7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Rice to Testify Publicly Before 9/11 Commission
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
WASHINGTON — The White House agreed Tuesday to let National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) publicly testify under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
In return, the commission unanimously agreed to a Bush administration request that Rice's testimony will not set a precedent that would require future White House aides to testify publicly.
An administration official said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (search) had already given a verbal assurance. The commission also agreed to deliver in writing a commitment that such testimony would not upset the concept of separation of powers (search) between the legislative and executive branch, the official said.
In a letter to the commission sent Tuesday by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (search), the White House asserted that any testimony by Rice "can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances.
"Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as a precedent for future requests for a national security advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body," Gonzales wrote.
In the letter, the White House also offered to provide President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath. Bush and Cheney, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, previously agreed to meet with the commission.
Rice has already appeared for four hours in front of the commission to answer questions in private about what the administration had been doing about terror threats. She rejected testifying in public, arguing that she is prevented by executive privilege (search) from revealing confidential conversations.
But many legal scholars and partisans had argued that Rice's appearance on television and in other media to defend her decision and discuss administration efforts to stop terrorism before the attacks undermined her argument of executive privilege.
"From a political standpoint, it's probably a wise move," said former Republican National Committee Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf (search). He said that the "fact of 9/11, maybe perhaps an equal of Pearl Harbor" gave the public and the commission the need "for closure," which could be achieved by hearing from all the officials who worked on counterterrorism prior to the tragedy.
Besides trying to dispel some of the characterizations made by Richard Clarke (search) — the former Bush and Clinton counterterrorism coordinator who claimed before the commission last week and in a recently-published book that the Bush administration had not treated the threat from Al Qaeda (search) with enough urgency — Rice's appearance is likely to blunt attacks from other quarters.
Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath.
The resolution, offered by Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, demanded that Rice testify in order to "make a full accounting of the
preparedness of the United States before, and the response of the United States to, the September 11, 2001, attacks."
In a letter to colleagues, Schumer and Kennedy said that "given her substantial security responsibilities, Dr. Rice is under a special obligation to share her version of events while under oath and her narrative is essential to providing the public with confidence that no stone has gone unturned in the commission's effort to protect the nation against terrorism."
Fox News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui contributed to this report.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, this is precedential and a bad idea for executive priv.
However, I think Clarke et all will pretty much be toast after this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
WASHINGTON — The White House agreed Tuesday to let National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) publicly testify under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States.
In return, the commission unanimously agreed to a Bush administration request that Rice's testimony will not set a precedent that would require future White House aides to testify publicly.
An administration official said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (search) had already given a verbal assurance. The commission also agreed to deliver in writing a commitment that such testimony would not upset the concept of separation of powers (search) between the legislative and executive branch, the official said.
In a letter to the commission sent Tuesday by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales (search), the White House asserted that any testimony by Rice "can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances.
"Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as a precedent for future requests for a national security advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body," Gonzales wrote.
In the letter, the White House also offered to provide President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet jointly with the entire commission, though they would not be under oath. Bush and Cheney, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, previously agreed to meet with the commission.
Rice has already appeared for four hours in front of the commission to answer questions in private about what the administration had been doing about terror threats. She rejected testifying in public, arguing that she is prevented by executive privilege (search) from revealing confidential conversations.
But many legal scholars and partisans had argued that Rice's appearance on television and in other media to defend her decision and discuss administration efforts to stop terrorism before the attacks undermined her argument of executive privilege.
"From a political standpoint, it's probably a wise move," said former Republican National Committee Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf (search). He said that the "fact of 9/11, maybe perhaps an equal of Pearl Harbor" gave the public and the commission the need "for closure," which could be achieved by hearing from all the officials who worked on counterterrorism prior to the tragedy.
Besides trying to dispel some of the characterizations made by Richard Clarke (search) — the former Bush and Clinton counterterrorism coordinator who claimed before the commission last week and in a recently-published book that the Bush administration had not treated the threat from Al Qaeda (search) with enough urgency — Rice's appearance is likely to blunt attacks from other quarters.
Democratic senators on Tuesday had planned on offering a resolution in the form of an amendment to the welfare reauthorization bill that would have required Rice to testify in public and under oath.
The resolution, offered by Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, demanded that Rice testify in order to "make a full accounting of the
preparedness of the United States before, and the response of the United States to, the September 11, 2001, attacks."
In a letter to colleagues, Schumer and Kennedy said that "given her substantial security responsibilities, Dr. Rice is under a special obligation to share her version of events while under oath and her narrative is essential to providing the public with confidence that no stone has gone unturned in the commission's effort to protect the nation against terrorism."
Fox News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui contributed to this report.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, this is precedential and a bad idea for executive priv.
However, I think Clarke et all will pretty much be toast after this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115605,00.html