# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/41 "2004-03-25T01:19:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Bush was at that rodeo, watching pig-wrangling, longer than that, the day McClellan solemnly announced that he couldn’t afford more than an hour from his busy schedule (after previously refusing to explain his actions at all) to discuss the most serious thing that’s happened to the country he allegedly runs during his entire administration. > > Cheney, with a damn war going on, spent a whole week duck-hunting with Scalia. > > What could be more important to us than finding the facts about this historically-crucial event? Preventing damage to the re-election prospects of **AQA** ’s golden idol, apparently. > > **Martin Hyde** innocently asks "I don’t quite get why this Clarke guy is getting so much credibility anyways. " Because he wasn’t some anonymous schlub in the basement; he was the national counter-terrorism adviser in both administrations, perhaps? Because he was _there_? Because he knows what he’s talking about? Same reason O’Neill gets credibility for blowing the whistle on Bush’s economic “policies”, because he was the Treasury Secretary, perhaps? Hello out there? And again, he has an axe to grind. I’m not going to be painting a flattering pitcture of my boss if he ever fires me. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/42 "2004-03-25T01:20:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey, I hold a security clearance, thank you very much. No need to lecture me about the danger of releasing information that truly is sensitive. > > However, it doesn’t take a long time to figure out that not everything wrapped in red tape are the crown jewels or the holy of holies. > > I note that many of the topics under discussion by the 9-11 panel were discussed in length in Bob Woodward’s book, “Bush At War.” There were extensive quotes from NSC meetings that, if the White House had not chosen to leak them to a reporter doing a nice book on the President’s leadership, would have remained heavily classified and closely held for decades. But if Bush and his staff saw no harm in revealing those discussions to the public in a book, I think they should also submit to open questions about the nature of those discussions. > > The bottom line is that the public has a compelling right to know if and why our government – under Clinton, Bush, whomever – goofed up and allowed the 9-11 attacks to occur. We need not know every little classified gory detail, but we ought to know the broad strokes. Political leaders ought to answer for those broad strokes, and why they made them. Last time I checked you don’t have a right to “know” anything. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/43 "2004-03-25T01:24:30Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > What exactly do you expect will be achieved by a bunch of ex-politicians looking with hindsight on the attack? Do you really think that the Commission is going to reach some earth-shattering conclusion that we haven’t already realized? Do you really think they’re going to say anything other than, “We could have prevented 9/11 by paying more attention to terror, and taking advantage of our opportunities to take out ObL and other terror networks before 9/11”? Do you really think the American government hasn’t already reached that conclusion and attempted to institute those policies? So you’re against a serious inquiry into the evenst that led to the tragedies of 9-11, huh? Hmmm. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > For what it’s worth – potentially very little – I think Clark is credible. I just think his “revelations” amount to a hill of beans. We’re talking about one of the few guys that held a position of authority in both the Clinton and Bush Admins, and whose job included fighting terrorism. We’re talking about a guy that, if he wasn’t accusing everyone else of not listening to him, would probably be branded by history as the one guy most responsible for letting terror escalate to the point that it could achieve something like 9/11. And now he’s accusing Bush (and to a lesser extent, Clinton) of not doing enough to fight terrorism. I like to bring up a point that I believe **luci** has brought up elsewhere. All of this about Clarke’s possible and probable motives is absolutely irrelevant when compared to the issue of whether or not what he says is true. **If the allegations are true, then it is Clarke’s motives, benign or malignant, don’t mount to a hill of beans.** It doesn’t seem signifigant to you that the Bush Admin might’ve kept dealing with a country that wasn’t much of threat at all in the “forseeable future” a topmost priority while the nation face_ **s** _ grave _and_ _ **imminent** _ threats from somehwere else? No concern for that? Very interesting specimen you seem to be. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/44 "2004-03-25T01:26:03Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Last time I checked you don’t have a right to “know” anything. I hope to fuck that I’m being whooshed here. Are you really denying that the electorate has the right to oversee its government? Good great fuck, man! Are you serious in this contention? ---
**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 25, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/45 "2004-03-25T01:27:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I am equally baffled by your response. Those “ex-politicians” have credentials as distinguished as those who have served at top levels of any Administration you can name. This sword cuts both ways: if the panelists are to be ridiculed as “ex-politicians,” what is to be made of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and others on January 20, 2001? They, too, were mere ex-politicians at that point. That’s the point I was trying to make. The mere fact that these folks are not currently in office doesn’t mean that they won’t use this Committtee to further their own political agendas. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Nobody needs to bother with asking tough questions, because the bureaucracy can always figure it out, and HAS figured it out before Congress can ask questions. You think nobody has been asking what happened? Where have you been the last year and a half? These questions have been asked over and over (and over) again. If you’re just now hearing them, I suggest that it’s because you’ve just now crawled out from under some sort of rock. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Oversight of the Executive Branch is not within the Legislative Branch’s “sphere of power?” Good God, man, what country do you live in, and how long has it been a dictatorship? Who taught your civics course, and which lobe of his brain was he missing? The Legislative branch does not have oversight of the Executive branch’s executive functions. That’s what the separation of powers _means_. You’re thinking of checks and balances, which is something different. In this country, the Legislative branch can bitch and moan, but it doesn’t get to dictate foreign policy to the President, and it doesn’t get to dictate the manner in which the intelligence agencies are run, and it doesn’t get “oversight” of those functions. (Congress can dictate funding and declarations of war, but otherwise, it’s left – rightly – to the Pres.) > [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not putting words in your mouth, but the course you suggest – letting the whole thing be shoved under the rug – is basically a course that could only result in the public remaining poorly informed about those horrible events. If 9-11 wasn’t a big deal to you, and all your questions have been answered, fine. But there’s a lot of people who still want to know more about how it happened, and if someone deserves to be held responsible for their lack of attention. 9/11 was a bigger deal to me than you could probably fathom. I don’t believe I’ve ever said that we should sweep it under the rug. And I don’t begrudge anyone that wants more information. But if you think that Committee hearings are the only way for people to get answers about 9/11, then I don’t think you’re looking hard enough. And if you think that the Committee is going to come up with some conclusion that hasn’t already thought of (and probably implemented), or if you think that one person or one party is “to blame” for the 9/11 attacks, then I think you’re wrong. Every Administration since at least the 70s is to blame. The media is to blame for not paying enough attention to it. The American public is to blame for not paying attention to it, and for not demanding that the government pay attention to the issue. My problem is that the hearings give the appearance of motion, when in fact nothing is being done. The idea is that if we get a bipartisan committee talking about the issue, that it will look like we’re doing something. Baloney. The Patriot Act, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting aQ in countries like Pakistan and the Phillipines, freezing of terrorists’ assets, arresting and interrogating terrorist suspects, reorganizing the intelligence community, re-prioritizing the fight against terror in our foreign policy – those are steps in the war against terror (even if they’re not always steps in the right direction). Politicians rehashing what’s already been discussed in thousands of articles is fine, but it’s not actual motion. It’s just the appearance of motion. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m betting that this fact came to your attention AFTER you said that Bush shouldn’t testify because he is too busy to “take time off from running the country.” You’d lose that bet. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/46 "2004-03-25T01:29:29Z")
Until Congress let’s Bush conduct hearings investigating why Congress saw fit to go along with CIA fund-cutting during the Clinton Administration I think Congress can go to hell. Congress has no right to review the executive ability of Bush like a grade school teacher giving a student his marks for the semester. Nor does Bush have that power over the legislature. The only people Bush is responsible to in terms of his performance as chief executor are the American people. And they are going to decide in a few months how they feel about the matter. If I thought we lived in a country that could actually be civil, a country where a man can get up and say, “No, we were not 100% prepared for 9/11. We had security in place but unfortunately we just had not anticipated that type of threat” and not instantly be branded an idiot, a failure, and a fraud then I’d want Bush to say that. But since the ignorant masses of fools that make up this country’s electorate hear something like that, it will be spun so out of whack by the media that they will unfairly hold Bush accountable for every security lapse since 1990. There’s a reason the executive branch is the largest people, his job is by far the biggest. He doesn’t know everything or even _most_ of the things that go on inside his Departments, and no President ever has. Even GW had too much going on to know all that was going on. The only people Bush has to go on when it comes to “Whether we are secure enough or not” are his intelligence aides. Do you think Bush would honestly listen to one of his advisor’s say, “We simply are not prepared. There is a huge attack that is almost definitely imminent and we do not have the proper equipment or organization to stop it.” and reply, “Oh, I don’t care, let’s move on to the next issue.” No, more than likely whoever gives Bush his intelligence briefings told him things were as best as they could be prior to 9/11. It may even be Condi Rice that as telling Bush security was doing as well as possible, maybe that is why she doesn’t want to testify. All I know is that no administration will weaken national security deliberately, not even such a wretched train wreck as the Clinton Administration. If there is one thing I can trust every president we’ve had so far is that they wouldn’t just say “sod off” to a pressing national security concern. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/47 "2004-03-25T01:30:11Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > And again, he has an axe to grind. I’m not going to be painting a flattering pitcture of my boss if he ever fires me. Are you saying that what Clarke says isn’t true? Are you accusing Clarke of lying? Or are we just gossipping here? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/48 "2004-03-25T01:31:22Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > I hope to fuck that I’m being whooshed here. > > Are you really denying that the electorate has the right to oversee its government? > > Good great fuck, man! Are you serious in this contention? You personally do not have a right to any information whatsoever. Only if Congress of the USSC tell a President to release something to you have a right to it. They haven’t done it here. You are never entitled to full disclosure. Strictly speaking the Congress and the USSC can easily say you don’t deserve to know shit and be perfectly correct. You oversee government by voting, and that’s that. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/49 "2004-03-25T01:35:46Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Are you saying that what Clarke says isn’t true? > Are you accusing Clarke of lying? > > Or are we just gossipping here? I trust him about as much as I trust anyone who leaks info about their former employers. Especially when the info pertains to a great national tragedy, and especially when the info is going to result in a huge book deal. I trust his info about as much as I trust a Palestinian extremists documentary on how the Jews are mindlessly massacring poor Palestinians. If this guy felt the administration was so badly fucking up prior to 9/11 why did he not say anything then? Oh, maybe because then he might lose his job? Which is probably all he cared about anyways. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/50 "2004-03-25T01:37:36Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > In this country, the Legislative branch can bitch and moan, but it doesn’t get to dictate foreign policy to the President, and it doesn’t get to dictate the manner in which the intelligence agencies are run, and it doesn’t get “oversight” of those functions. Actually, you’re sadly mistaken. That’s why there’s Senate Select Committee on intelligence and the House’s corresponding counterpart. SSCI’s jurisdiction > [@](#): > > [Jurisdiction](http://intelligence.senate.gov/juris.htm) > Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: **to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government,** and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide \*\*vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/51 "2004-03-25T01:40:59Z")
Congress can pass whatever laws it wants. What it cannot do is make the President execute them. Furthermore, just because Congress passes a law does not mean the President is bound by it. That resolution has no more realistic affect on the U.S. Constitution and the powers given to each branch than an executive order declaring the U.S. Congress null and void does. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/52 "2004-03-25T01:42:37Z")
Also the last time I checked this wasn’t the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was conducting this inane political witch hunt. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/53 "2004-03-25T01:43:00Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > You personally do not have a right to any information whatsoever. Only if Congress of the USSC tell a President to release something to you have a right to it. They haven’t done it here. You are never entitled to full disclosure. > > Strictly speaking the Congress and the USSC can easily say you don’t deserve to know shit and be perfectly correct. > > You oversee government by voting, and that’s that. You expect the electorate to consent to be governed without the necessary knowledge to give informed consent? Don’t forget that \*\*the electorate is the sovereign entity in the US.\*\*We’re in charge of them. ---
**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 25, 2004, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/54 "2004-03-25T01:43:49Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > So you’re against a serious inquiry into the evenst that led to the tragedies of 9-11, huh? Do you really think no “serious inquiry” has been made until now? Do you really think that nobody is capable of making a serious inquiry without the endorsement of Congress? Please tell me I’m being whooshed. In fact, I think that this topic has been addressed seriously many, many times. And I think that the “serious inquiry” is probably motivated less by a desire to discover deficiencies in the process than to play political games. > [@SimonX](#): > > All of this about Clarke’s possible and probable motives is absolutely irrelevant when compared to the issue of whether or not what he says is true. > **If the allegations are true, then it is Clarke’s motives, benign or malignant, don’t mount to a hill of beans.** Again, I have no beef with Clarke. But I would imagine that an analysis of his motives is important to the determination of whether what he says is true. > [@SimonX](#): > > It doesn’t seem signifigant to you that the Bush Admin might’ve kept dealing with a country that wasn’t much of threat at all in the “forseeable future” a topmost priority while the nation face_ **s** _ grave _and_ _ **imminent** _ threats from somehwere else? > > No concern for that? It would be a concern, if I haven’t heard hundreds (if not thousands) of times about how Iraq wasn’t a grave and imminent threat. I’m aware that many people feel that way. I’m aware that people in the Administration feel that way (_See_ O’Neill, Paul). I guess I’m just surprised that this is the first you’re hearing of it. Or are you suggesting that we must accept Clarke’s opinion as gospel? Because I’m not ready to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/55 "2004-03-25T01:45:00Z")
Who really cares what the electorate thinks? The electorate is stupid and will be controlled by whatever inane platitudes are shoved down their throat. If you tell them the sky is green with enough gusto they’ll believe it. Information is meaningless to people too stupid to understand it or too stupid to interpret it without the aid of political hacks who distort it for their own purposes. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/56 "2004-03-25T01:46:14Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I trust him about as much as I trust anyone who leaks info about their former employers. Especially when the info pertains to a great national tragedy, and especially when the info is going to result in a huge book deal. > > I trust his info about as much as I trust a Palestinian extremists documentary on how the Jews are mindlessly massacring poor Palestinians. > > If this guy felt the administration was so badly fucking up prior to 9/11 why did he not say anything then? Oh, maybe because then he might lose his job? Which is probably all he cared about anyways. Actually, he said plenty “back then”. You just didn’t notice. \*\* So, are you saying that he’s lying?\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/57 "2004-03-25T01:52:07Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Congress can pass whatever laws it wants. What it cannot do is make the President execute them. > > **Furthermore, just because Congress passes a law does not mean the President is bound by it.** That resolution has no more realistic affect on the U.S. Constitution and the powers given to each branch than an executive order declaring the U.S. Congress null and void does. Are you really saying that the president is above the law? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/58 "2004-03-25T01:53:59Z")
I doubt very seriously that he is lying outright. Because the last time I looked he isn’t presenting much in the realm of facts. I’ve read a lot of statements like, “The administration considered terrorism an important, but not urgent, threat.” I need some classifications for exactly what important means in that context and what urgent means. How does he know exactly how Bush felt about it? Is he aware that he was part of the administration at that time? Unless he has some proof that Bush heard evidence that Al-Qaeda was going to attack the United States and then Bush did _absolutely_ nothing about it I don’t think Bush has really made any colossal mistake. Unless I hear that he knew 9/11 was coming and just sat on his hands I do not think he has made any colossal mistake. It seems like to me Mr. Clarke is very good at making his opinion known, but when connecting that to reality I just don’t “get it.” As crazy as it sounds there is a lot more to being President than dealing with possible terrorist attacks. There is a lot more to being President than dealing with National Security. There is a reason that the Executive Branch comprises fifteen departments and employs 1.5m civilian operators. Only 2-3 Departments really deal directly with National Defense. And believe it or not all of the departments represent and important aspect of governing the country. Maybe Clarke is just pissed that terrorism was not the only thing Bush was thinking about. Well, I’m sorry Mr. Clarke but we do vote President’s into office with more than just a military ruler in mind. ---
**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 25, 2004, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/59 "2004-03-25T01:57:13Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Actually, you’re sadly mistaken. That’s why there’s Senate Select Committee on intelligence and the House’s corresponding counterpart. Touche. I tried to imply that the Legislature has some involvement in foreign policy when I talked about the Legislature’s control over the purse strings and declarations of war (and I should have included the appointment of ambassadors), but which you left out of your quote. I don’t think “oversight” is the right word because it implies there’s more control than I think exists, but I’ll concede that there is some “oversight” and save my nitpicking for another forum. But my point remains – the President is in charge of foreign policy. The Legislature’s limited prerogatives in those forums do not give it any right or ability to change that foriegn policy. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/60 "2004-03-25T01:58:37Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > But I would imagine that an analysis of his motives is important to the determination of whether what he says is true. Where does an examination of the facts fit in your hierarchy of relevance to veracity? Facts are not dependent upon motives. It’s baseless sophistry to assert otherwise. If the facts are sound, then his motives don’t matter one little bit. > [@AQA](#): > > It would be a concern, if I haven’t heard hundreds (if not thousands) of times about how Iraq wasn’t a grave and imminent threat. Since we both agree that Iraq wasn’t an imminet threat, aren’t you concerned that the Bush Admin may’ve spent too much energy and too many resources dealing with this optional burden, (Iraq), while we are confronted by grave and imminent threats from Al Qaeda? Doesn’t strike you as misplace priorities at all? > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Or are you suggesting that we must accept Clarke’s opinion as gospel? Because I’m not ready to do that. “Clarke’s opinion” doesn’t seem to matter much at all. What’s important is the veracity of what he’s relayed. That rests on facts, not opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=4)