# 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:** 6
**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 26, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/101 "2004-03-26T02:28:45Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. … The people can take care of this just fine without having surrogates on the Hill mucking things up with their partisan bickering. This seems like one of those libertarian solutions to anything that ails ya: just let the market take care of it! But seriously, I don’t see how journalists, relying on their own devices, would be more effective at digging into this subject than a panel that is empowered by law to demand the cooperation of government agencies. I couldn’t see how a news agency could generate a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to, say, Adam Clymer (the NYT reporter that Bush called a “major league asshole.”) And I don’t understand this “partisan bickering” you keep referring to in this thread. The 9-11 Commission, with its 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, have been remarkably unified on just about everything but their views of Clarke’s testimony. I read an article yesterday that the chairman, Governor Kean, still expects to filea report with unanimous approval of all commissioners. The only squealing I have really heard is from the White House, which seems to have all sorts of problems with letting the commission do its work. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/102 "2004-03-26T02:43:51Z")
**AQA** snippet: “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.” Then how do you explain Nixon’s fate? The media and the public were on Nixon’s ass, but he stood firm. It took a vote of impeachment by a bunch of politicians that forced Nixon to resign. Those impeachment hearings were conducted in the open and in front of the cameras. Nevertheless, those politicians got the job done. ---
**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, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/103 "2004-03-26T03:32:50Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > Then how do you explain Nixon’s fate? The media and the public were on Nixon’s ass, but he stood firm. It took a vote of impeachment by a bunch of politicians that forced Nixon to resign. Because there isn’t any other way to impeach a President other than by a vote of Congress. That’s the nature of the process. It doesn’t show that public hearings are somehow superior to private discussion; it just shows that Nixon was impeached via the only process available. And what prompted the Congress to impeach in that case? The reporting of two private sector employees of the Washington Post. Woodward and Bernstein published an expose on Watergate, and the public raised holy hell, so the House voted to impeach. And why did Nixon step down? Because he would likely have been voted out of office by the Senate, and he thought it better to resign than go through that process. Nixon didn’t step down because of public hearings. And it’s beyond comprehension to suggest that the hearings surrounding his impeachment were not just the main reason, but the sole reason that he resigned office. Look, I specifically said that Legislative hearings will sometimes be the best way to get things done. But your example shows that the private sector does a pretty good job of elucidating important facts and effecting change in government. ---
**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, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/104 "2004-03-26T03:59:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But seriously, I don’t see how journalists, relying on their own devices, would be more effective at digging into this subject than a panel that is empowered by law to demand the cooperation of government agencies. I couldn’t see how a news agency could generate a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to, say, Adam Clymer (the NYT reporter that Bush called a “major league asshole.”) It’s naive to suggest that the Republicans had no say which Democrats are doing the questioning from the Committee. And there wouldn’t be a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to Clymer. But there probably would be a public furor if the White House refused to talk to anybody. > [@Ravenman](#): > > And I don’t understand this “partisan bickering” you keep referring to in this thread. The 9-11 Commission, with its 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, have been remarkably unified on just about everything but their views of Clarke’s testimony. I read an article yesterday that the chairman, Governor Kean, still expects to filea report with unanimous approval of all commissioners. From an article by [Richard Wolffe](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4588255/): > [@](#): > > If we’ve learned anything from the Lewinsky era, it’s surely that domestic politics and counter-terrorism do not mix well. Terrorists may have their own political targets, but the response to terrorists is best handled without partisan bickering or the gut-level distrust of, say, impeachment or an election season. Yet this week’s political drama suggests those lessons have been rapidly forgotten. Of course there’s been partisan bickering. And even if it’s only just begun, that doesn’t mean that legislative hearings are the best method for arriving at national security decisions. I doubt I need to point out that the Constitution was drafted in meetings that were most definitely closed to the public. And I think that turned out pretty well. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The only squealing I have really heard is from the White House, which seems to have all sorts of problems with letting the commission do its work. Good golly, Miss Molly! You haven’t heard any squealing from the Dems, who have spent few breaths without accusing the Bush Admin of impeding and obstructing the work of the 9/11 Commission? And you haven’t heard any squealing from John Kerry? And you haven’t heard any squealing from the other Republicans that see these hearings as a political witch hunt, or who are so determined to blame Clinton that they’re willing to ignore their own cries of indignation whenever he tried to do something about ObL? Everybody’s squealing. That’s the problem with letting politicians handle this. It becomes more about popularity and blame than about fixing what’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/105 "2004-03-26T04:27:34Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Everybody’s squealing. That’s the problem with letting politicians handle this. It becomes more about popularity and blame than about fixing what’s wrong. I try to avoid “me, too” posts in serious discussions. But that’s a damn fine series of posts, **AQA.** One doesn’t have to be a libertarian to see that these hearings are largely designed to produce fodder for _Crossfire_. ---
**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 26, 2004, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/106 "2004-03-26T05:13:39Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > 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 Firstly I should say this forum is almost too active for me to participate in. I’ve participated in many high volume forums but the replies come in so consistently here I can’t hope to participate in more than 1-2 threads at once. 1. I haven’t given up on anything. 2. I do not think that finding _who_ to blame for 9/11 will help this country. I think it will divide this country. I think we are _all_ complicit in 9/11 so to blame any one person is hypocrisy. All of us who watched over 1,000 Americans die from 1980 to 2000 due to terrorism and consistently ignored it as a major threat are responsible. And that encompasses just about the entire population of this country. I think we need to review what was done wrong structurally and functionally speaking. However I see no reason to air out intelligence matters in public, let the intelligence agencies do what they do best. The CIA, NSA, FBI, et al are not a bunch of clowns. They’ve stopped many terrorist actions in the past. The sad truth is we only know about their failures, their successes are unknown. There are heroes that fight and die for us inside the intelligence agencies and most of the time we not only never hear of their names we never even hear that they died. 1. I do work in the Federal Government, in Arlington and Washington typically. My duties as an economist are not of a political nature and what administration is in power has little to do with my day-to-day life. I worked under Clinton and I have worked for almost four years under Bush. There’s no reason to start any conspiracy theories or act like I’ve been “bought” by Bush. I’m just one of 1.5m civilians that works in the same sort of jobs you would find out in the public sector. The only difference is my employer is the United States Government and I work for the American people. Plus I get better benefits than private sector counterparts, and at the same time make less money. ---
**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 26, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/107 "2004-03-26T05:16:58Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Yoou’re confusing right with ability. No, I’m asserting we only have the rights that we can defend. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/108 "2004-03-26T05:19:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > but you don’t do yourself any favors by propgating the “urban legend” of her not having time. You do yourself even fewer favors by failing to notice that I put the word in quotation marks. It’s called “sarcasm”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? > [@](#): > > The MSNBC site also rebutts your FOX News conspiracy theory. You dig yourself in deeper by dismissing inconvenient facts as “conspiracy theories”. Nothing I’ve said meets that description. The link I gave was from the frickin’ _Washington Post_, as you would have noticed if you’d read it. That’s the frickin’ newspaper of record for government matters. If you don’t like what they say, go right ahead and register your objections with them. Now would you like to get back to discussing the business of the country, which has at the top of the list the need to find out what really happened and why? Or is nibbling at the edges just too much fun? “Private talks” my pasty white ass. If, as a citizen, you really think that’s satisfactory, that’s a damn shame. You help yourself not at all with that assertion. \*\*furt \*\* and **AQA** , you two are also doing very well with your strenuous attempts to dismiss painful realities. You’re only convincing yourselves, though. If you think this is all partisan grandstanding, you haven’t been paying attention. The ease with which some of you can find ways to dismiss any sort of responsible conduct, not only in yourselves but in anyone else, is saddening. ---
**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, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/109 "2004-03-26T06:45:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > \*\*furt \*\* and **AQA** , you two are also doing very well with your strenuous attempts to dismiss painful realities. . . . The ease with which some of you can find ways to dismiss any sort of responsible conduct, not only in yourselves but in anyone else, is saddening. Hey, I hadn’t realized that feelings were involved here. If what I think makes you _sad_, then I hereby renounce all of my firmly held beliefs. There, now do we feel better? ---
**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 26, 2004, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/110 "2004-03-26T07:01:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Private talks” my pasty white ass. If, as a citizen, you really think that’s satisfactory, that’s a damn shame. You help yourself not at all with that assertion. Personally, I think Dr. Rice \*\*should \*\* testify in public as other high level administration officials have done. Unlike you, though, I’m not making up reasons she has given for not testifying in order to criticize her. She is objecting on constituional grounds, not that she “doesn’t have time”. Get your facts straight. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/111 "2004-03-26T07:34:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Woodward and Bernstein published an expose on Watergate, and the public raised holy hell, so the House voted to impeach. I watched in awe the Senate Watergate hearings. It was very bi-partisan and helped me to regain respect for the Republican Party _because_ they were willing to take a stand against lying and corruption. They would not allow Nixon to abuse Executive Privilege, claims of national security issues or Separation of Powers. Abuse of these would be **un** Constitutional. I do not know **yet** if this situation warrants comparison, but to dismiss the Democratic process in one of its strongest hours in a 20 word sentence emphasizing investigative journalism is ludicrous. When the Oval Office tapes were made available to the public at the National Archives, you had to register for an appointment ahead of time to a large group hearing of the playing of an hour or so of the tapes. There was a long line down the block to register. We wanted to judge for ourselves. If Condi Rice can answer questions freely in TV interviews, she should be able to answer the same questions with the same answers under oath in public _or explain why not_. If she cannot answer a question, I trust the bi-partisan commission to judge the appropriateness of her refusal \*based in large part in having seen the process work in 1974. \* Despite wanting to avoid taking an oath, Bill Clinton eventually **did**. The Bush Administration is well aware of what happens to Presidents who lie under oath. In Tennessee we have a “Sunshine Law” which means that government meetings have to be open to the public. It has served us well and has resulted in our getting rid of one of the most corrupt governors ever. (I was never so happy to see a Republican sworn in as I was the day the corrupt Democrat got the boot.) And I am a liberal Democrat. Our federal government is strong enough to bear constant scrutiny. In fact, it _requires_ it to continue to function as an instrument _of the people_. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/112 "2004-03-26T07:51:31Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Despite wanting to avoid taking an oath, Bill Clinton eventually **did**. The Bush Administration is well aware of what happens to Presidents who lie under oath. They go through impeachment proceedings conducted on a strict partisan basis? It ain’t 1974. ---
**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 26, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/113 "2004-03-26T15:39:09Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > It’s naive to suggest that the Republicans had no say which Democrats are doing the questioning from the Committee. I don’t understand this. Do you mean that Republicans chose which Democrats to put on the commission? Because that’s wrong: the Democratic members of the 9-11 commission were selected by Tom Daschle (two picks), Nancy Pelosi (two picks), and one joint pick between them. > [@](#): > > And there wouldn’t be a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to Clymer. But there probably would be a public furor if the White House refused to talk to anybody. I note that the outrage expressed by members of the media about how few press conferences this president does has not had any real effect on Bush’s willingness to open himself to more Q&A sessions. And just so I get this straight, you think a “public furors” are okay, but “partisan bickering” is not… I suggest there’s a awful lot of overlap between the two. > [@](#): > > You haven’t heard any squealing from the Dems, who have spent few breaths without accusing the Bush Admin of impeding and obstructing the work of the 9/11 Commission? And you haven’t heard any squealing from John Kerry? That’s not squealing - that’s principled opposition to an unjust White House policy! 😃 But seriously, I haven’t heard John Kerry say boo about any of this recently - there’s articles all over the place about Kerry refusing to comment about Clarke’s allegations. [Like this.](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/kerry.clarke.ap/index.html) > [@](#): > > That’s the problem with letting politicians handle this. I guess government is too important to be left to elected officials, eh? ---
**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 26, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/114 "2004-03-26T15:46:39Z")
I’d rather have my President running the country as opposed to doing Q&A’s with spin happy reporters. There is a reason we have a White House Press Secretary. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/115 "2004-03-26T15:51:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Mar. 26–WASHINGTON – National security adviser Condoleezza Rice would “welcome” another chance to talk to the 9/11 panel to rebut accusations that President Bush did not make terrorism a top priority. > … > However, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote to commission members yesterday, urging them to reject Rice’s request “unless Dr. Rice agrees to testify in public and under oath.” No, this thing isn’t politicized. :rolleyes: [http://www.ktok.com/script/headline\_newsmanager.php?id=276862&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed\_id=59](http://www.ktok.com/script/headline_newsmanager.php?id=276862&pagecontent=nationalnews&feed_id=59) ---
**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, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/116 "2004-03-26T15:53:37Z")
Largely, it is due to the design limitations of the standard agricultural manure spreader. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/117 "2004-03-26T16:04:22Z")
> [@](#): > > There is a reason we have a White House Press Secretary. There sure is, mostly to try to explaine statements like this by George > [@](#): > > If a person doesn’t have the capacity that we all want that person to have, I suspect that hope is in the far distant future, if at all. GB Washington, D.C., May 22, 2001 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/118 "2004-03-26T16:36:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Personally, I think Dr. Rice \*\*should \*\* testify in public as other high level administration officials have done. Unlike you, though, I’m not making up reasons she has given for not testifying in order to criticize her. She is objecting on constituional grounds, not that she “doesn’t have time”. Get your facts straight. Who’s not straight? You your own damn \*self \* have already noted that the “constitutional grounds” she claims are lame. Those same grounds don’t seem to be preventing Rumsfeld or Cheney from testifying, do they? The reasons she’s offering for not testifying are “made up” all right, but not by _me_. You can take the suggestion that I’m motivated more by the desire to see someone embarrassed than to find out the truth about what happened to the country I love most and insert it in some other orifice. There is a goal involving embarrassment involved here, obviously, but it’s the prevention of it. I know you must be peeved at having had a bullshit post exposed, but please get back to the subject, as I already asked you, m’kay? You’re better than this - or so I’ve thought. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/119 "2004-03-26T19:52:25Z")
Well, I’m glad to see Ms. Rice is willing to do the right thing, after being dragged kicking and screaming into it. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154/120 "2004-03-26T20:16:47Z")
The Bush Administration says going after al qaida was a top priority very early on in response to the increased terror alerts before 9/11, right? So if tput under oath to the 9/11 committee, here are some questions that Bush, Cheney and Rice, might be asked - and the answers they might proffer. 1. How many times did you convene your counterterrorism task force before 9/11? Answers: **(a) Never (b) Once - amost. But we had a conflict with an Enron meeting that day © We have a counterterrorism task force?** 2. Prior to 9/11 you held more than 100 national security meetings. Of those, how many were on the issue of terrorism? Answers (\*\*a) Just two, but we all sat up straight and paid attention (b) Every single damn one of them! © 1400 meetings. Honest to God we were meeting 5 times a day on it. \*\* 3. During the run up to 9/11, when the FBI requested hundreds more counterintelligence agents, what did you give them? Answers \*\* (a) 200 agents (b) 500 agents © The finger \*\* It gets worse. Go to [http://www.misleader.org/daily\_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03252004.html](http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03252004.html) and see for yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wont-c-rice-testify-under-oath-at-the-9-11-investigation/236154.md?page=7)