Rice and 9/11

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[b]WASHINGTON - As White House allies and Republicans investigating the Sept. 11 attacks pressed to hear open testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- with one member of the 9/11 panel calling her refusal a ?political blunder of the first order? -- Rice took to the prime-time airwaves Sunday night, renewing her claim of executive privilege.

?Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify,? Rice told Ed Bradley of CBS?s ?60 Minutes.? ?I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.?

Intimidation denied
Rice disputed a claim from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke that President Bush attempted to intimidate Clarke into finding a connection between the attacks and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.


"I have never seen the president say anything to people in an intimidating way," she said. "The president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to get them to produce evidence that is false."

Rice also took issue with claims that terrorism was not a priority for the administration -- claims made by Clarke, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. "I don't know what a sense of urgency would have caused us to do differently," Rice said.

Rice noted that before Sept. 11, "terrorist attacks were getting bolder, they were getting more imaginative, they were getting more daring. We were not aggressively going after them."

The policies of the current Bush administration were different, she suggested. "What they've been surprised by is that this time, there has been an all-out launching of war on them," Rice said. "... They are going to be defeated."

A 'safer' world
"The war on terrorism is a broad war, not a narrow war," Rice told Bradley. "Iraq is a big reason, or was, for the instability in the region, for threats against the United States. Saddam Hussein's regime was very dangerous."

? ... the best thing we can do for the future of this country is to focus on those who did this to us.?

With Saddam out of power, Rice said, "the world is a lot safer and the war on terrorism is well served."

When Bradley asked if she or the president were prepared to offer an apology to the families of victims of Sept. 11 -- like the dramatic mea culpa offered by Clarke last week in his testimony before the commission -- she demurred.

"The families have heard from this president -- and from me personally, in some cases -- how deeply sorry everyone is for the loss they endured," she said. "But the best thing we can do for the future of this country is to focus on those who did this to us."[/b]


[color=darkviolet]There's been a lot of talk recently about what Bush knew about 9/11 and WMD. People want Ms. Rice to testify about what Bush may have known.

This is just a copy of what was on MSN.com I'm trying to figure out my own opinions on the subject.

Of course, I'd like to know everyone else's. That is, if they have one. Does anyone think she may have known something?

I'd like to point out ahead of time that this has nothing to do with Bish bashing. If anyone feels the need to do that, maybe you should grow up. On the same hand if anyone thinks I'm bashing Bush, you should also grow up. I have better things to do...like Wash my car in the rain[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Though it is obvious that the woman would be biased in her testimoney, hearing every side of the story is essential.
Even if she is found to be lying or omitting certain information, this could be as important as any truth she might tell.

That's really all I have to say. *blink*[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]Heh, pretty deffensive right off the bat, aren't we?

I don't think Condelezza Rice, the Bush White House, or any other politician had prior knowledge, nor suspected that the US would suffer such a vicious attack at the hands of terrorists. If they had known, any polotician would have done their darndest to stop the incident...afterall, it would make them a national hero, one that could push any agenda he or she wanted.

Did the Bush White House neglect the former administration's advice regarding Al-Queda and slacked off gathering intel on this group? Maybe. It seems as though this hearing has unearthed information time and time again that points towards opposite directions. I honestly don't think there is any reason for Condelezza Rice to appear before the congressional hearing unless she is subpeonaed. I think that I read that there is a particular reason while the national security advisor is not supposed to speak at a congressional hearing unless they are subpeonaed, but I can't remeber why. Probably because she [i]is[/i] the national security advisor and knows things others shouldn't.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Condoleezza Rice should not testify to anyone regarding anything. I sayt his not because of any stance of the idea of prior knowledge, but because of the horrible precedent this would set.

Rice is the National Security Advisor of the United States. She is privy to knowledge that is [i]incredibly[/i] confidential. If she were forced to testify, then her position is worthless; in the future, any information she or future NSAs recieved would be at the mercy of Congress. Any and all National security plans could be broadcast because of partisan politics.

It is vitaly important that Rice not testify at all.[/color][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo'] I think that I read that there is a particular reason while the national security advisor is not supposed to speak at a congressional hearing unless they are subpeonaed, but I can't remeber why (if you could tell me the reasoning behind this I would appreciate it).[/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Well, on the news tonight they said that in the past 20 Security Advisors have testified in hearings and only 5 haven't. Jimmy Carter even testified about his deferment (is that the right word?) of Nixon back in the 70's

I guess I'm just some kind of skeptic sometimes since I feel that maybe sionce she's not going to testify she could be hiding something. Not about 9/11 persay since as someone has already said, these people were already entrenched in the united states, but maybe why we never found any WMD or why we decided to go to war with Iraq who had no ties with Bin Laden.

True, we may get a biased opinion in the end, but a biased opinion is better than none at all, right?[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] Well, on the news tonight they said that in the past 20 Security Advisors have testified in hearings and only 5 haven't. Jimmy Carter even testified about his deferment (is that the right word?) of Nixon back in the 70's[/color][/quote]

[color=green]The past 20? I?ve never heard that number, and I doubt its accuracy. Can you prove that?[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']I guess I'm just some kind of skeptic sometimes since I feel that maybe sionce she's not going to testify she could be hiding something. Not about 9/11 persay since as someone has already said, these people were already entrenched in the united states, but maybe why we never found any WMD or why we decided to go to war with Iraq who had no ties with Bin Laden.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]As Deathbug so eloquently stated above, of course Rice has things to hide. She gets briefed on almost all of the United State?s important intelligence information, which could be severely damaging for the US or our allies if released. Not to mention dangerous?

I doubt that she?s hiding any of the things you mentioned above, especially the Bin Laden à Iraq Connection (Seeing as we?ve already established that connection, I can dig it up from previous threads if need be).[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']True, we may get a biased opinion in the end, but a biased opinion is better than none at all, right?[/color][/quote]

[color=green]How could we [I]not[/I] get a biased opinion? You?re talking about a partisan political hearing that calls partisan people to testify in a thinly veiled attack on President Bush. Everyone who?s on that committee and has testified before it has been biased. Some have been severely biased.

That ?investigation? is nothing but bias, and should be taken with a grain of salt.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

One person?s word against another?s leaving two options which are the white house is in damage control (again) or this guy is lying. Personally I get the feeling it's a mixture of both because I don't believe bush would be that stupid though I wouldn't rule out that kind of action coming from him considering the past.

Other than that without proof there is no way to argue either side.

^^ Pah didn't read enough of the original post, the above is about Clarke (if he is the one with the new book on it) and below is edited to respond to Rice's part.

I don't think she should testify plainly because she is either a moron who falls for propaganda or follows the "party line" extremely closely either of which makes her a useless witness. In the past I respected her until I just read her talking about Iraq having some thing to do with terrorists before any of this war stuff started against it, this is clearly not the case as they lacked the capability and links with organisations to do anything against the USA (unless Israel is part of your country now?) so really I have lost all respect for her and wouldn't care less about anything she said on the topic as its accuracy would be tainted.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet'] Well, on the news tonight they said that in the past 20 Security Advisors have testified in hearings and only 5 haven't. Jimmy Carter even testified about his deferment (is that the right word?) of Nixon back in the 70's[/color][/quote]

[color=indigo] Sorry about my initial post, I was trying to aim for irony with my last line and I failed miserably, heh. My point was supposed to suggest the same reasoning that Death Bug pointed out, a National Security Advisor should not have to testify at a [b]public[/b] hearing because of the sensitive information he or she is privy to. Afterall, the National Security Advisor is a beuracratic assistant to President, therefore it would seem more beneficial for the Congressional hearing to request GW's presence.

I also think that your figures are off. There have ony been 18 "Assistants to the President for National Security Affairs" (or National Security Advisors as they are more commonly known), I believe the first was Robert Cutler in '52 or '53. Perhaps you mean fifteen of the last twenty members of the National Security Council? Although that still seems like an odd figure. A National Security Advisor has never testified in a public Congressional hearing. I also do not understand why you bring up Jimmy Carter. Many Presidents have gone before congressional hearings, Clinton testified in several, as did Regan and Bush Sr. [/color]

EDIT: It turns out that not only is Condeleezza Rice now going to [b]publicly[/b] testify under oath, but both George Bush and Dick Cheney are going to appear before the panel in a private inquery. I guess the Bush White House decided that breaking precedence was a risk worth taking if it would cushion possible damage that this hearing could cause them on the upcoming election.

I am not sure with I agree with their motives, why does the President need Rice to testify if he is also going to testify? It seems like it would be redundant. It seems as though Bush is just doing this to placate the media and halt potential rumors.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo] Sorry about my initial post, I was trying to aim for irony with my last line and I failed miserably, heh. My point was supposed to suggest the same reasoning that Death Bug pointed out, a National Security Advisor should not have to testify at a [b]public[/b'] hearing because of the sensitive information he or she is privy to. Afterall, the National Security Advisor is a beuracratic assistant to President, therefore it would seem more beneficial for the Congressional hearing to request GW's presence.[/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I think she should be allowed to testify in private if she does indeeed decided to do so at all. I know from living with military that so many people involved in the government get certain Security clearances which can be lost by a slip of the lip. However, if they kept the questions to the subject at hand, I don't see why the private hearing couldn't take place.

I do wonder why Bush hasn't been asked to testify at a hearing about what he may or may not know about such events. Ah well, you gotta love the government[/color]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo'] I also think that your figures are off. There have ony been 18 "Assistants to the President for National Security Affairs" (or National Security Advisors as they are more commonly known), I believe the first was Robert Cutler in '52 or '53. Perhaps you mean fifteen of the last twenty members of the National Security Council? Although that still seems like an odd figure. A National Security Advisor has never testified in a public Congressional hearing. I also do not understand why you bring up Jimmy Carter. Many Presidents have gone before congressional hearings, Clinton testified in several, as did Regan and Bush Sr. [/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I don't know whay I brought up Jimmy Carter either *shrugs* can I blame that on pregnancy?

As for the information, I got it from the News program I was watching last night when I put this post up. If that's a problem, NBC needs to have a talk with whomever gave them such information.[/color]