WP: Rice 9/11 Testimony May Be Released

[G_j]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34348-2004Mar29.html?referrer=email

Rice 9/11 Testimony May Be Released

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 30, 2004; Page A03


After resisting for months, White House officials worked yesterday to negotiate a compromise that would allow public release of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the independent commission looking into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to administration aides.

These aides said the White House believes Rice's refusal to testify is becoming a political problem and officials are looking for a way out. The leading possibility is for Rice to submit to another private session with the commissioners and allow them to release a transcript, the aides said.

But officials said commission members insisted anew yesterday that they want Rice to testify under oath and in public. That is partly because of questions raised in last week's testimony by Richard A. Clarke, a former Bush national security official who asserted that the White House neglected the threat of terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks.

...more..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34348-2004Mar29.html

[leftchick]

1. they really are playing this very badly....

just like Nixon, and I hope they keep it up!

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Then they should just release the transcript

from the first time she met with the commission. The one before she got a chance to change all of her answers.

[Just Me]

5. My understanding is that transcription/recording was prohibited.

I could be mistaken but I believe no transcription/recording of Rice's meeting with the commission was allowed. Gee, I wonder why *hmpf*!!!!

[leftchick]

12. That is what I heard too...

was it recorded or not? I thought I heard Mr. Rhoemer say it was not recorded.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

3. Under oath or nothing!

Has * said why he doesn't want her to testify under oath yet?

[0007]

4. (((((((((((((((((((((((( May )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Is a deliberate effort to avoid exposure of one's position

[sniffa]

6. what testimony?

she didn't testify, and her new private, not under oath, conversation isn't a testimony either. fuck them and their transparent scheme.

can i get a witness?

[BiggJawn]

9. Exactly. She wasn't Sworn.

It's not "Testimony", she had a "private conversatuion" with the members of the commission, NOT under Oath.

Notice she's wearing her skirts shorter again. This is in line with the BiggJawn Theory of Condi's Hemline, which states:
"The bigger the LIE, the more THIGH."

She'll be wearing tap pants by the end of next month.

[catmandu57]

7. STONEWALL STONEWALL STONEWALL

There stands contradicta rice just like a stonewall, may she fall on * and crush this misadministration.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. there are no transcripts, according to Ray Talliaferro

of her hidden testimony. The only thing that was allowed was note taking by the individual panel members. How can she have run and controlled this like that? It is NOT her commission to boss around and why did they allow that?

[RossMcLochNess]

10. This also applies to Clinton and Gore too though...

if they aren't under oath, written transcripts aren't taken. Stupid rule but there's nothing "fishy" about that part.

[AlCzervik]

11. I heard the same thing.

So what are they going to release? Fictitious testimony?

[RedSock]

14. step aside tom kean

the commission has a new chair -- ms. condi rice.

fuck this shit.

[Longhorn]

13. They're talking about another session.

From the article: "The leading possibility is for Rice to submit to another private session with the commissioners and allow them to release a transcript, the aides said."

[Moderator]

15. locking

duplicate story - go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x452018