Condi Rice's excuse for not testifying before the 9/11 panel

[Bullshot]

On NBC Nightly News, Condescending Rice several times stated that she would love to testify before the 9/11 panel, but she can't because of some "separation of powers" clause. (I'm assuming she's referring to the U.S. Constitution.)

Of course, in true journalistic fashion, Tom Brokaw fails to ask Rice to elaborate on their separation of powers argument.

Is this just a red herring thrown out by Rice? Or, is there something legit about her statement?

[bif]

1. But in Clinton's case

They dragged EVERYONE'S ass in front of the commision to testify. Double standards as usual.

[IronLionZion]

5. They dragged Clinton himself to testify

I think that was like the first time they deposed a sitting US President.

[northzax]

9. first off, that was a criminal inquiry

not a congressional body (which this one technically is)

Of course, yes, the claim is partially legitimate, but Condi loses in two ways: first, her advice to the president is so secret that sho goes on tv to talk about it and writes about it in the WaPost. Second, two former NSAa have testified before congress, Sandy Berger and Brezinski. Now I don't think Congress should be able to subpoena her, but she'd havea much better arguement, and look much less like a political hack, if she either testified or stayed above the fray completely. The wants her to be free to criticise Clark on her own terms, without being under oath, or being asked questions she has to answer.

good ploy, but methinks it'll back fire (as everything else they've done has.)

[Bandit]

13. I think Clinton released everyone from those restrictions as he didn't

want to be seen as hiding anything. These thugs just don't care what it looks like. They figure they control everything and are above the law. Hell they think They are the Law . Untouchable in any manner.

[sadiesworld]

Red herring. The commission is independent, not congressional.

[ET Awful]

2. It's a crock. . . .

As the Commission stated on Tuesday when discussing Armitage and saying they were sending a letter to the administration pointing out the precedetn for having Rice testify (and rightly pointing out that people in positions such as hers in the Clinton administration and other prior administrations appeared before congressional commissions with no problems).

[FloridaPat]

3. There was a story about how the president's security advisor

can't be called before congress for anything. Which is why she is technically in charge of Iraq.

[Catfight]

8. why would the commission continue to ask...if

they knew there was no way she could testify? Seems to me they would drop it altogether if she can't testify, BUT they keep requesting the invitation! Again, Condi=Liar.

She needs to get her lying face off TV and out of the media until she is under oath. And the media needs to clarify the TRUTH..but that's damn wishful thinking.

[maddezmom]

12. she can, bush just needs to give his blessing

~snip~
Ben-Veniste asked Armitage to deliver to the administration a 2002 Congressional Research Service report indicating that presidential advisers have testified before Congress in the past, including Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Senate Democrats have pounced on the issue of Rice’s not testifying in public. In a letter to Bush on Monday, eight lawmakers, including New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, argued that sworn testimony before the commission is not the same as testifying before Congress.

They also said Rice has not shied away from discussing the issue in interviews and a newspaper column. “In our view, there is no reason why she can discuss these issues in a newspaper article but not under oath before the commission,” the lawmakers said, a charge also levied by commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, at yesterday’s hearing.
~snip~
http://www.thehill.com/news/032404/rice.aspx

[gWbush is Mabus]

10. yes, somebody should dig that up

they gave her the job specifically so that she could not be accountable to congress.

[Skip Intro]

4. Where was that concern when she met with the commission in private?!

she did meet with them in private already, didn't she?

was she not concerned about separation of powers then?

your thread will probably be moved to the General Discussion forum (strict rules for LBN)

btw, welcome to du :hi:

[northzax]

11. she wasn't under oath

in the private sessions. that's the difference.

[Az_lefty]

15. She may be caught in a lie if she testifies

I don't know what she said in private to this commission but in public she will be under oath. Could easily be forced to contradict something she said earlier.

[maddezmom]

6. more lies and excuses

~snip~
Ben-Veniste asked Armitage to deliver to the administration a 2002 Congressional Research Service report indicating that presidential advisers have testified before Congress in the past, including Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Senate Democrats have pounced on the issue of Rice’s not testifying in public. In a letter to Bush on Monday, eight lawmakers, including New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, argued that sworn testimony before the commission is not the same as testifying before Congress.

They also said Rice has not shied away from discussing the issue in interviews and a newspaper column. “In our view, there is no reason why she can discuss these issues in a newspaper article but not under oath before the commission,” the lawmakers said, a charge also levied by commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, at yesterday’s hearing.
~snip~

http://www.thehill.com/news/032404/rice.aspx

[seemslikeadream]

7. CLINTON TERRORIST APPEASEMENT CZARINA RICHARD CLARKE

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/032204.asp

[OneBlueSky]

14. FOS! FOS! FOS! . . . n/t

.

[Kong]

16. Its An Excuse, Not A Reason

Nothing prevents her from testifying. The fact that she is the NSA does not prevent her from testifying, it only gives her an excuse not to testify. Nothing at all prevents her from testifying. So if she would 'love to testify' she can.

Kong