Rice: 'Nothing to hide' from 9/11 commission -- Panel's chairman: White House should waive concerns

CNN ^ | Monday, March 29, 2004 Posted: 1:16 PM EST (1816 GMT) | staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Condoleezza Rice: "It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."

Watch CNN-USA now: Kyra Phillips looks at the controversy over Condoleezza Rice's position on 9/11 testimony and at the day's election campaign issues.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this:

"Rate the 9/11 Commission so far" ( Poll needing attention Freepers )

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

CNN is running a poll on their main page of this story:

______________________________________________________________________________

Current results:

__________________________________________________________________________

Created: Monday, March 29, 2004, at 04:04:27 EST

Should U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice be forced to testify in public to the independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks?
Yes		79%	7303 votes
No		21%	1932 votes
Total: 9235 votes

This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.

Related:   

• Rice: 'Nothing to hide' from 9/11 commission
  
  

[Frank_Discussion]

What about "National Security ADVISOR" do they NOT understand? She can't be much of an "adviser" if Congress can compel her to report her "advice". That's why there is a separation - a sitting president must have a confidential sounding board to discuss security issues with. Otherwise, there is a hole in that "security".

They have her testimony in closed chambers, that should be enough!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Link below poll barchart at post #2 doesn't work!

[EQAndyBuzz]

The RATS should just leak it like expected then her testimony will be public.

[ravingnutter]

Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice "has been very helpful to us" in private sessions. "She's told us she's happy to have us come back, so we're going to get the information that we want in the commission," Hamilton said. "But there's another whole dimension here, and that dimension is the public dimension -- and I think the American public would benefit from hearing Condi Rice testify under oath."

As long as they get the necessary info from her testimony, why do they need it to be public? Sworn testimony is sworn testimony. This is crazy. Most of the media is still trumpeting the "she will not testify" story without stating that she HAS testified and WILL testify again in a private session. I am getting tired of screaming at the TV!

[lilylangtree]

Freeped.

Rate the 9/11 Commission so far"

Useful to war on terror (4.8%) 30 votes
Partisan witch-hunt by Democrats (42.8%) 267 votes
Clarke is hero/whistle blower (20.8%) 130 votes
Clarke driven solely by his ego (5.4%) 34 votes
Shows desperation of Bush-haters (13.8%) 86 votes
Waste of time and money (12.3%) 77 votes

Total votes: 624

[lilylangtree]

Freeped the Communist News Network poll with a loud NO!

Should the White House waive its concerns about executive privilege and let Condoleezza Rice testify publicly before the 9/11 commission?

Yes 70% 76345 votes

No 30% 32575 votes
Total: 108920 votes

[ravingnutter]

Geez...Mr. Hamilton seems to have changed his tune since Sep 2002...

Both Walker and Hamilton argued that the ability to hold confidential meetings can be conducive to a successful decision-making process. "It's very hard to do your deliberations with even a small group of people . . . in the public eye," Walker said. "It is a problem in terms of getting real things done."

American Enterprise Institute

[ravingnutter]

Maybe if we hadn't set a precedent earlier...

Statment of Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has reached an agreement with the White House that will allow commissioners unprecedented access to materials from the president's daily intelligence briefs, the most sensitive documents the government produces.

For the first time ever, the president will allow individuals other than the most senior officials in the executive branch to see these documents. Access to the briefs will enable the commission to put speculation to rest.

< *snip* >

The law that created the commission mandated an investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the terrorist attacks on the United States and the immediate response to those attacks. The commission therefore never asked to see other intelligence presented to the president on subjects that have nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks -- for example, items dealing with China, Kosovo, Colombia or hundreds of other topics.

The agreement before us gives the commission access to materials on which the executive's claim of executive privilege and state secrets is strong. If the commission had subpoenaed these documents, the White House would no doubt have fought the subpoena to avoid setting a damaging constitutional precedent.

In that case, the commission might have seen no documents and could have been tied up in the courts past its date of expiration. The choice before us is not unrestricted access versus conditional access; the choice is between access to fulfill our mandate and no access at all. Under this agreement, the commission has gained a degree of access to sensitive information unequaled in the history of the United States.

The agreement before us gives us the ability to fulfill our mandate, and it respects the integrity and independence of the commission. Some charge that this agreement "compromises" the commission's work. We obviously disagree.

Some have suggested that we have impinged too far on the prerogatives of the presidency; others say we have not gone far enough. The bottom line is that this agreement allows us to see everything we have requested.

The Sept. 11 attacks were an episode of surpassing public importance. The commission's statutory mandate is explicit. The president has said he supports the commission's work. With this unprecedented and constitutionally delicate agreement, he has followed through on that commitment. And amid the clamor, we can now do our job.

Source

[TASMANIANRED]

They have all her testimony to leak. Unfortunately there won't be any sound bites for the lame stream media to play of them berating her.

She ought to tell them to go f---- off.

The White House ought to have copies of the transcripts. Let them release transcripts of her actual testimony. Release the actual testimony of Clark when he was an advisor. Compare the two and then prosecute Clark for providing false testimony to congress.