NYT: 9/11 Panel Chief's Want Rice To Testify Under Oath

[FauxNewsBlues]

The chairman and vice chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Monday that they would ask Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath in any future questioning because of discrepancies between her statements and those made in sworn testimony by President Bush's former counterterrorism chief.

"I would like to have her testimony under the penalty of perjury," said the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, in comments that reflected the panel's exasperation with the White House and Ms. Rice, the president's national security adviser.

Ms. Rice has refused to testify in public before the commission, even as she has granted numerous interviews about its investigation.

The White House declined to respond to Mr. Kean's comments. One official who had been briefed on discussions between the White House and the commission said Monday night that several options were under consideration that might lead to a compromise over Ms. Rice. The official, who asked not to be named because of the delicacy of the negotiations, declined to specify the options and said nothing had yet been decided.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/30/politics/30PANE.html?hp

[FauxNewsBlues]

1. Quick Comment

This is the first time I have seen in print that Clarke directly contradicts Rice in testimony. Clarke has sworn under oath, Condi didn't. The fact that the Republican chief is talking about making Condi repeat herself with the threat of perjury charges ramps this up even further.

Drudge is reporting that WP will say that the White House did not allow recordings of Rice's private testimony, but they have nearly verbatum written transcripts. They don't match up with Clarke.

He also reports that the LA Times lead tomorrow is that Senators Kennedy and Shumer are introducing a resolution in the Senate tomorrow calling her to testify under oath.

[DeepModem Mom]

15. important point, FNB --

[Eye and Monkey]

2. I am unclear as to why she would not continue to lie, even under oath.

[daleo]

3. You can go to jail for lying under oath, of course

Even a Bushco liar might think twice about that, although that does perhaps show a bit of naivete on my part.

[GaryL]

4. Simple. Perjury.

If she directly contradicts Clarke, then the pubs will be calling for his head and the Dem's will encourage perjury charges against him. I would love to be a lawyer on that case. I'd subpoena that offing awhile in the whitehouse and his little dog Dick too!

[LONG-LINER]

7. Nice angle ... charge Carke... to get at the bush white house..

I like it ... No I love it ... :)

[Eye and Monkey]

8. I think that the idea of perjury doesn't give pause to megalomaniacs.

And no offense, but look again at the short- and mid-term outcomes you sketch: Rice contradicts Clarke, Clarke's credibility is questioned to the point that Clarke is prosecuted. Only after Clarke is aquitted could the issue be brought back to whether Rice lied.

I think that the refusal to testify doesn't have as much to do with "under oath" as it does with "BushCo bullying control freaks".

But it would definitely be nice to catch her out, wouldn't it?

[BeFree]

5. Oh, she'll lie alright

But then she can be brought up on charges of perjury. Once brought up on charges, she'll have to resign. * will pardon her, however. But the stink won't go away for a long, long time.

Hell, she has already retracted her "We didn't think planes would be missiles" BS, and if she fed the 9/11 Comm. that line before now, she's already just about perjured herself. Couldn't have happend to a better crook.

[whistle]

6. Right, isn't a lie a lie no matter where and under what circumstances....

...it is made? However, committing perjury in front of a federally appointed investigative body would be a felony, right? And federal felons got to jail, do they not? Let's get the whole White House in there under oath, including that putz Karl Rove!:kick: :headbang: :yourock:

[markses]

9. LOL: "The delicacy of the negotiations" ROTFLMAO

The White House official is citing the supposed "delicacy" of the negotiation as a reason for claming up. Meanwhile, the opposing party in the negotiation (Chairman Keane) is providing unequivocal demands to the New York Times! The absolute asymmetrical beauty of this is difficult to underestimate.

White House: We're at a very delicate stage in the negotiation.
Keane: We want Dr. Rice to testify under penalty of perjury.

Looks like one party is being, er, a lot less delicate about the whole thing than the other!

[markses]

10. For all the haters and liars

"In a private interview in February with several members of the commission, Ms. Rice was not required to be under oath, and panel officials said no transcript was made of the four-hour conversation."

Our lying and incompetent "National" "Security" "Advisor" (one must grant extreme latitude to even name her title!) has never testified under oath on this matter - and for good reason: She's been lying about it openly for the better part of 2 1/2 years!

[markses]

11. Is this reporter fucking stupid?

"Throughout the day on Monday, there were signs of a debate within the administration over whether to hold fast to the principle of not allowing White House aides to testify before Congress..."

The 9/11 Commission is not a Congressional entity. Therefore, her testimony before the Commission would not be testimony before Congress. Am I missing something here? Could somebody explain to me how the so-called "principle" applies in this case????

[Eye and Monkey]

12. The reporter is probably not stupid. That makes it all the more pitiful.

I hope that we can look forward to expose' after expose' for some time to come.

[gbwarming]

13. Rice isn't just an 'aide'

They're morphing the arguement again - now they're not claiming that her testimony would be prohibited constitutionally. The new language seems to match the talking point about the 7/29/1999 hearing that Calrke was not allowed to testify at.

The freeper talking point:
TheY2K Committee chairman (Bennett R-UT) continued:

"Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/29/172749.shtml

Clearly this is different in Condi's case - she was confirmed, and as you point out, this 911 commission is not congress.

[BR_Parkway]

16. Deflection from the issues

"can't testify in front of Congress" sounds official, but it doesn't apply here.

I'd guarantee that I can find 50 sheeple who think she'd LOVE to testify and refute "that lying Clarke" if it wasn't against the law for her to testify in front of Congress

Does that mean all Congressmen/women had to turn off their TV sets from all the media interviews she was giving?

[stopbush]

14. How soon before Gov Kean gets Clarked/O'Neilled? n/t

[74dodgedart]

17. Testifying before congres vs. independent commission

She wouldn't actually be testifying before congress. This is a commisson established by the president. Doesn't that make a difference.

[R Hickey]

18. I think she swallows...

a lot of criticsm from us nasty Democrats. She doesn't seem as smart as Dick Clarke, but at least to me, she looks prettier. I bet she's at least as smart as Monica Lewinsky.

I wonder about just what goes on in those long, private briefing sessions with the pResident. Whatever do they find to talk about?