White House in row over September 11 evidence

[JoFerret]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1176591,00.html
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday March 24, 2004


<<The White House was facing a crisis in confidence yesterday over its handling of the al-Qaida threat prior to September 11, as a public inquiry into the attacks demanded to question George Bush's national security adviser.
The September 11 commission insisted that Condoleezza Rice appear at today's session, even though the Bush administration has warned that a public grilling of a member of presidential staff would breach constitutional protocol.
<snip>

The commission is due to submit its final report on July 26, just before the Democratic party's convention.

Ms Rice has become a lightning rod for criticism ....

Mr Clarke portrayed Ms Rice as ill-informed about the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaida. He said she "gave me the impression she had never heard the term before".
<snip>


Speaking during a cabinet meeting, President Bush denied that he ignored the threat from al-Qaida.

<snip>

However, members of the September 11 commission,... were furious that Ms Rice had taken such a high public profile after refusing to appear before a public session of the inquiry. Timothy Roemer, a Democratic commissioner, held up a copy of Mr Clarke's book at one point, saying: "I would hope that this discussion would not be for the airwaves ... but belongs in this hearing room tomorrow."

Such demands were greeted by applause from relatives of victims of September 11.

The disputes have led to the commission issuing two subpoenas and threatening several more.

<more>

[UpInArms]

1. when the drumming of the demands for Rice's

appearance before the Commission are heard throughout the US (instead of just the foreign press), I will be somewhat relieved.

Ms Rice has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration after the publication of a White House memoir by the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.

Mr Clarke portrayed Ms Rice as ill-informed about the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaida. He said she "gave me the impression she had never heard the term before".

He said that in an early meeting in January 2001, in which he tried to make her realise the extent of the danger, she changed the subject and later decided to exclude Mr Clarke from top level meetings and downgrade his counter-terrorism security group.

The White House has launched a media counter- offensive to rebut Mr Clarke's claims, with Ms Rice appearing on five talkshows. In one interview, Ms Rice said: "Dick Clarke was counter-terrorism tsar for a long time with a lot of attacks on the United States.

[Florida_Geek]

2. And under Clinton and Clarke < 100 Americans died

because of terrorist. Now under *.....

[TahitiNut]

4. The number of American deaths pales in comparison ..

... to the number of deaths of human beings when a psychotically reactive strategy of "war" instead of "law enforcement" is adopted.

When innocent bystanders are killed by law enforcement, they're not relegated to inanimate objects and called "collateral damage" as they are when the mob is infected by the insanity of "war." This madminstration has embraced the morally and ethically bankrupt "might makes right" pathology that makes the world a far more dangerous place. They've demonstrated absolutely no respect for a "rule of law" and have alienated 80% of the inhabitants of the planet.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. So it was okay to publicly grill

the elected President of the United States, Bill Clinton on live TV about an extramarital affair and intimate details of his private life? But we shouldn't ask the friggin head of National Security what the fuck she was doing on the morning of 9-11 and for the nine months preceding when she was in charge?

[0007]

5. This is an outrage!!

Where are the dem leaders?

[enough]

10. Right.

The D's should be shouting about this. I don't know what is holding them back.

[PaDUer]

12. Umm....she was doing..

what * said they were doing.."acting like a married couple". :-)

[izzie]

6. So far it seems to me

In Bush one the knew nothing, in Clinton's they did not know what they were in for until the end and when they passed what little they knew to Bush, he did not care as he was so in to Iraq. Why are we spending millions on CIA and FBI?

[Go Eagles]

7. Disgrace

It is a disgrace that the person who's position was responsible for National Security will not publicly testify, especially considering other cabinet in this and the previous administration are coming forward. It is a no win situation for Shrub; put her up there and watch her incompetence be on public display or do it privately and appear like you have something to hide. She would really be grilled about all the intelligence and chatter pre-9/11 and how this administration essentially did nothing to prevent or warn of a potential attack. The wing nuts I know who have tried to place the blame of 9/11 squarely on Clinton are being force feed heaping portion of crow. They don't have too many counter arguments and it's great to see them squirm.

[JoFerret]

8. Subpoena Rice?

<<The disputes have led to the commission issuing two subpoenas and threatening several more. >>

Now that would be a great idea.

[Skidmore]

16. One of the commisioners--Gorelick--said that they wanted

too but the commission itself is so short lived that they do not have time to deal with the court cases that would be necessary to enforce such a subpeona. The people need to to DEMAND that the commission's inquiry be extended to make certain that its job can be completed.

[Karenina]

17. Rice. Under. Oath.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Bandit]

11. What Clarke had to say about this

"Well, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration didn't have an approach to terrorism. They'd never gotten around to creating an administration policy. It was in the process of doing so, but it hadn't achieved that. And it was clear that the national security advisor didn't like this kind of issue; she didn't have meetings on this issue. The president didn't have meetings on the issue of terrorism."
This was from an interview with Joe Connason at Salon.com

[niceypoo]

9. Apparently protocol and tradition trump preventing another attack

or so they want us to think. On sunday Condi's voice was quavering as she contradicted Clarkes charges. Thats the first time Ive seen that. She is scared. The whole thing points squarely at her and she knows it.

[caledesi]

13. Yes, her voice was very shaky. She is scared! nt

[ze_dscherman]

14. Guardian cartoon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1176707,00.html

[Lindsay]

15. Josh Marshall addresses Rice's refusal to testify nicely.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php#002762

-snip-

Now, there is a constitutional issue involved. But Rice is trying to get people to think that members of the White House staff never testify. And that's not even close to true. In my hand I have a 2002 Congressional Research Service study that lists a whole slew of presidential aides and advisors who've testified in the past.

Indeed, it lists two of Rice's predecessors as National Security Advisor who've given public testimony: Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Sandy Berger in 1997.

-snip-