Waggie, are you happy now?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Maverick74, Mar 30, 2004.

  1. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040330/D81KRAA80.html

    Rice to Testify in Public Under Oath

    Mar 30, 12:57 PM (ET)

    By PETE YOST

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Bowing to pressure, the White House will allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also agreed to speak with the full panel privately.

    To reach the compromise, the administration said Tuesday it had won agreement from the commission that it would seek no further public testimony from White House officials and that Rice's appearance would not be viewed as a precedent.

    The commission welcomed the decision in a statement which said, "We will work with the White House to schedule both sessions promptly."

    Bush and Cheney have agreed to a single joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said in a letter to the panel. Previously, the administration was only offering private interviews of Bush and Cheney with just the commission chairman and vice chairman.

    The decision to have Rice testify follows the publication of former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's book, in which he charges that the Bush administration was slow to act against the threat of al-Qaida.

    Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, said the Sept. 11 panel accepted the proposal in a meeting Tuesday morning, including the stipulation that it not call other White House officials because "we hadn't planned to."

    "I think the White House would have been better off if it had made the agreements sooner, but I'm delighted," said Gorton. "I have felt all along that her public testimony would be good for the country."

    Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, said the president and vice president will not be under oath in their meeting with the commission. Kerry said Rice's testimony will be critical in determining what the Bush administration could have done to prevent the attacks and that the White House "made the right decision."

    Aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had decided over the weekend to pursue an arrangement with the commission for Rice's testimony "provided that we can uphold this important principle. It's important to protect the principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch." The president was to make public remarks about the agreement later Tuesday.

    The session with the president and vice president would be without set time constraints, Gorton said. Originally, Bush and Cheney had wanted to restrict any meeting to one hour, although Bush relaxed that requirement earlier this month. Former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore agreed last month to private meetings without restrictions. Regarding Rice, Gorton said a previous proposal to make public notes from her private meeting with the panel in February is now moot and won't be done.

    Gonzales' letter conditioned the White House's decision on written assurances from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent and that the commission does not request "additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice."

    Subject to the conditions, the president will agree "to the commission's request for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the commission's statutory mandate," Gonzales' letter said.

    "The president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts," Gonzales added.

    Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "The administration's reversal shows that it was using executive privilege as an excuse to keep Dr. Rice from testifying. ... The dedication and bull's eye integrity of the commission has succeeded and now hopefully we will be a lot closer to the truth."

    "The Bush administration has finally come to its senses," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

    Republican leaders focused their praise on Bush. "We applaud the decision of the President to allow the National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to testify before the 9/11 Commission," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, both Republicans, said in a joint statement. "This is a unique event given the extraordinary nature of September 11, 2001."

    Hastert and Frist added, "We do not believe Dr. Rice's testimony ... should be seen as setting any precedent, and it should not be cited as setting precedent for future requests for a National Security Adviser or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body."

    On Sunday, Rice offered a rebuttal to criticism by Clarke that President Clinton "did something, and President Bush did nothing" before Sept. 11 and that both "deserve a failing grade."

    Rice responded in televised news interviews. "I don't know what a sense of urgency - any greater than the one that we had - would have caused us to do differently," she said.

    Clarke testified before the commission last week.
     
  2. :D
     
  3. Yes.
    And America will no doubt be a better place for it.

    Seriously Mav, I like the fact that Richard Clarke said what he said a week ago . . . up until then, most people here in the United States didn't even know that the 911 Commission existed.

    Now they do.
    And as Martha Stewart says, "That's a GOOD thing."

    :)
     
  4. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    So are you and Condi cool now? :D
     
  5. Bush and Company bow to public pressure.

    Real leadership....

    If it was right not to testify a week ago, why is it wrong now not to testify?

    More flip flop by GW and crew.

    Bush would eat the butt out of a skunk if he thought he could appease voters.
     
  6. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    ART, there is no pleasing you. You bitch and moan that she won't testify then when she does you bitch and moan that she caved in. Freaking a man, what do you want. You can't have it both ways. Everyone was crying about this begging for her to testify. She had to do it. If she hadn't, you would say she is hiding something. ART, don't you ever get tired of playing the role of the whiny liberal?
     
  7. Sorry about not getting back to you any "earlier". . .

    I was far too busy "taking candy from a Baby" and making a few pennies here and there for my quantitative hedge fund, trading TASR.

    :D
     
  8. You don't get it moron.

    If she was right not to tesfity then, why testify now?


     
  9. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    Waggie there was a good 600 cents to be had in TASR today. LOL. And can you do me a favor and answer ART. He didn't want your girl to testify.
     
  10. Two points. One, I tend to agree with ART that if there was an important principle at stake regarding her not testifying, what changed other than political pressure? That looks like typical Republican spinelessness.

    Two, I wonder if they might have planned this all along. Now terrorism and 9/11 dominate the news for at least another week, and Kerry's pathetic attempts to grab headlines continue to fail. He was out today with some nonsense about gas prices, but no one cares. As much as the Dem's love to rail at Bush over Saddam, they need to clam up fast if Kerry is to have any chance at all. No doubt Rice will make an impressive case before the Commission, and, as the final witness, she is in a good position to rebut Clarke once and for all and leave the public with her version of things.
     
    #10     Mar 30, 2004