Official: Rice to testify in public Includes conditions: Private meetings with Bush, Cheney WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks, a senior administration official said Tuesday. The White House had resisted letting Rice appear in public, arguing that this would be a violation of executive privilege. Calls for Rice to waive that privilege and testify have mounted since last week, when former White House aide Richard Clarke appeared before the commission to accuse the Bush administration of neglecting terrorist threats before the al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. Rice blasted Clarke in numerous interviews, but said her refusal to appear under oath and in public -- as Clarke did -- was a matter of principle. The senior official said the commission must assure the White House that Rice's appearance will not set a precedent. In addition, the full commission will be allowed to meet privately with both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on similar conditions, the official said. Getting to agreement White House lawyers and officials have had several conversations with the commission. As of late Monday, no agreement had been reached, according to two sources. Earlier in the day, a commission official said the panel was still hopeful that the White House would relent and allow public testimony from Rice. During her earlier testimony, Rice was not under oath, and there are no transcripts of her session. The only records of the session are notes taken by commissioners and White House staffers, sources said. The White House had requested that Rice meet again, in private, with members of the 9/11 commission to rebut charges made by her former counterterrorism deputy, Richard Clarke, that the Bush administration didn't put enough focus on the threat of terrorism prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The White House until Tuesday had refused to allow Rice to testify publicly under oath before the commission, arguing that precedent and the doctrine of executive privilege preclude a presidential adviser, such as Rice, from appearing before a congressionally created body. That decision led to a storm of criticism, with both Democratic and Republican members of the commission urging the White House to relent and let Rice testify. On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts were to introduce a resolution calling on the White House to let Rice testify publicly before the commission, saying it is "essential" for "a full accounting of the events preceding and following" 9/11. Senate Republicans said they were confident they can block that resolution from coming to a vote. Spokesmen for both the 9/11 commission and the National Security Council would not confirm that discussions were taking place between the White House and the commission to publicize portions of Rice's previous testimony. Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said Rice's comments would remain classified unless that status was changed by a government classification committee. Her interview would be treated in the same way as those of more than 1,000 people who have met with the commission in private sessions, he said. Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the NSC, said the classification committee is made up of full-time government employees who are called upon to conduct reviews. While Rice would have no role in the process, NSC staffers would be involved, he said. "Whenever Dr. Rice talks to the commission, both in the past and the present, we want her input reflected in the public report, certainly within the bounds of the classification system," McCormack said. The 9/11 commission is scheduled to issue a public report outlining its findings by late July. The White House will allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the 9/11 commission.
what's the point of testifying if she's going to just lie? hasn't the moral philosophy of the administration been one of "ends justify means"?
I don't get it. Just Sunday she said she had a sacred consitutional duty not to testify. Another flipflop by Condi and the Bu****es.
hum..... One of the conditions set forth in the white house compromise for testimony. Attached is the complete letter to the commission. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/gonzalezletter_033004.pdf
Flip to the flop to the flippity flop to the flip flip flip of the flop flop flop. Word to ya mothah!
And the prior administration was always truthful? I don't need to go back to the Monica testimony by Willy. The wholier than thou crap by the liberals is getting old. So let me say this really slowly so everyone gets it: Everyone lies. And politicians probably lie more than most. Deal with it. If you want to call here a liar fine. And if your qualification for her position is not plying fine. But tell me who should be in the position and make sure it is someone who has never and will never lie.
And the prior administration was always truthful? I don't need to go back to the Monica testimony by Willy What should we call this? I don't think "moral relativism" is the correct term. All lies are the same. Lying about Monica is just as grave as lying about the need for an Iraq War. "Moral blindness"?
yessir because that's exactly what I said I'm just asking what the point is, if she's going to lie? the admin is only going to look better out of this.
Seems we call for her to testify under oath... And then dismiss that testimony before it happens because we don't believe her anyway... But somehow this has anything to do with Monica (aren't her 15 minutes up??). Except you guys are worse...you did it first...i'm telling mom...you're a poopy-head. And on she goes... No wonder the public is more interested in Britney, J-Lo and American Idol.
http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?threadid=75395 Might not be too far off methinks... It certainly fits the pattern of the adminstration as a whole...
Britney?! Where?! Is she wearing anything? Oh sorry... P.S. you forgot to mention Janet, Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.
"The question is why this White House only does the right thing under public political pressure," Kerry spokesman David Wade said Tuesday. "Their first instinct should be to answer questions about our security rather than launch a public relations offensive and when that fails, do what they should've done from Day One." Thanks, mc mark. I think this pretty much sums it up. Ironically, Rice's testimony may turn out very well for the Administration if she comes across well on TV, seems to address the issues raised by Clarke and also gives a "heartfelt" apology to the survivors of the victims of 9/11. Bush/Rove/Cheney have handled this like idiots. In my opinion, of course.
