Rice Seeks Meeting with Sept. 11 Panel Members

Reuters ^ | 3-25-04

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday sought a second private meeting with members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Members had complained about her refusal to testify about her role in the months before the attacks in this week's public hearings. Rice met for four hours in private with commissioners in February.

The White House released a letter from White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez to the chairman and co-chairman of the commission, asking that Rice be given another opportunity to speak.

"In light of yesterday's hearing in which there were a number of mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statement and positions, Dr. Rice requests to meet again privately with the commission," Gonzalez wrote.

The letter also complains about what it termed the mischaracterization of the White House position by a couple of Democrat representatives on the 9/11 panel.

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush that Rice would "welcome the opportunity" to meet with them again, "particularly given some of the assertions that were made" by former counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke in his testimony.

Several commission members are also "interested" in meeting again with Rice, but the details have yet to be worked out, a panel spokesman said. "Some commissioners do have more questions," the spokesman said.

Clarke, who served the last four U.S. presidents, said Bush did not take the threat of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization seriously and downgraded its importance in comparison to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Clarke delivered his scathing critique of Bush in testimony on Wednesday before the commission investigating the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, in which 3,000 people died at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in central Pennsylvania.

Rice has accused Clarke of shifting positions from backing Bush's war on terrorism to questioning it.

[Mike Bates]

This isn't good. The principal result will be the Lefties getting more face time as they whine about her refusal to testify publicly.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

[CedarDave]

AP article previously posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105221/posts

[Damocles]

I was under the impression that Condi was inhibited from testifying in public due to the seperation of powers doctrine.

Maybe I'm confused...

[Mike Bates]

I doubt that you're confused. :) You may have noticed that Demos such as commission member Richard Ben Veniste assert there are several precedents for her to testify.

[mabelkitty]

Seperation of Powers.
Leftists better learn what that means.

Perhaps Dr. Rice should show her log for the first day of work - she was throwing out the Chinese who had been sitting comfortably in her office oh those many years.

[Cboldt]

I was under the impression that Condi was inhibited from testifying in public due to the seperation of powers doctrine.

This offer is not one to testify publicly. It's an offer to provide the fact-finding commission with facts.

[Cboldt]

White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday sought a second private meeting with members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

I doubt that you're confused. :) You may have noticed that Demos such as commission member Richard Ben Veniste assert there are several precedents for her to testify.

There are substantial ifferences between the public testimony given by other cabinet membes, compared with waht Rice is being asked to provide public testimony on. She told Brokaw she waould answer any question he asked, last night, publicly. She is asking for a chance to provide testimony to the Commission.

WIll they give her an opportunity to provide further testimony in private? If not, why not?

[jwalsh07]

Better yet, why aren't Clinton and Gore testilying in public?

[EvilOverlord]

Could you explain to me why this is a separation of powers issue? I'm a little confused, not being a constitutional scholar.

Thanks.

[SirFishalot]

The Legislative branch does not have the power to investigate the Executive branch.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

[ladyinred]

NO!!! She should just ignore them! They have already met with her and in fact it is said she was very forthcoming and honest with them! Don't do it Condi!!!! This is playing right into their hands!

OFFENSE, not DEFENSE!!!!

[Torie]

Rice should testify publically. Let it all hang out.

[Torie]

I should add that the hearings are a partisan media circus, and we need a complete cast. In addition to Clinton and Gore, we need Carter (irrelevant, but I don't care), all of CLinton's defense secretaries (who the hell were they by the way?), the hapless David Freeh (sp), the FBI director, and everybody else. Bring it on.

[jwalsh07]

Now you're talking. I want Jamie Gorlick, Janet Reno, Louis Freeh, James Woolsey, Al Gore, Deutsch and the whole damn crew on the hot seat.

And then let'em fall where they may. How they could not invite Woolsey, the CIA director during Clintons early years and Freeh is way beyond partisan, it's criminal.

[tkathy]

She really should testify in public. She would look really good.