# 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:** 4
**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, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/61 "2004-03-25T02:00:21Z")
Tell me what facts Mr. Clarke has presented. Unfortunately I’m not in the mood in paying this disgruntled ex-employee money by purchasing his book. So unless he has some clear cut facts in his book that go beyond the very simple _opinions_ he is expressing on the news, I don’t think we need to worry about the “validity of his facts.” Because I’ve yet to see any. ---
**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, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/62 "2004-03-25T02:06:59Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 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. I now suspect you of memebrship in the Bush Admin. 😉 Seriously, though, this attitude is repugnant and abhorrent beyond all things to a free nation. It betrays all that our Founding Fathers and subsequent heroes in uniform have fought and died for. It is the definition of un American. I’m overcome with genuine sadness and heartfelt grief when I consider that you may mean what you’ve posted. I do suspect the Bush Admin of similar elitist sentiments. ---
**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, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/63 "2004-03-25T02:09:45Z")
I see no reason not to be highly cynical in regards to the American public. Only half of them even bother to exercise the most important of their rights that over one million have fought and died for. ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/64 "2004-03-25T02:12:09Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 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. It’s not about whether or not Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11. The claims are that the focus was on Iraq instead of Al Qaeda. The US intelligence community said that Hussein was not likely to iniate an attack on the US in the “foreseeable future.” Yet despite this the Bush Admin’s alleged to’ve prioritized Iraq above Al Qaeda which had already repeatedly proven itself likely to attack American targets and was expected to attack American targets again. That’s the contention. Not that Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11. ---
**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, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/65 "2004-03-25T02:35:22Z")
Clarke has said that Bush focused “too much on Iraq immediately after 9-11.” He says nothing about Bush focusing on Iraq _prior_ to 9/11 and ignoring other threats. I certainly however hope that Bush had been looking towards Iraq prior to 9/11, just as I hope he had been looking towards al-Qaeda. ---
**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, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/66 "2004-03-25T02:38:00Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > 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. Which of the facts that he’s asserted are independently verifiable? In fact, I don’t think any of his facts are independently verifiable. Thus, when the Bush says he’s lying, then how are we to verify the accuracy of his assertions except to look at corraborative evidence and motives? > [@SimonX](#): > > 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? I supported the war in Iraq. I don’t think it was a misallocation of resources (although I certainly think it’s debatable). Sorry to have been unclear. > [@SimonX](#): > > “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. Again, I haven’t been clear. As I understand it, _Clarke’s opinion_ was that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. _Clarke’s opinion_ was that the US should give more attention to al Queda. Unless we’re required to accept his opinion of the war against Iraq as fact, then I don’t see why his allegations matter. It’s just one more opinion that disagrees with Bush & Co. (of which there are millions). Bush and Rummy and Powell and Rice and I are not required to accept his opinion as more valid, and we’re not required to act on his opinion when it contradicts our own. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/67 "2004-03-25T03:50:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m actually curious-- is there some specific part of the constitution that requires the administrative branch to tesitfy before Congress whenever asked to do so? It is not in the Constitution, but it is a long-established practice that Executive Branch officials who are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate make themselves available to Congress. In any case, Congressional committees have the power to subpoena witnesses, should the need arise. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. From the Annotated Constitution: “The Court has long since accorded its agreement with Congress that the investigatory power is so essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative power in Congress. `We are of the opinion,'' wrote Justice Van Devanter, for a unanimous Court, `that the power of inquiry–with process to enforce it–is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function…” Quoting Justice Warren: “The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” Quoting Justice Harlan:" The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate. The scope of the power of inquiry, in short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." This all starts on [page 90](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art1.html). I await your reasoning of how investigations of the administration of the Executive Branch does not constitute “oversight.” > [@](#): > > 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. It is the **best** way I know of to have an independent-minded people tell the public what went wrong. Honestly, if there is a better way to discover facts, make recommendations for policy changes, and inform the people of the process in a manner that builds the confidence of the public in that same process, I’m dying to hear of it. > [@](#): > > You’d lose that bet. Fair 'nuff. I owe you a beer, a donut, a subscription to SDMB, or something similar. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/68 "2004-03-25T03:56:10Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 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. Would you care to share your interpretation of this particular phrase in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution? “[The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/69 "2004-03-25T04:02:25Z")
> [@](#): > > I await your reasoning of how investigations of the administration of the Executive Branch does not constitute “oversight.” I hate posting three times in a row, but I missed your later comments on oversight and the role of the legislature in foreign policy. I wasn’t trying to be snotty, dwell on this point, put too fine a point on it, or rub your nose in a point you have conceded; I just meant to respond to the particular earlier post that I quoted. ---
**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 25, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/70 "2004-03-25T04:39:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It is not in the Constitution, but it is a long-established practice that Executive Branch officials who are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate make themselves available to Congress. In any case, Congressional committees have the power to subpoena witnesses, should the need arise. So, perhaps the question we should be asking is “Why doesn’t the commission subpoena Dr. Rice”? If they think her under oath testimony is necessary to complete their objective, they should do so. Condi was interviewed on NBC news tonight and asked why she wasn’t testifying in the public hearings, she cited the need to preserve the constitutional seperation of the legislative and executive branches. It sounded awfully weak, especially since Powell and Runsfeld had testified. But clearly this is a GWB issue. If he wants her to testify, she will, and if doesn’t want her to, she won’t. ---
**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, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/71 "2004-03-25T05:18:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Would you care to share your interpretation of this particular phrase in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution? > > “[The president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” The President can refuse to execute a law, simple as that. You can bring him to court and issue a writ of mandamus in attempts to force his hand, but he could ignore the court’s ruling as well. The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper, all that matters in politics is willpower and public support. ---
**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, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/72 "2004-03-25T05:26:20Z")
None of what you have posted contradicts my original assertion that you have absolutely no right to any information Simon. The Congress can hold inquiries, true, anyone that has ever watched C-Span knows this. However, Congress does not have to make them public and they do not have to divulge the information of said inquiries to the public. Furthermore as I originally said it is not Congress’ place to “grade” a Presidency like a grade school teacher sets down marks for students. Furthermore, this isn’t the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence nor its House Counterpart. Basically the Commission’s power to haul in executive officers has not been constitutionally tested. Furthermore Congress has always had a pretty clear right to question _Cabinet_ members because Cabinet posts are creations of Congress. Condi Rice is not a Cabinet member, she is an advisor, she is in the position of a personal aide to the President. I read a Washington Post article just now that basically dismissed Clarke as having any credibility to me at all. He made the claim that “The prime concern of the Clinton administration had always been terrorism.” That is obvious bullshit, Clinton was a waffler on terrorism, and I doubt any man that was fighting for his position as president had any primary concern besides that one. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/73 "2004-03-25T05:26:25Z")
I would be curious to know if **Martin C. Jekyll** has an opinion on this. ---
**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, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/74 "2004-03-25T05:31:06Z")
I don’t get it :D. Also now that I’ve paid $4.95 I find these smilies inadequate! ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/75 "2004-03-25T05:36:32Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Also now that I’ve paid $4.95 I find these smilies inadequate! I feel as though I paid $4.95 for my current administration(in DC), but I’d never post that here. Nope. Never. ---
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/76 "2004-03-25T06:05:00Z")
> [@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. ::cough:: Freedom of Information Act ::cough:: [http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia\_updates/Vol\_XVII\_4/page2.htm](http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm) "Enacted in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was the first law to establish an effective legal right of access to government information, underscoring the crucial need in a democracy for open access to government information by citizens. In the last 30 years, citizens, scholars, and reporters have used FOIA to obtain vital and valuable government information. " ---
**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, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/77 "2004-03-25T06:09:14Z")
You guys are again confusing what is a right with what is a law. The law says I have the right to live, and that for someone to kill me is a crime. But that right only exists if I can defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/78 "2004-03-25T06:14:55Z")
> [@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. > [@](#): > > Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: > > “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Source: Article II, Section 1., of the US Constitution. If what you say is true, the President is in violation of his constitutional oath and should be impeached. ---
**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, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/79 "2004-03-25T06:35:27Z")
Reply: Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/80 "2004-03-25T07:55:10Z")
Am I the only person getting very scared at how **Martin Hyde** and **Age Quod agis** seem to be eager to give the Executive Branch a free ticket to total unaccountability and secrecy? I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that American citizens should simply accept whatever information the government wishes to give us, and not hold our politicians accountable with public hearings or inquiries or what-have-you. As **SimonX** so bluntly put it, “We’re in charge of them.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=5)