Why won't C. Rice testify under oath at the 9/11 Investigation?

Great Debates
21

I don’t quite get why this Clarke guy is getting so much credibility anyways. I tend to look very critically at any political appointees who have “hush hush scandalous rumors” to report about former employers who ended their employment in an unfavorable (to the employee) manner.

I guess it is just good juicy news is why, but as far as credibility goes Mr. Clarke has the least amount of credibility as far as I am concerned. I’d give Clinton’s take on things more credibility and he’s already been proven to have lied under oath before.

As to why Condi won’t testify there are various reason I can think of, of varying validity:

  1. Time commitment. It is highly probable that, as NSA (a very important position) during a time of warfare and highly frequent clandestine operations she finds herself too busy for an eight hour inquisition.

  2. Political aspirations. Maybe she aspires to be more than an appointed official. Maybe she is aiming at an election whenever he time with Bush is up, best that she is recorded as having said absolutely nothing as compared to saying anything. Remember, no matter what you say it can be spun against you, one of the first rules of politics.

  3. Legitimate security issues. Maybe she genuinely does know something that Rummy doesn’t. The NSA has access to a much wider range of information than the SoD or even the Director of the CIA. Remember she has pretty much unlimited access to the DIA, CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service, NRO et cetra.

  4. Specifics. Obviously no one has higher security clearance than Dubya himself. However it is very unlikely that George W. Bush, while managing domestic, foreign, martial et cetra affairs is able to keep himself completely briefed on all classified issues. It is highly likely Condi knows more specific classified information than Bush does. Bush may have a general idea but more than likely he’s never heard half the stuff she has.

  5. Can’t take the heat. Maybe she doesn’t have any more legitimate reason than she can’t take the heat of the inquisition as well as the more experienced career politicos can.

22

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]

Fred Fielding – Counsel to the President of the United States (1981-1986), deputy counsel to the President (1972-1974); Associate Counsel to the President (1970-1972); clearance counsel during the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition

QUOTE]

Also - Deep Throat c. 1972!

23

I think there’s only one reason why Rice has refused to testify in public before the 9-11 Commission: this White House has an absolutely warped sense of secrecy and executive priviledge.

Under normal circumstances, I can agree that a president’s own advisors should not be hauled before Congress or independent commissions to give sworn testimony. But in this case, we are not talking about hearings on highway construction or Medicare reform. This commission is trying to get to the bottom of a gigantic tragedy. The Administration just seems to have no clue when it comes to balancing its penchant for secrecy with the need for the American people to get the straight story on what happened on September 11.

There have been times when past Administrations waived executive priviledge when the matters were important to the country. Henry Kissinger was dual-hatted as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State when he testified to the Watergate Committee. Woodrow Wilson thought the Treaty of Versilles so important that he himself testified in support of it before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Surely an investigation into cold blooded murder of 3,000 civilians measures up to those other extraordinary circumstances?

President Wilson once wrote something along the lines of, “The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative functions.” That means that the most important thing Congress does is expose the inner workings of government to the light of day, so that people can know and judge what is going on. This ham-handed application of executive priviledge to refuse Rice the ability to testify in public is really a shot at an informed citizenry. “How DARE the public learn what is going on in this White House?”

I will concede that there is a stronger case to be made that presidents, and even perhaps former presidents, should not be compelled to testify in public in such cases. Even still, I think this country has gotten out of hand with its idoltry of Chief Executives.

It is becoming increasingly difficult, in my eyes, to determine how the treatment afforded to our presidents differs from how other countries treat monarchs: hidden from public view, beyond fences and barricades, traveling in motorcades the size of a small army, and after every line of every speech, applause and rejoycing as though the audience had been listening to Chairman Mao in 1964. This applies equally to all recent presidents, regardless of party.

So, my view is to make all of 'em - Bush, Clinton, Cheney, and Gore - testify in public. Knock 'em down a few pegs. Presidents should face tough questions sometimes, and not just at the hands of journalists.
[rant OFF]

24

You’re the one that seems to be monumentally confused Ravenman. Your “inquisitive” nature is secondary to National Security. The government’s primary directive, the whole reason governments are instituted among men is protection of citizens from violence. Be it domestic or foreign.

When testimony may give out classified information that would weaken national security and therefor put our people at risk, it is imperative that our leaders do NOT TELL us that information. Because if they tell it to all of us they are also telling it to intelligence agencies hostile to us around the world.

It’s issues like Highway Reform or Medicare that have no bearing on anything truly important that a President should testify on. That way we know if the Pres. refuses it is purely out of political reasons.

25

I was going to cool down, but then I saw this and almost hit the roof again. But I will try to be calm…

“Perhaps the President could cut back, by merely two hours, from one of his frequent sojourns to Crawford and afford that time to a panel investigating the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of the United States.”

26

I agree completely with Ravenman. There is a time and place for security, but we are also a democracy. Some things NEED to be discussed and adressed in a public forum. I can’t imagine anything thats so super secret about 9/11 that all the players shouldn’t be tapped to discuss it. The people DO have a right to know what really happened, instead of all the tin foil hat theories out there, and all the speculation.

If there ARE super secret parts, thats what congressional oversight subcommittees are for, and those aspects can be addressed in a less public forum. I also agree that this administration seems in love with those cold war security type games. Some times there are real needs for tight security…but sometimes there aren’t, and if your default position is to stonewall every issue on the basis of security you are doing your self and your people a disservice.

I think we are getting away from the intent of the founding fathers in recent years with this setting up of the president on high. I realize there are practicle reasons for this (for one, not wanting to have a president wacked by some nut ball out there), but I think its a trend we need to put some brakes on.

-XT

27

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?

28

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.

29

She knows what the punishment for perjury is.

30

This is the type of “logic” that I find truly baffling.

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?

Bush and Clinton have laid their records bare before the inquiry of the American public. I see no reasonable benefit to subjecting either President Bush or President Clinton to a Congressional inquiry on matters not within Congress’s sphere of power, and which will likely not achieve any benefit that’s not solely partisan. Except maybe placating the masses by giving the appearance of action, when nothing is being done. And frankly, I don’t think that’s enough of a justification for the damage done to the separation of powers.

And for the record, Bush has agreed to appear for more than two hours, if necessary.

31

Please see the link above re: Bush spending as long as it takes to answer all the Commission’s questions.

Actually, the trip was Jan. 5, 2004. Unless you’re talking about the War on Terror (r), then I’m not sure to which war you’re referring. And Cheney stayed two days. Not that I expect that you’ll be bothered by the facts.

I always get a kick out of your ad homenem attacks that everyone who disagrees with you is blindly partisan. I might be concerned if your own posts weren’t so mind-numbingly partisan

So the only way for Bush Admin officials to gain credibility is to disagree with Bush? Interesting.

32

Well done, AQA! You deftly evaded the point much like a toreodor evades the bull’s horns. These aforementioned officials didn’t gain any credibility, they already had that. Presumably, GeeDubya would not have hired them otherwise. As well, we can be reasonably certain that no one entertained notions of apostasy on thier parts, no one is likely to have said “Lets hire this Clarke guy, he doesn’t know al-shit from al-shinola, but we can rely on him to embarass the crap out of us down the road!”

For myself, I am somewhat mystified by the Bushivik’s extreme sensitivity on the subject of 9/11. No one really knew what to expect, which is part of the shattering significance of 9/11. The shock is directly proportional to the surprise. If they would simply shrug and say “Who knew?”, I would be inclined to write them a pass and move on to other, more interesting subjects.

But they seem determined to present themselves as absitively and posolutely on the ball 100% at all times. They didn’t miss a trick, were on top of it all, and yet, somehow, it happened anyway.

Its rather like watching a man arm-wrestle himself to a draw.

33

Bush agreed to testify after great public pressure. As for what war is going on, unless you believe Fearless Leader that the war in Iraq was over last year, you’d have noticed that our servicemen are still dying over there. It is in all the papers, even if the Administration tries to ignore it. Not to mention the fighting in Afghanistan.

Astonishing that Rice had all that time to go on talk shows the other day, but no time for the Commission.

I wondered also what Bush was afraid of. With Clarke’s revelations, though, now I know. Interesting that Bush couldn’t even find enough Republicans outside the administration to turn a blind eye to what they found out. Kean used to be my governor, and he is an honest man, and as such is a threat to this Presidency.

34

9/11 is the Administration’s favorite political ball. And just as a toddler will scream bloody murder if anyone else tries to take, touch, or even glance sideways at his favorite toy, the Administration will scream bloody murder if anyone else tries to discuss, investigate, or otherwise poke at their favorite toy.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, terrorism and the 9/11 attacks are not toys, even if the Administration keeps treating it as such.

35

I think she won’t(didn’t) testify because she does not want to be revealed as a liar. In listening to some of the hearing today, they are keen on hearing from her to look into the hyperbole she’s been spouting on the public air waves. The word hyperbole was used. She’s said that the Clinton White House left them a shamble of a strategy (paraphrase), but seemingly everyone testifying said there was continuity and the both were doing all they could do. She’s not going to lie under oath, but testifying in public will expose prior lies and exagerations she has proffered to the media.

36

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.

No shit, Sherlock. Of course they didn’t do enough. And neither did you, apparently, even though you had 8 years and 8 months to do it.

That’s a problem that seems endemic to politicians. Or have you heard Clinton saying about 9/11 that he missed a few tricks and wasn’t always on the ball?

That’s also one of the reasons I don’t expect the politicians on the Commission to agree with either you or I and just say what seems to me to be the only reasonable conclusion – that everyone acted reasonably, but we should be more vigilant in the future.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

37

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.

Second, your expressed willingness to let sleeping dogs lie simply makes no sense to me. You assume that somehow, unseen machinations somehow allow a faceless government to understand what it did wrong. 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.

Whatever. It doesn’t work that way. The commissions into events like Iran-Contra, Pearl Harbor, the Challenger explosion, and the assasination of JFK helped to inform the American people what happened there.

It is beyond me why anyone would seek to discredit public investigations into tragic events. Don’t you think that we, the people, should get the full story of what went wrong and why?

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?

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.

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.”

38

Where’s a barfing emoticon when you need one?

39

WTF? Why not? Of COURSE he should have to answer to congress and/or the senate and/or the justice department if there is any hint that those “constitutional perogatives” may have been misused or inappropriattly usurped.

40

Did you get that from the consitution, or did you just make it up yourself?

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?

This is not a judicial investigation into wrongdoing.