White House allies and Republicans pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from NSA Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal to testify under oath a "political blunder of the first order." In addition, Richard Clarke supports a "sweeping" declassification of documents, including all 6 hours of his testimony before a congressional committee 2 years ago, along with e-mails between him and Rice, as well as other documents. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._on_re_us/sept_11_commission&cid=519&ncid=716
(CNN) -- FBI documents about FBI surveillance of John Kerry in the early 1970s have been stolen, according to their owner, a historian who lives near San Francisco, California. Gerald Nicosia, who spent more than a decade collecting the information, said three of 14 boxes of documents plus a number of loose folders containing hundreds of pages were stolen from his home Thursday afternoon. Nicosia reported the theft Friday to the Twin Cities Police Department, which covers Larkspur and Corte Madera in Marin County, where he lives. The police report found no sign of forced entry. "It was a very clean burglary. They didn't break any glass. They didn't take anything like cameras sitting by. It was a very professional job," Nicosia said. "Was it a thrill-seeker who wanted a piece of history? It could be," Nicosia said. "You'd think there was a very strong political motivation for taking those files. The odds are in favor of that." http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/27/kerry.documents/index.html
And this has what to do with NSA Condi Rice??? Your desparation shows, Bungy. It really does, just like the way you portrayed Scott Ritter in a previous thread . . . You have no credibility whatsoever.
her refusal wouldnt be so bad if she didnt parade around on talk shows. anyone remember when Bush wanted to put Rice in charge of postwar iraq - many complained it was for this very reason - not having to testify about anything. luckily that didnt happen.
"The whole idea of executive privilege is that the president's advisers should be able to give advice in confidence," said Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University. "That means the advice should be kept confidential. But she's talked to everybody under the sun. " "What is the difference between appearing before the commission privately, telling them her story, and saying it publicly under oath? She can't have it both ways," he said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ap/20040329/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission_28
WASHINGTON - In a reversal, the White House has agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11, 2001 commission, NBC News has learned. In addition, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have agreed to testify before the entire commission, not just the two co-chairmen. Their testimony will, however, remain private. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4623066/ We'll see.
The reversal was just hilarious with dr. Rice saying how testifying would be the best thing for her - but ... Now this latest developement shows some real spine ! (ironic)
An exceptionally intelligent young woman that is a professional academic. Trained as an analyst on the Soviet Union. Conditioned to respond to world super powers, and rogue states, but not non nation-state terrorist groups like al-Qaida. I would suggest that she had no idea what Richard Clarke and George Tenet were telling her back in 2000 and 2001, and even if she had a thorough understanding of the terrorist groups like al-Qaida and issues at hand, I question her ability to respond. As an academic she was never trained on how to respond, only analyze a cold war superpower like the Soviet Union. Assuming that she actually had a handle on rogue states, it will be interesting to see how she responds to questions regarding Pakistan and India's ability to command nuclear warheads. http://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/