"Rice Is Agreeable to Return for More of 9/11 Panel's Queries" Times Says.

[BurtWorm]

In the headline, anyway. Which of course would make you think she's chomping at the bit to spill her guts to the Commission and set the record straight. But read on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/26PANE.html?hp

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: March 26, 2004


WASHINGTON, March 25 — Under mounting pressure from Democrats about its response to the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House offered Thursday to have Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, answer more questions from the Sept. 11 panel. At the same time, President Bush forcefully denied accusations that he had ignored the severity of the threat from Al Qaeda.

The White House announced late Thursday that Ms. Rice was willing to appear before the panel again, but only in private and not under oath.


If you ask me, it's very weird that Rice is going all over the media spilling her guts but she won't take an oath to give testimony to the 9/11 Commission. I don't mind her not going before them in public. The truth is more important. I don't mind her pleading the 5th if she feels she must. But I don't get why she can't take an oath to tell the truth and nothing but to a commission studying the defining moment of her tenure as NSC chief. And I don't see how they think it will play well anywhere else.

But why is the NY Times spinning this for Rice? Unlike Clarke in 2002, they don't work for her--as far as I know.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. no oath = lies and propaganda

[arcane1]

2. that liar needs to be UNDER OATH

what are you SCARED OF, Condi?????

[adriennel]

3. I don't get it....

why won't she testify under oath and in public? She clearly has no personal aversion to lying her ass off. I thought all of BushCo was adept to lying. So what's the big deal about lying to the 9/11 commission? Did she suddenly develop a conscience?

[stopbush]

5. Lying under oath is perjury. Lying on the airwaves is opinion.

Lying to the 9/11 commission while not under oath is also opinion and carries no legal consequence. Once Rice is put under oath, SHE will personally take the fall for her mendacity. At this point, she can lie with impunity.

Thank Zeus honor and dignity has been restored to the WH...

[BurtWorm]

8. But why is the WH backing her up on this?

Don't they need someone to shove over the side if worse comes to worst? :wtf:

[BurtWorm]

7. I don't get it either. But don't worry. James Baker will explain it

all for us, I'm sure, if the shit keeps hitting the fan for the Bush boy. He will give us some pomo explanation of why NSC chiefs ought not to take oaths while still in office. I can't give you a preview because I can't imagine what kind of creative argument they'll come up with.

[stopbush]

4. The commission has stated that if one wishes to refute testimony

given UNDER oath (ie: Clarke's testimony), then the refuter must ALSO be put under oath.

If the commission caves on this one and allows Rice to appear again sans oath to counter Clarke's testimony, then we know absolutely that the fix is in. As long as Rice isn't under oath, she can lie to her heart's content and face no sanctions whatsoever, not perjury, not jail time, not nothing.

At which point do we take to the streets?

[derby378]

6. If she can say it in the press...

...she can say it under oath. With cameras rolling. Otherwise, I just ain't interested.

[SendTheGOPPacking]

9. but not under oath

:eyes:

[tom_paine]

10. Yes, at least one the the NYT upper Editors is a Bushevik Plant

Virtually all our media outlets have Bushevik Loyalist doing their Black Ops for their Imperial Masters.

[Fovea]

11. subpeona her

She took an oath to uphold the constitution like the shrub.
Stonewalling congress is not consistent with that oath.