The Democrats are making a big issue of Condoleezza Rice ducking the matter.
So, what does she know that would be so damaging to the administration if she had to give honest answers to the Commissioners’ questions?
I know, I know, Bush is claiming executive privelege, separation of powers etc., the usual smoke screen a president serves up when he has something damaging to hide.
With all the smoke blown away, however, what could Ms Rice divulge that so worries Bush?
Whatever it is, it may worry *her * more than it worries Bush. We already know the broad outline of his decisionmaking; what real bombshells could possibly be left that wouldn’t come out from someone else’s testimony?
It often seems that secrecy is invoked far more often to simply avoid embarrassment than to protect real security. Perhaps the question should be about what she’d be embarrassed to have revealed? Like the unresponsive Rumsfeld, did she go along with the Iraq attack as a substitute for a war on actual terrorism (“There are targets there”) but she knows she doesn’t have the brazenness to defend it? Just listen to her on a talk show, and notice the quick and desperate tone. If she’s on the verge of cracking when it’s only Tim Russert, how can she handle anything more?
I would love to know the answer to this question! However, I wouldn’t even begin to want to speculate about this, though I agree there are reasons to be suspicious.
One big question is, why her specifically? What does she know that must be protected by keeping her away from the investigation, whereas it’s acceptable to question many other adminsitration heavyweights (Rumsfeld, Powell, etc.)
Honestly, I think a subpoena is in order.
Maybe for the same reason that Clinton and Gore have refused to testify publically or under oath.
I think all parties are resisting efforts for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s bad politically. It looks like the person offering testimony is on trial, which leads people to the suspicion that they did something wrong.
Second, there are separation of powers issues. The President shouldn’t have to answer to Congress for the exercise of his Constitutional prerogatives.
Third, there are probably issues relating to confidential information that can’t be disclosed. If Condi is asked a question that would reveal secret information, then she’s required by law not to answer. Of course, that will set the tinfoil hat crowd (like yourselves) all atitter, speculating about what politically disastrous information she was hiding.
Fourth, an important lesson was probably learned by and from the Clinton Admin. Specifically, it’s bad mojo for the President to let the partisan hacks in Congress get a swipe at them while they’re under oath. The members of the Commission are not above the political fray, and it seems pretty likely that they’ll try to ask trapping or trick questions just to make the opposition look bad.
I, for one, wouldn’t want to testify under those conditions.
That’s odd, I just saw on CNN, that both Clinton and Gore would be testifying. Anybody got the Straight Dope*?
*I’ve been dying to say that 
Your cite doesn’t say what you say it says.
The official “.gov” website of the Commission isn’t especially detailed on this question: http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q7 However, I’ve seen no source which verifies your assertion that the former president and vice president “refuse to testify publically or under oath.”
I’m listening to the hearings here and was wondering myself why Rice won’t testify under oath. It leaves a gaping hole in the overall picture, and I guess that’s the way the Bush administration wants it. Better to say nothing and leave it to speculation than to testify and remove all doubt.
If Clarke and Tenent can testify, then there’s no reason based on national security why Rice shouldn’t. If she can’t reveal information for national security reasons, then so be it and the committee can move on to the next issue. It’s no reason for her to not testify at all.
I don’t think this is an all-or-nothing situation here – Clinton and Gore are still scheduled to meet privately with the entire 9/11 commission, for as long as they want, and were originally willing to testify publicly. Contrast that with Bush and Cheney, who originally didn’t want to testify at all, and have only now been dragged reluctantly into testifying only before the commission chair and vice-chair, and originally only for about an hour. While the ideal would be for everyone to testify for as long as the commission wants, I don’t think the current restricted testimonies are the same.
And, of course, Rice doesn’t want to show up at all, but is perfectly willing to do the morning television news circuit denouncing everything Clarke has been saying.
True, but the political reality is that this is an election year, and terrorism is a major topic of this campaign, especially since Bush is flogging his handling of it at every opportunity. Any attempts to stonewall or impede the 9/11 investigation is not going to look good for Bush-Cheney 2004.
I imagine that’s why Clinton/Gore/Bush/Cheney aren’t testifying in public.
What was that old saying about sauce for the geese…?
This cite from the NYT dated 2/13/04 says no such thing.
Nor does this one.
IF Clinton does testify I hope he’s prepared to provide a statement concerning some of his priorities during the period.
Or at least testify to his impression at the time to these bin Laden quotes.
My thoughts exactly. It’s hard to imagine that she has some super secret info that neither of those two guys had access to.
It doesn’t say it explicitly, but it shouldn’t take too much effort to read between the lines. I hope that’s not asking too much.
The cite says that the Commission wants to meet with Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore. Naturally, the Commission would like to meet with folks from the Bush Admin publicly and have them testify under oath. I can’t think of any reason they wouldn’t also want to meet with Clinton and Gore publicly and have them testify under oath. Can you?
The article then says that it’s unclear whether Clinton or Gore will testify publicly or under oath. Why do you suppose it’s unclear? The only reason I can think of is that Clinton and Gore are resisting the Commission’s requests (and, I think, reasonably so).
The article says that Clinton and Gore’s spokespeople have said that they’re cooperating with the Commission, and will meet with them in private. Do you expect that their spokespeople wouldn’t spin it? Do you think they’re going to go on record saying what Clinton and Gore would not do?
E7, your cite says that Clinton and Gore have agreed to meet with the entire Commission. It doesn’t say that they have agreed to testify publicly or under oath.
No one in the “independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush” is currently in Congress.
The big problemo now for Ms. Rice is that the committee is packing heat.
Asked general questions about policy and strategy allows room for sleight of mouth, in the fashion that makes press secretaries so useful. Take as a “for instance” President Bush’s recent statement that had he known 9/11 was about to take place, he would have done anything he could have to prevent it. This is most reassuring, of course, but no one doubted that. Not even I, a most avid and forthright critic, would suggest otherwise. And, of course, that isn’t the question, is it?
But now the committe has specifics, deadly specifics, pointed questions can be asked. Were you at this meeting, on this date? Was this said? What did you say? When, exactly, did you tell Mr. Clarke that the President wanted a “comprehensive” policy to eliminate Al Queda?
Etc. Etc. If Ms. Rice has some embarrassing things on her mind, she would much prefer an opportunity to present a rationale and a scenario. The last thing she wants is to be asked questions that are pointed and specific, questions that have a yes-or-no answer. Keep in mind, on several key points, Mr. Clarke claims to have witnesses. If Ms. Clarke contradicts Mr. Clarke, as she must dearly want to do, she faces the possibility that those witnesses may be called, and they, as well, can be asked specific questions.
She would be much more comfortable in a debate about scenarios and policies, where weasel-think can be applied.
What do I expect? Senior moments, memory lapses, and a sudden discovery of national security interests
If Clinton and Gore have “cooperated” than Dr. Rice has “cooperated” as well. 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean indicated at the beginning of yesterday’s hearing that …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17798-2004Mar23.html
is it possible that this is just a political zig zag by the WH? I agree with John Mace and Knorf, it’s implausible that she has some morsel of info that can’t be fleshed out of Rummy, Powell, Tenet et al.
It seems like news coverage is giving equal time to not only what is being said but also what Condi hasn’t said. Is this a ploy to divert attention from potentially damaging testimony from people willing to testify? Just a thought.
Nor are their situations the same. Clinton and Gore are taking time off the lecture circuit to meet before the Commission, while Bush and Cheney are taking time off from running the country. Clinton and Gore can testify with impunity about their former policies, while Bush and Cheney will be cross-examined on their current policies.
That’s a fair criticism. But it’s worth noting that the news circuit involves half hour time commitments, while the Commission is asking for much longer. And the news circuit is a completely different forum. For one, you’re not under oath. Second, the questioning is typically aimed at trying to obtain information rather than assign blame.
I agree. But that’s the point. The Bush Admin is going to look bad no matter what it does here. It’s a no win situation. So it’s probably better to look bad for something that you didn’t do than to give the opposition ammo for a completely new scandal (e.g., “Condi Lies About What She Had for Breakfast!”).
Let’s hope the Commission doesn’t devolve into that. And as someone that had serious doubts about whether Clinton should have testified while he was in office, I feel the same way now.
(Posting this from Japan so hopefully it will go through. My connection here sucks. Whats up with the new payment thing btw?? When did they start charging us to use the board?)
Anyway, maybe I’m way off base here, but is it possible that the WH and Bush et al are grooming Ms. Rice to be the heir to the throne? If so, it makes sense that they would want to shield her somewhat from publicly testifying under oath.
Other than that, I have to agree with those saying why Rice? What could she possibly know that the others don’t??
-XT (the REAL XT…got to get my family accounts of their own, though now that they are charging us, maybe not. :))
The operative word being “currently.”
Thomas Kean (chairman) – former governor of New Jersey
Lee Hamilton (vice-chair) – former Represenative from Indiana
Slate Gorton – former Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey – former Senator from Nebraska
Tim Roemer – former Representative from Indiana
James Thompson – former governor of Illinois
Richard Ben-Veniste – former chief of the Watergate Task Force; former chief counsel (minority) of the Senate Whitewater Committee
Fred Fielding – Counsel to the President of the United States (1981-1986), deputy counsel to the President (1972-1974); Associate Counsel to the President (1970-1972); clearance counsel during the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition
Jamie Gorelick – deputy attorney general of the United States (1994-1997); general counsel of the Department of Defense (1993-1994); assistant to the secretary and counselor to the deputy secretary of energy (1979-1980).
So, yeah, there’s no risk of politicizing the inquiry with such a thoroughly non-partisan committee. 
Piffle. A mere “Guest”.
[Mr. Burns] Release the hounds![/MB]