Even Richard Perle wants Condi to testify under oath

[Sandman]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Sandman"

>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp
>

She has testified under oath you twit, behind closed doors.

You know about behind closed doors, that's where Clarke told a 2nd version of
his "facts" before he told a 3rd version in public.

[Sandman]

"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Sandman"
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp
> >
>
> She has testified under oath you twit, behind closed doors.

No, she answered questions, *not under oath* before and *not* before the
public, you twit. She's a lying coward. Even Republicans are demanding she
testify *under oath* and *before the cameras* just as Richard Clarke did.

Why do you feel you have to lie for such scum, Bug-Eater?

> You know about behind closed doors, that's where Clarke told a 2nd version
of
> his "facts" before he told a 3rd version in public.

Bull****.

[Sandman]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp

Here's the article, for those too lazy to sign up for free:


Ex-Bush Aide Calls for Testimony on Terrorism to Be Opened
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 28, 2004


Filed at 8:32 p.m. ET

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- White House allies and Republicans investigating the
Sept. 11 attacks pressed Sunday to hear open testimony from national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice, with one commissioner calling her refusal
a ``political blunder of the first order.''

Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to meet with the families of the
Sept. 11 victims because she knows they are disappointed she cannot testify
publicly.

Advertisement


``Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to
testify,'' Rice told CBS's ``60 Minutes.'' ``I would really like to do that.
But there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing
principal that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the
Congress.''

President Bush, spending a long weekend on his Texas ranch, gave no ground,
and several aides said he will not change his mind on letting Rice testify.
But Bush sent her and other top administration officials out for television
interviews to rebut fresh attacks on the way his administration has handled
the threat of terrorism.

Sharpening his criticism, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said
President Clinton was more aggressive than Bush in trying to confront
al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's organization.

``He did something, and President Bush did nothing prior to September 11,''
Clarke told NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

``I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did before'' Sept. 11,
Clarke said of the Bush administration. ``They never got around to doing
anything.''

But Rice said the Bush administration regarded terrorism as ``an urgent
problem.''

Clarke said a sweeping declassification of documents would prove that the
Bush administration neglected the threat of terrorism in the eight months
leading up to the attacks.

He said he sought declassification of all six hours of his testimony before
a congressional committee two years ago. Some Republicans have said that
testimony about Sept. 11 contradicts Clarke's current criticism.

Clarke said he also wanted Rice's previous interview before the independent
Sept. 11 commission declassified, along with e-mails between him and Rice,
and other documents, including a memo he sent on Jan. 25, 2001 offering a
road map to the new Bush administration on how to confront al-Qaida, and a
directive that the National Security Council adopted on Sept. 4, 2001.

The material will prove ``they wasted months when we could have had some
action,'' Clarke said.

Rice says the approach formulated over the eight-month span was ``a more
comprehensive plan to eliminate al-Qaida.''

Asked about Clarke's request for the declassification, Secretary of State
Colin Powell on CBS' ``Face the Nation,'' said, ``My bias will be to provide
this information in an unclassified manner not only to the commission, but
to the American people.''

White House spokesman Jim Morrell said decisions on declassification ``will
be made in discussion with the 9/11 commission.'' One senior administration
official said the White House and intelligence community would never agree
to release the Sept. 4 national security directive, because it contains
sensitive information on sources and methods.

Members of the Sept. 11 commissioner made clear they will not relent in
their pursuit of public testimony from Rice, but said they were not inclined
to subpoena her.

The White House has declined to let her appear at the commission's televised
hearings, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers; the
panel was created by Congress.

``Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The
president would dearly love to have her testify,'' Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld told reporters. ``But the lawyers have concluded that to do so
would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that.''

Rice was interviewed by the panel behind closed doors on Feb. 7. The
administration has offered a second private session with Rice, but the
commission has not accepted.

Rice was ``very, very forthcoming in her first meeting with us,'' said
former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican named by Bush to lead the
commission.

``But we do feel unanimously as a commission that she should testify in
public. We feel it's important to get her case out there. We recognize there
are arguments having to do with separation of powers. We think in a tragedy
of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably
overridden,'' Kean told ``Fox News Sunday.''

Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican, said Rice ``has nothing to
hide, and yet this is creating the impression for honest Americans all over
the country and people all over the world that the White House has something
to hide, that Condi Rice has something to hide.''

``And if they do, we sure haven't found it. There are no smoking guns.
That's what makes this so absurd. It's a political blunder of the first
order,'' Lehman told ABC's ``This Week.''

A White House ally, Richard Perle, said, ``I think she would be wise to
testify.''

Perle, who resigned last month as an adviser to the Pentagon, said he
recognized the constitutional concerns at issue. ``Sometimes you have to set
those aside because the circumstances require it,'' he told CNN's ``Late
Edition.''

Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commissioner, noted in an interview with
The Associated Press that several White House staff in recent years have
appeared before legislative bodies, including former national security
adviser Sandy Berger when he was in office. Rice's several media appearances
also undermine the White House's position, he said.

``I fail to see the logic on the one hand relying on the confidentiality of
such communications with the president and yet appearing everywhere except
the one entity that has been created for the express purpose of
investigating and holding public hearings on 9/11,'' he said.

[Sandman]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Sandman"
> >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp
> > >
> >
> > She has testified under oath you twit, behind closed doors.
>
> No, she answered questions, *not under oath* before and *not* before the
> public, you twit. She's a lying coward. Even Republicans are demanding
she
> testify *under oath* and *before the cameras* just as Richard Clarke did.
>
> Why do you feel you have to lie for such scum, Bug-Eater?

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/politics/29PANE.html?hp

"Ms. Rice met with the commission in February to discuss pre-Sept. 11
initiatives, but an official involved in that meeting said the White House
insisted that she not be put under oath and that the session not be
recorded. Commissioners were allowed to take notes, but no transcript of her
comments is thought to exist."

Like the Terrierdork, Duh-Mikey just regurgitates here the right-wing media
whores' lies and propaganda, or just makes **** up as he goes merrily along.

So who's the "twit" here, Mikey? Only three possilities. (hint: ask
yourself: "me, myself, or I?")

[ScottW]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: "Sandman"
> > >
> > >
>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-11-Commission.html?hp
> > > >
> > >
> > > She has testified under oath you twit, behind closed doors.
> >
> > No, she answered questions, *not under oath* before and *not* before
the
> > public, you twit. She's a lying coward. Even Republicans are
demanding
> she
> > testify *under oath* and *before the cameras* just as Richard Clarke
did.
> >
> > Why do you feel you have to lie for such scum, Bug-Eater?
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/politics/29PANE.html?hp
>
> "Ms. Rice met with the commission in February to discuss pre-Sept. 11
> initiatives, but an official involved in that meeting said the White
House
> insisted that she not be put under oath and that the session not be
> recorded. Commissioners were allowed to take notes, but no transcript of
her
> comments is thought to exist."
>
> Like the Terrierdork,

Another lie from our stereotyping leftist senior citizen parent.

How much ordinary income did you have this year besides dividends
and interest? I bet zippo.

ScottW

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Sandman"

>"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Sandman"

> She has testified under oath you twit, behind closed doors.
>

>
>No, she answered questions, *not under oath* before and *not* before the
>public, you twit.

I stand corrected. At least I admit it when I get it wrong.

>She's a lying coward.

Proof curiously absent as usual.


>even Republicans are demanding she
>testify *under oath* and *before the cameras* just as Richard Clarke did.
>

>Why do you feel you have to lie for such scum, Bug-Eater?
>
I made a bad assumption.



>> You know about behind closed doors, that's where Clarke told a 2nd version
>of
>> his "facts" before he told a 3rd version in public.
>
>Bull****.

Absolute fact.