| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Rice to Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Commission |
| 2004-03-30 |
| WASHINGTON — The White House agreed Tuesday to let National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly In return, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States unanimously agreed to a Bush administration request that Rice’s testimony will not set a precedent that would require future White House aides to publicly testify. In a letter to the commission sent Tuesday by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the White House asserted that any testimony by Rice "can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances. "Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission’s responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001," Gonzales wrote. The decision comes after a tumultuous week in Washington, during which the White House was pressured by Democrats and Republicans alike to allow Rice to testify publicly and under oath. Several commission members pointedly mentioned her absence at last week’s hearings — particularly when they questioned Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. They also kept failing to mention that she did grant them a private interview... The White House’s letter also offered to let President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath. Bush and Cheney, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, previously agreed to meet with the commission. Rice has already appeared for four hours in front of the commission to answer questions in private — when she wasn’t under oath — about what the administration had been doing about terror threats prior to Sept. 11. Initially Rice rejected testifying in public, arguing that she was prevented by executive privilege from revealing confidential conversations. She later clarified that she wanted to testify, but couldn’t because of the president’s concerns that her testimony would violate the separation of powers. "From a political standpoint, it’s probably a wise move," said former Republican National Committee Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf (search) of Rice’s now-forthcoming testimony. He said that the "fact of 9/11, maybe perhaps an equal of Pearl Harbor" gave the public and the commission the need "for closure," which could be achieved by hearing from all the officials who worked on counterterrorism prior to the tragedy. No, 9/11 wasn’t like Pearl Harbor. Pearl was a military target while the twin towers were a civilian target. There is a big difference. Bush aides say the president decided over the weekend to find a way for the national security adviser to go before the commission. The White House wants to The Democrats, meanwhile, said the White House decision was a good start, but didn’t address all their concerns. "The Bush administration has finally come to its senses on what should have been a simple issue by reversing its previous refusal to allow the national security adviser to testify in public under oath," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush administration needs to understand that the independent 9/11 commission seeks truth, not blame." Then her lips fell off..... Pelosi said full disclosure was in order. "Full and open cooperation from the Bush administration is needed to put to rest the many questions surrounding the security failures before Sept. 11," she said. "The families of Sept. 11 deserve no less." In addition to possibly dispelling some of the characterizations made by Clarke — who told the commission last week and wrote in a recently published book that the current White House hadn’t treated the threat from Al Qaeda (search) with enough urgency — Rice’s appearance is likely to blunt attacks from other quarters. Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath. Sneaky bastards aren’t they? The resolution, offered by Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts "I would remind the president what all Americans know: The truth will set you free," Schumer said in a statement after the White House’s decision became public. "The administration’s reversal shows that it was using executive privilege as an excuse to keep Dr. Rice from testifying. But the dedication and bull’s eye integrity of the commission has succeeded and now hopefully we will be a lot closer to the truth." |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #1 "The Bush administration has finally come to its senses on what should have been a simple issue by reversing its previous refusal to allow the national security adviser to testify in public under oath," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush administration needs to understand that the independent 9/11 commission seeks truth, not blame." "Full and open cooperation from the Bush administration is needed to put to rest the many questions surrounding the security failures before Sept. 11," she said. "The families of Sept. 11 deserve no less." "The administration’s reversal shows that it was using executive privilege as an excuse to keep Dr. Rice from testifying. But the dedication and bull’s eye integrity of the commission has succeeded and now hopefully we will be a lot closer to the truth." See! This is the kind of crap they will float 24/7 on Gore's new tv network. ARRRRGH!!! At least this one will backfire. It should be obvious to everyone that the Dems want to hang 911 on Bush somehow, as ridiculous as that is, but I know people can't see through it. This will get a lot of play from the Kerry camp media outlets. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-03-31 1:53:57 AM |