# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/81 "2004-03-25T08:18:40Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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.” Well in a sense I do not agree. I to despise all the apologists for the Bushists, but I feel that just like me who is busy posting on the net and not effecting policy, they are harmless. OTOH It does scare me that the opinions they express appear to be those of many in this country. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/82 "2004-03-25T09:19:44Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 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. Absolutely. Look at how many of those who could bother to vote went for Bush. ---
**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, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/83 "2004-03-25T12:49:28Z")
**Matrin** and **AQA** , Please stop in and proffer responses as to [Why the Bush Admin’s so Reluctant to Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin’s Use of Intel re Iraq?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242238) ---
**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, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/84 "2004-03-25T12:51:16Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 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. Yoou’re confusing right with ability. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/85 "2004-03-25T13:29:25Z")
Could someone sum this up? So, who’s testifying and under what conditions? ---
**Author:** ![NotMrKnowItAll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6bbea6/32.png) [@NotMrKnowItAll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotMrKnowItAll)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/86 "2004-03-25T13:59:25Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Could someone sum this up? So, who’s testifying and under what conditions? Public Hearings: April 13-14: Hearing on law enforcement and the intelligence community, in Washington May 18-19: Hearing on emergency response and the 9-11 plot, in NYC June 8-9: Hearing on national crisis management in Washington Private Meetings: Bush & Cheney meet privately with Chairman and vice Chairman Clinton & Gore meet privately will full Commission. The schedule can be found at [www.9-11commission.gov](http://www.9-11commission.gov) ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/87 "2004-03-25T14:52:30Z")
Martin - - it appears that you have given up. I find this sad as you seem to be passionate, but only about the hopelessness of the situation. As another poster mentioned, i thought US was built on the (slightly) paranoid belief that you cant trust your government and that you should be ready to question and if nessesary boot the lying fckers out at any given point. You appear to be accepting the facts as told, just because you cant change the past and there is no point in blaming anyone, because the stupid electorate dont really care anyway. One thing that worries me is that you see everything in black and white - much like NumptyBush ( “youre either with us or against us” ). This together with your passive approach to questioning the current administration, makes me wonder - do you work for them? sin ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/88 "2004-03-25T14:53:46Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Who really cares what the electorate thinks? People who want to get elected. ---
**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, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/89 "2004-03-25T15:17:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. > > It sounded awfully weak, especially since Powell and Runsfeld had testified. The commission could issue a subpoena for Rice, but if the White House wished to fight it, they would almost certainly win under a claim of executive priviledge. The best bet is to convince Bush that it is in his interest to allow Rice to testify (yeah - ain’t gonna happen). But it would be fruitless, from the commission’s point of view, to throw this into the courts, only to have the courts confirm that Rice need not testify. ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/90 "2004-03-25T15:44:19Z")
Quote: Martin “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.” This is because you havnt read the book right? I think Yossarian would recognise that kind of logic. Im not tring to hassle you Martin, but you do know that this post makes you look a bit, well, silly. Do you also believe that Mel’s new moovie is anti-semirtic without seeing that either? PS. Can i use “I don’t think we need to worry about the “validity of his facts.” Because I’ve yet to see any” as my tag? sin ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/91 "2004-03-25T16:27:56Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Please see the link above re: Bush spending as long as it takes to answer all the Commission’s questions. Please see later links, already provided, that he did so only under extreme pressure. Fox wouldn’t have told you that, though. > [@](#): > > Actually, the trip was Jan. 5, 2004. Unless you’re talking about the War on Terror ®, then I’m not sure to which war you’re referring. Pal, you’re the one offering Cheney’s “having to run the country” as an excuse for not explaining his own actions here. Obviously he has the time, contrary to your loyal assertions. > [@](#): > > I might be concerned if your own posts weren’t so mind-numbingly partisan See above. > [@](#): > > So the only way for Bush Admin officials to gain credibility is to disagree with Bush? Interesting. No, the only way to gain credibility is to tell the truth and to accept responsibility for one’s actions. If doing so puts one in conflict with the way the Bush White House works, that’s the fault of the Bush White House, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/92 "2004-03-25T18:04:54Z")
\*\*mack Quote: Originally Posted by Martin Hyde Who really cares what the electorate thinks? People who want to get elected. \*\* Well, Pres. Bush wants to get re-elected, and he’s got $200 million that he’s gathered toward that effort, and yet he doesn’t particularly care what the electorate thinks: [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/19/bush\_encounter/index\_np.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/19/bush_encounter/index_np.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/93 "2004-03-25T18:40:33Z")
Nobody has mentioned yet how the White House retort didn’t come from a normal press conference, but from a release given only to (can you guess it yet?) … Fox “News”. [Link](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html) > [@](#): > > Republican commission members – armed with fresh information on Clarke released by the White House yesterday through Fox News – played defense lawyers determined to discredit the witness as a closet Democrat. > … > Shortly before the hearing, the White House violated its long-standing rules by authorizing Fox News to air remarks favorable to Bush that Clarke had made anonymously at an administration briefing in 2002. The White House press secretary read passages from the 2002 remarks at his televised briefing, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who has declined to give public testimony to the commission, called reporters into her office to highlight the discrepancy. “There are two very different stories here,” she said. “These stories can’t be reconciled.” > > …“I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done,” he explained. “I’ve done it for several presidents.” > > …“I don’t think it’s a question of morality at all; I think it’s a question of politics,” Clarke snapped. > > Thompson had to wait for Sept. 11, 2001, victims’ relatives in the gallery to stop applauding before he pleaded ignorance of the ways of Washington. “I’m from the Midwest, so I think I’ll leave it there,” he said. Moments later, Thompson left the hearing room and did not return. So Rice has time to feed the only major media outlet she can count on not to be critical, but she doesn’t have “time” to say anything under oath. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/94 "2004-03-25T21:06:19Z")
Not to mention writing an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/95 "2004-03-25T21:27:28Z")
> [@NotMrKnowItAll](#): > > Public Hearings: > > April 13-14: Hearing on law enforcement and the intelligence community, in Washington > May 18-19: Hearing on emergency response and the 9-11 plot, in NYC > June 8-9: Hearing on national crisis management in Washington > > Private Meetings: > Bush & Cheney meet privately with Chairman and vice Chairman > Clinton & Gore meet privately will full Commission. > > The schedule can be found at [www.9-11commission.gov](http://www.9-11commission.gov) So, neither faction held the high ground after all. ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/96 "2004-03-25T23:30:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nobody has mentioned yet how the White House retort didn’t come from a normal press conference, but from a release given only to (can you guess it yet?) … Fox “News”. [Link](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html) > > So Rice has time to feed the only major media outlet she can count on not to be critical, but she doesn’t have “time” to say anything under oath. Not true. I don’t know why people keep repeating this nonsense. Go to this [MSNBC News site](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4601195/) for the interview she gave to Peter Jennings last night (I saw it live). She clearly states that she will spend as much time in private as it takes. You may want to rip her apart on her insistance of standing on the constitutional principle of separation of powers, but you don’t do yourself any favors by propgating the “urban legend” of her not having time. The MSNBC site also rebutts your FOX News conspiracy theory. And the transcript was already out there-- no press release necessary. All they had to do was (my bolding): > [@](#): > > The White House authorized **Fox News and other news organizations** Wednesday to publicly identify Clarke as the anonymous White House official who briefed reporters in 2002 on the administration’s approach to al-Qaida. FOX reporter Jim Angle was one of the interviews at that time, and already had the transcript and audio tape. ---
**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 26, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/97 "2004-03-26T00:33:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Nobody has mentioned yet how the White House retort didn’t come from a normal press conference, but from a release given only to (can you guess it yet?) … Fox “News”. [Link](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22218-2004Mar24.html) > > So Rice has time to feed the only major media outlet she can count on not to be critical, but she doesn’t have “time” to say anything under oath. Did nobody else catch the irony of **ElvisL1ves** criticizing the Bush Admin for releasing information only to Fox News, but citing to _the Washington Post_. You can’t make this stuff up. . . . Wait, I guess you can. > [@rjung](#): > > 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. Speaking of making things up. I’ve said this a number of times already, so I don’t have any real hope that my message will get through this time, but I’m not in favor of unaccountability and secrecy. I just think these hearings are a waste of time. I don’t think they’re going to accomplish anything beneficial. People keep insinuating that if we don’t have these hearings, no one will ever have the opportunity to talk about what happened on 9/11. That’s ludicrous. We’ve been talking about 9/11/01 since 9/11/01. I’m willing to bet that no other story from the past decade – not Martha Stewart, not Enron, not Janet Jackson’s boob, not even the 2000 election fiasco – has resulted in so much talking, so many reports, so much speculation, so much investigation, so many movies and documentaries, so many changes to our laws, so many revisions to our policies, so many military actions, and so much influence on our daily lives. We don’t need a bunch of former politicians discussing things in front of cameras to arrive at answers; in fact, I think that putting a bunch of former politicians in charge of the hearings is more likely to mean that nothing useful will come of them. And as if proving my point, **ElvisL1ves** was kind enough to link to an article (in the Washington Post!) that included the following: > [@](#): > > Democrats, prosecuting President Bush for ignoring terrorism before the 2001 attacks, used the newly famous Clarke as their star witness. Republican commission members – armed with fresh information on Clarke released by the White House yesterday through Fox News – played defense lawyers determined to discredit the witness as a closet Democrat. Isn’t this exactly what we don’t need? For our 9/11 inquiry to turn into a partisan snipe-fest? For the question to change from “What went wrong and what can we do in the future to prevent these attacks?” to “Who’s more to blame, those bastard Republicans or those bastard Democrats?” I feel confident that the American people will do an adequate job of holding Bush accountable for his mistakes (and the Democrats responsible for their own). But they’ll be held accountable through the election that’s coming in the next few months, and not through a Committee censure, or whatever. > [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. I think the 1st Amendment gives a pretty good method. Specifically, free speech within the media and populace is, in my opinion, vastly superior to public hearings at the legislature. So open the information up and let us sift through it. Let us publish editorials and discuss is at water coolers and on message boards. Let us write exposes and do news reports. The people can take care of this just fine without having surrogates on the Hill mucking things up with their partisan bickering. > [@Libertarian](#): > > So, neither faction held the high ground after all. I don’t know why they’d start now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/98 "2004-03-26T00:53:19Z")
> [@](#): > > …without having surrogates on the Hill mucking things up with their partisan bickering. The Legislative Branch ain’t shit, but its ours. It’ll have to do. “petition for a redress of grievance”, and all that. I t is of vital importance that we know if the people in whom we have invested an awesome power are wise and studious. The expression of that right is perhaps well placed with the media, perhaps not. But the _New York Times_ can’t issue a subpoena to obtain the facts from a politician who would rather be fishing. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/99 "2004-03-26T01:20:53Z")
[White House Asks 9/11 Panel to Meet Rice](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_commission) > [@](#): > > The White House on Thursday asked the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to give national security adviser Condoleezza Rice another opportunity to talk privately with panel members. > … > In indicating her desire to return, the White House said she wanted to rebut statements made in this week’s public testimony before the panel. In particular, Gonzales said **Rice wanted the chance to argue that she was not inaccurate when she wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece this week** that the administration’s post-Sept. 11 plan called for military options to strike al-Qaida and the Taliban. She wants to present a private rebutal to public arguments about her public statements? Cake and cake. What could she say that would convince anyone, that the anti-terror plans were in Saddam’s closet, with the Candelabra? She tried that before with the yellowcake fiasco. It didn’t work. ---
**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 26, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/100 "2004-03-26T01:50:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But the _New York Times_ can’t issue a subpoena to obtain the facts from a politician who would rather be fishing. That’s a fair point. Other than a FOIA request (which can be enforced through the Courts, but which I don’t think includes individual testimony) or public pressure, the New York Times would not be able to force anyone to turn over information. And I can certainly see how people would think that live testimony is a good way to get at the truth, since you can judge a person’s credibility by his or her demeanor as he/she answers the questions. Plus, it minimizes a party’s ability to use spin and preparation for its answers. So there will obviously be times that legislative hearings will be necessary to get to the bottom of certain issues. On the other hand, I’m not enamored with the idea of using live testimony as a means of getting at the truth. It has certain advantages, but it’s also more susceptible to slips of the tongue, vague wording, mistakes, and faulty or unrefreshed memories. Plus, the Committee doesn’t appear to be too enamored with the idea of subpoenaing witnesses, either. Obviously, they have the power to do so, but they seem to think it’s better to get the witnesses to testify of their own free will. I tend to agree with them. Of course, it’s possible that subpoenas have been issued for witnesses and new information which were not available under the FOIA, and that I’m wrong about this, too. If I am wrong, then please correct me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=6)