Good news. National Security Advisor Condi Rice will testify under oath before the 9/11 commission.
In White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales' letter, he writes:
The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission. To my knowledge, the executive branch has provided access to documents or information in response to each of the requests issued by the commission to date, including many highly classified and extremely sensitive documents that have seldom, if ever, been made available outside the executive branch.Ah, but wait, there's more:
The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official. Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. ...Nice. One shot guys, and that's it. Let's leave aside the fact that the commission is not an arm of Congress and is a presidentially appointed body, so the separation of powers argument is shaky, at best. What this is, is a face-saving move as Josh Marshall notes. He also makes the excellent point that without any followup sessions allowed, what happens if Rice's testimony contradicts Clarke's? Regardless, it's about time. After a week of surging storm clouds, Team Bush has finally decided that the only way to rebut Richard Clarke's remarks is to make Rice talk, publicly and under oath. The question is, will she be able to avoid perjuring herself and will anyone be able to do anything about it if she does? Those of us who opposed the war and just about everything the Bush administration has done obviously suspect the Administration has been resistant to Rice's testimony because we think the administration has something to hide -- likely gross incompetence, obsession and a small-minded agenda. Nothing criminal, but it would be very, very damaging to Bush's halo as a "war president." Those who support the war and the White House think Clarke is a propagandist for the evil doers, aka the Democratic Party, that _he's_ the liar and -- the horror! -- that he's a big ol' gay. Now if they can just finger him as a Canadian or Frenchman, the demonization will be complete. Speaking of complete, I've spent too much time on l'affaire de Clarke. People like Josh Marshall, Billmon, Kevin Drum and George Paine are doing a better job and I urge you to check on them for Washington politicking re Clarke. We will now return to our regularly scheduled war in Iraq.
I personally do not think Condi will have any problem with simply lying out of both sides of her exquisitely lipsticked mouth. She has shown so far that she is able and more than willing to do anything and say anything she is encouraged to by her boss(es) and I really think she is able to justify everything in her mind so that she comes out lily white (in her mind).
“Situation ethics” is far too simplistic a term for this type of behaviour, but it is a beginning at understanding how the human mind can so easily become comfortable with outright lying and deceit. I also think that since Shrub believes he was placed by his god, Condi believes that whatever she says is similarly righteous, regardless of truth or deceit.
I expect we will hear nothing but lies and barely veiled attempts at evasion, and if any true facts come out of it there will be either a twist, a spin or a scapegoat outside of the current admin to render the entire exercise fruitless as a fact-seeking quest. It would be slightly entertaining to watch, if it were not so damaging to our nation and (no doubt) expensive to the taxpayers once again.
This should be fun: The only way Rice can counter Clarke’s statements is by calling him a liar. One or the other of them will then be guilty of perjury. Frist will have to back up his rhetoric and call for Clarke to be tried. That will force communications between the two to be presented in court.
If the White House agrees to declassifying these communications (emails, memos, et al), then we’re looking at a court case that will drag on all through the election, continually questioning the integrity and competance of the administration.
If the White House cites “national security” in refusing to submit this evidence, then the case will get tossed, and Shrub will have given tacit approval of Clarke’s allegations.
Whether or not Clarke is lying, the White House has already lost this case. Thanks to their talk-show driven smear campaign, this event is going to last several more news cycles at the very least.
And I’m going to love every minute of it :-P
Doompig, you give me new reason to live! Thank you for those cheerful words of hope.
Hey Chris, I think i told you before, that you are truly an inspiration for do-gooder, muckraker journalists. that said, i linked you on my naseeb.com blog page, a site that has thousands of Muslims (many of who are American) perusing around, so hopefully you’ll get some more support! :) Please continue to Fight the Power!
Amina— Thanks very much! I’ll check out naseeb.com.
Who caved here? Who gave in? I’m just asking, because it is not clear.
A district attorney would grant immunity from prosecution—or a promise of leniency, or a lesser sentence—in exchange for testimony that incriminates a bigger fish to fry.
But, who wins in this situation?
Yes, the longer this remains in the public eye the better, though as Paul Krugman points out in today’s New York Times, “journalists” such as CNN’s Wolf Blitzer are repeating Bush administration smears without checking the veracity of the statements [I guess Wolf wants to be “fair and balanced” too]. The public eye is too often forced to wear blinders and look through smoke at mirrors.
Any compromise on testimony made by the 9/11 commission is a victory for the Bush administration. It is not the White House that compromised; rather, it is the 9/11 commission. By “working a deal”, they have set up a legal battle that will detract from the real issue—Bush administration counterterrorism policy from January 2001 until September 2001, in connection with a preoccupation with invading Iraq.
The Bushies were on the ropes, and they just got the judges to ring the bell early, in the last round.
Hopefully, the angry crowd, cheering for the opponent, THE TRUTH, will recognize the fix and demand satisfaction.
You guys are promoting the wrong fight, don’t fall in the trap.
The point is not what Bush COULD have done to avoid 911 (he couldn’t i guess).
The point is what Bush did and is still doing without legal support in Irak, and why.
I beg to differ, I think that this discussion will allow Kerry to reset his feet so to speak, and that the more the Bush team has to fight the criticisms of their handling of pre-9/11 national security, the shakier the ground they stand on will become. Anyone who knows that Iraq was illegitimate does not need convincing, and those who do not are a rather hard sell as they have been brainwashed by Roger Ailes and the like. We want this fight. Bring it on.
At the risk of offending a few readers, I would like to say that those who suggest that Bush cannot testify alone because of the risk of the “wrong” answers are absolutely correct.
Does anyone remember “Meet the Press”? A one-on-one format? Can you imagine King George in front of ten questioners without his “handlers” there to intervene for him? Have you ever seen a deer freeze in your headlights?
We would really see what kind of a leader good money bought.
There are just too many compromises made to “buy” Rice’s testimony. She’s just a side dish, for goodness’ sake!
I also want to say that Bush’s involvement in the counterterrorism policy process borders on “high crimes and misdemeanors” as much or more than Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky. If someone is lying to me about how they are spending my money, how they are “investing” it for my future, they are damn well criminally liable. How many more misleading statements and smear campaigns do people have to watch in order to really see what’s going on here?
The press was quick to jump on the call to convict Clinton. Where are they now? Few and far between, at best. Who dares to suggest that the Bush administration, which has been called even more secretive than the Nixon administration, is committing crimes on a daily basis?
In the name of National Security… .
We had Special Commissions before - all these incisive, intelligent questions… and at the end nothing but a punctured balloon. along with looking for lost memos, and dissecting Condi Rice “performance” etc., the members of this Commission should also investigate flaws in American foreign policy that planted potent seeds which led to 9/ll tragedy. I didn’t hear anyone raising this issue on our Media.
Concerned American