why is it important for her to maintain this separation she speaks of???

There are separation issues but just imagine this: The committee has the National Security Advisor under oath, in front of the cameras. They ask a loaded, insinuating question about the President and she can't answer due to security reasons. All kinds of heck would break lose. Conspiracies out the whazooo! Not a good ideal.

[hobson]

ideal=idea

[petitfour]

Personally, I think it would be a win-win for Miss Rice and President Bush to testify publicly. It would be unprecedented. It would put the smarmy jerks on the committee look as small as they are. It would no doubt show President Bush's passion and emotion over what happened on 9/11. And it could be a very unifying move for our country.

[rwfromkansas]

RIP Shari Lewis.

[spald]

Since so many people are having difficulty posting this evening, I thought I'd make one recommendation.

George Soros should be required to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

After all, he's paying for at least half of the staff. Can anyone come up with a few questions for George Soros? Such as...

1. When did you pay off Clarke and for how much?

[prairiebreeze]

There is a long standing protocol that is being followed here. Clintoon used it extensively and often. The separation of the executive branch from the congressional.

Having Condi testify would set a terrible precendence. After that, any conversation that any NSA Director had with a President could be called into hearing. Of course the NSA needs to be able to speak with and counsel the President without fear of congressional probing.

Prairie

[Gator113]

Thank you......

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why is it important for her to maintain this separation she speaks of???

Well, there is that separation of powers thing...imagine the Executive Branch of the Government pulling Senators in and putting them under oath.....

But, also, as a key member of the current administration...one that is at war...there would be too many --legitimate-- times when Condi Rice would be forced to answer "I cannot answer that".

Imagine what the CBSNBCABCTWPNYT would do with THAT!