# Why won't C. Rice testify under oath at the 9/11 Investigation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154 "2004-03-24T17:07:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/1 "2004-03-24T17:07:27Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/2 "2004-03-24T17:22:26Z")
1. 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? 2. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/3 "2004-03-24T17:23:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/4 "2004-03-24T17:56:40Z")
Maybe for the same reason that [Clinton and Gore have refused to testify publically or under oath](http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N4/long_1.4w.html). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/5 "2004-03-24T18:22:23Z")
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 😃 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/6 "2004-03-24T18:25:11Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Maybe for the same reason that [Clinton and Gore have refused to testify publically or under oath](http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N4/long_1.4w.html)… Your cite doesn’t say what you say it says. > [@](#): > > (from the story cited by **AQA** : > > A spokesman for Clinton declined to say if the former president would testify before the panel. > > “President Clinton supports the work of the 9/11 commission and has been cooperating with it,” the former president’s office in New York said in a statement. “However, any questions regarding specific requests should be directed to the commission.” > > Gore said in a statement issued in Washington that he was willing to answer questions from the panel, although it was not clear if he was willing to testify in public: “The commission has invited me to meet with them in private, and I look forward to being of assistance.” The official “.gov” website of the Commission isn’t especially detailed on this question: [http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/faq.htm#q7](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.” ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/7 "2004-03-24T18:26:12Z")
I’m listening to the hearings [here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/postlive1.htm) 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. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. 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_. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/8 "2004-03-24T18:28:18Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Maybe for the same reason that [Clinton and Gore have refused to testify publically or under oath](http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N4/long_1.4w.html). 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. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Second, there are separation of powers issues. The President shouldn’t have to answer to Congress for the exercise of his Constitutional prerogatives. 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](http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=109-03192004) or impede the 9/11 investigation is not going to look good for Bush-Cheney 2004. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. I imagine that’s why Clinton/Gore/Bush/Cheney aren’t testifying in public. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. What was that old saying about sauce for the geese…? ---
**Author:** ![E72521](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dbc845/32.png) [@E72521](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E72521)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/9 "2004-03-24T18:28:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe for the same reason that Clinton and Gore have refused to testify publically or under oath. This cite from the NYT dated 2/13/04 says no such thing. Nor does [this one](http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/shared/news/stories/0324_911comission.html;COXnetJSessionID=AhQt2eOI5Mg9Gz1eX4EvJgxhuk1gCub38MP8D7AvuR91zdRGMC2j!2136834525?urac=n&urvf=10801521091230.8951327620069575). > [@](#): > > President Bush has agreed that he and Vice President Dick Cheney will answer questions in private with Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton. The commission has asked that they meet with the full body, as Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore agreed to do. ---
**Author:** ![Hollbid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9dc877/32.png) [@Hollbid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hollbid)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/10 "2004-03-24T18:44:54Z")
IF Clinton does testify I hope he’s prepared to provide a statement concerning some of his priorities during the period. > [@](#): > > By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the President, despite the Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993 or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’” Or at least testify to his impression at the time to these bin Laden quotes. > [@](#): > > In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden told ABC News reporter John Miller: “We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah.” > [@](#): > > In 1998 Osama bin Laden explained his war aims to ABC News: “Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers.” [http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12701](http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12701) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/11 "2004-03-24T18:47:41Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > 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.) My thoughts exactly. It’s hard to imagine that she has some super secret info that neither of those two guys had access to. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/12 "2004-03-24T18:48:39Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Your cite doesn’t say what you say it says. 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. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/13 "2004-03-24T18:51:54Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. No one in the [“independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush”](http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/index.htm) is currently in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/14 "2004-03-24T19:07:18Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Hollbid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9dc877/32.png) [@Hollbid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hollbid)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/15 "2004-03-24T19:08:52Z")
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 … > [@](#): > > We have had extended private meetings with Dr. Rice. We have received a lot of information from her and she’s been a very cooperative witness in that circumstance. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17798-2004Mar23.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17798-2004Mar23.html) ---
**Author:** ![i\_am\_a\_scientist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@i\_am\_a\_scientist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/i_am_a_scientist)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/16 "2004-03-24T19:15:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/17 "2004-03-24T19:27:49Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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. 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. > [@rjung](#): > > 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. 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. > [@rjung](#): > > 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](http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=109-03192004) or impede the 9/11 investigation is not going to look good for Bush-Cheney 2004. 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!”). > [@rjung](#): > > What was that old saying about sauce for the geese…? 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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/18 "2004-03-24T19:37:59Z")
(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. :)) ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/19 "2004-03-24T19:47:09Z")
> [@mack](#): > > No one in the [“independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush”](http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/index.htm) is currently in Congress. The operative word being [“currently.”](http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm) 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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2004, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/20 "2004-03-24T19:49:07Z")
Piffle. A mere “Guest”. [Mr. Burns] Release the hounds![/MB] [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=2)