9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath

The New York Times ^ | 3/30/2004 | PHILIP SHENONand RICHARD W. STEVENSON

[Utah Girl]

Oh my goodness. Kean is a spineless wimp. He makes it sound as if Condi Rice needs to go under oath now. And earlier today he said "Refusal to have Condi Rice is a huge political blunder." Arghhhhh, nothing about principle about not having National Security advisors testifying in public going against a principle, just a political blunder. And he says NOTHING about Richard Clarke and HIS contradictions under oath and in public.

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Why do they have Condi Rice testifying instead of Saddam?

[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Why do they have Condi Rice testifying instead of Saddam?

[Utah Girl]

Have Clinton and Gore testified???

[Waco]

If she were to go under oath and it appeared to show clarke was lying, then the spin would be that she was the one lying. No win thing here, junk the bastards and move on!

[Alia]

Why do they have Condi Rice testifying instead of Saddam?

Because they are frightened by what Saddam might actually reveal -- there'd be a lot of plane flights out of DC pronto.

[Belisaurius]

At this point I say it's best to just say "NO", and move on.org. The commission can just feel free to release her previous testimony.

[Utah Girl]

I just read a Washington Post that says the White House is negotiating with the 9/11 commission to have Rice's testimony released.

[middie]

This flap is much ado about very little. The principals are merely talking past each other and the mission of the commission is getting lost in the dust-up.

[Balata]

This adviser said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior adviser and political strategist, wanted to move the election away from questions like "Were there intelligence failures?" and to put the focus instead on which candidate could better protect against any future efforts by terrorists to attack the United States.

By not readily allowing Rice to testify, the White House has taken Clark off the front pages for a few days. Shortly, maybe tomorrow, the White House will announce Rice WILL testify under oath. She will then sink Clark.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

On the surface this seems a hard one to fathom, unless it's just more of the same modus operandi by the white house (resist, resist, resist a little less then capitulate to get maximum bad impact). On the other hand it could be a coup in antagonizing the Democrat anti-Bush faction on the commission to the point that, when she does testify, they are crazed and make gross missteps in their passion to really get Condoleezza. Although she has had some rough press outings in the past - I think she's smart and tough and should be able to handle these grandstanding jokers.

The mere fact that were have to watch the strategies and counter strategizing that is going on is proof that the commission was not a good idea.

Something in the line of this issue - I can say that I welcome the post Rehnquist retirement nomination of Justice Antonin Scalia to Chief Justice. There is not a perfect chance that the will make it, but if he loses he says on the court, and having Scalia on the Court whether it is C.J. or A.J. - is a very good good thing. In the public hearings that are part of the confirmation process Scalia would grind Schumer, Leahman, et. al. into shredded dog meat. It would be sweet.

[A Citizen Reporter]

I don't know, but I'd say.....doubtful. Right after the old Clarke testimony broke on FR this afternoon, suddenly there were several new stories on the wire about the WH "negotiating"....I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

[jocko12]

Condi can go just after Clintoon.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related Item:

Past National Security Advisors agree on Exec. Privilege (includes video)

[bornintexas]

I am so sick of these gutless wonder republicans on this commission!!! I sent Chairman Kean a letter and an email concerning Ben-Vieste leaking Condi's previous private (classified) testimony to the press on Saturday. I told him if he was worth a flip, he would have the mafia-owned Ben-Vieste recuse himself. But we all know he won't, he doesn't have the balls to do it. The way he conducted the public testimony was a disgrace. Him allowing the biased audience cheering section, the book by Clarke to be used repeatedly for reference as if it were the law, and letting Clarke testify (lie) longer than any other witness (and because why?) was the most flagrant, partisan witch hunt I have witnessed since Clinton's impeachment hearings.

Why in the hell should Condi testify in public when the communist dim commissioners are already releasing her testimony that was suppose to be confidential? We are at war right now, for heaven's sake! These people keep telling the terrorist just what we have done and haven't done and don't think for a minute they're not keeping tabs.

This 9-11 commission is a total partisan circus and they don't care who they take down.......as long as they are in the Bush administation. It has been a sham from the beginning....because if anybody gave a sh*t about our national security, they would NOT have had these hearings in an election year.

I say Bush should stick to his guns. Have Condi go back and testify in private if they want to talk to her again.

[TASMANIANRED]

She has testified privately. The only reason they want her to testify publicly is so the lamestream socialist media can have sound bites of them grandstanding and berating her as they rake her over the coals...

If they want her words to be public, let them read her testimony out loud.

For that matter lets just release Clarks previous testimony.

He has perjured himself before congress either in his public testimony soliciting free advertisement for his book, or he purjured himself in the private testimony.

It is time to call for an investigation of him and prosecution...

[Alia]

lol. Ben Veniste has been leaking data. Why should the commission concern itself with releasing her previous testimony, when, well, there's a Ben Veniste in the room.

[CyberAnt]

But .. when Clinton said no to Clarke testifying - I wonder if this same group would be complaining; probably not.

[dalebert]

So much for a non partisan investigation. As far as I am concerned they can dump their finding in the nearest trash can. This was supposed to be an investigation of what led up to 911.Its nothing but a Blame Bush for everything party.

[Azzurri]

Shortly, maybe tomorrow, the White House will announce Rice WILL testify under oath. She will then sink Clark.

I agree that this is probably what will happen. The White House is playing this pretty well...wait...wait...wait...and then spring Condi on them with all the national spotlight. She will skewer Clarke in a forceful, dignified way, and the American people will rally behind her and the president.