Condi and the 9/11 Commission

[kalian]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,565974,00.html

Poised to convene its first hard-hitting hearings in January, the federal commission investigating the 9/11 attacks continues to be at odds with the White House over access to key information and witnesses. Two government sources tell TIME that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is arguing over ground rules for her appearance in part because she does not want to testify under oath or, according to one source, in public. While national security advisers are presidential staff and generally don’t have to appear before Congress, the commission argues that its jurisdiction is broader—and it's been requiring fact witnesses in its massive investigation to testify under oath. The exception: it may not seek to swear in President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bill Clinton or Al Gore in the increasingly likely event they will be asked to speak to the commission. "I think that it is in their interest to meet with us," says GOP commission member John Lehman, saying that they should be invited, not subpoenaed, and be allowed to appear behind closed doors.

This is pretty big IMHO...makes you wonder why the big deal. IF they
have NOTHING to hide, then Condi should feel confident enough to
take the oath and tell the truth...right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Reminds me of Watergate as they hid, or tried to hide

behind executive privilidge

[Must_B_Free]

20. I wouldn't mind playing her at poker...

as long as its not strip....

[jmaier]

2. the goings on

of the 9/11 commission could become a time bomb for * & Co in 2004. They certainly are trying to make it as difficult as possible. Why?

[rapier]

3. Daddy, protect me

Well dont have her take the oath then. She is much too dumb to possibly tell a truthful coherent story anyway.

"Oh Daddy Daddy, protect me from those mean men"

[Old and In the Way]

4. Very big deal....

Because, under oath, is she willing to reaffirm her statement that she made..."we never expected that terrorists would fly planes into buildings"? She can say that to the media, but if she says it under oath, given the the lost stakes of that day (3000 people), she is severly exposed to perjury if there is evidence to indicate otherwise. Would she take one for Team Bush?

If she tells a different story under oath, it will only lead into the Oval Office.

I hope Al and Bill make very public statements saying that they'd be happy to go under oath, IN FACT IT IS THEIR DUTY, to help the public get all the information about what our government knew about the threat of attackes in the 90's and 2000/2001. Then let Bush/Cheney explain why they can't do the same.

[Liberal_Andy]

5. Not only that,...

didn't Condi say something to the effect that she didn't even read the Oct. 2002 Security Estimate? Didn't read the whole thing, or something like that?

What the hell does she do for a job?

[kalian]

6. Makes oil tycoons richer...

any questions...?

[DrBB]

14. The fact she has not been fired

...is one of the strongest circumstantial evidences that they LIHOP. In any rational, blameless administration, heads would have rolled. Instead, Condi sails on despite one after another firing offense. Remember the 16 little words? How come you didn't know about Wilson's report, Condi? After all, it didn't concern anything important--just an ostensible nuclear threat to the United States. But hey, no big deal.

Far as I can tell, her main job is polishing Dubya's shoes to a fine glossy shine. Other than that, I don't think she does a damn thing.

[colorado_ufo]

17. Remember *'s comment about his departure for fake-turkey-day in Iraq?

Something to the effect of, "We wore caps and pulled them down and just looked like a normal couple."

[lancdem]

7. I think Bill and Al will certainly cooperate

:)

[aquart]

13. Might not be a happy precedent.

A perjury trap, in fact.

Bill Clinton would have every reason not to set a precedent of Presidents testifying under oath.

Mr. President, you testified that you did not receive a call from your vice president or any other member of the administration that morning. Did you, perhaps, receive a call from your mistress that morning? Did HE give you that information?

See the problem?

[Old and In the Way]

16. No doubt if we had a "Starr" type IP, there'd be a risk.

But, OTOH, would Americans be more than a little upset to see a rehash of the Inquisition in place of real information about what our government knew about the terror threat and what they did to address it?

Believe me, I have to believe that Team Bush has been scouring every Clinton Presidential paper, memo, and e-mail that exists on the subject. I'd be willing to bet that if there had been any mention of OBL and plane attack that could have been used to defend Bush by accusing Clinton of not passing on critical information, they would have broadcast it far and wide by now. "Cklinton Dropped the Handoff" would be the media mantra if they could have made that case.

No, I think Clinton and his administration were quite vocal after 9/11 about defending their record and probably passed on everything that was important for Bush to know for ongoing national security purposes.

Clinton could handle the questioning, I think any sidetracking into Monica Lewinsky would outrage the American public and only confirm what we already know...that they are attacking Clinton to hide their incompetence and/or complicity in letting 9/11 happen.

But that would put the pressure on Bush2 to take the stand and be as forthcoming about his pre-knowledge....that would be quite interesting to see how his lawyers spin his avoidence to come clean with the commission.

[Nevernose]

8. There's a banner ad for Shell Gasoline at top of link

Damn I love irony!

:-)

[stickdog]

9. It's this kind of indefensible stonewalling and obsfucation that makes

people consider LIHOP as a very reasonable possibility.

Oh, I forgot. I can't possibly say something that. Wouldn't be prudent, don't you know.

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. WH leaders don't wanna tell the truth - "quelle surprise" !!!!

. . Why don't they just plead the "fifth"

. . "..decline to testify on the grounds that it may incriminate myself . ."

DAMM right, for them all to tell the truth would be incriminating indeed!!

But then again, they'll hide under the "classified" and "concern regarding National Security" blankets, right ?

anyhoo - I find it all disgusting, (and that's my "polite" version)

[DulceDecorum]

15. Plead the fifth?

There is no Fifth.
Please check your copy of the Patriot Act I and II.
The Fifth,
and the rest of the Constitution
went out with the 20th Century.

Take a look at this.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
According to that, Condi knows political science inside out.
So it is VERY STRANGE that she has claimed NOT to know about crashing planes into buildings.

Condi is the National Security Advisor to the pResident.
How can she NOT know about the PB4Y-1 Liberator Radio Controlled Drone?
http://www.aviationmuseum.net/Joe_Kennedy.htm

How can she NOT know of Boeing's long standing involvement in the flying bombs known as Liberators?

Project Anvil
Two PB4Y-1s of VB-110 were modified as pilotless flying bombs to be launched against high-priority targets in occupied Europe. Known as *Project Anvil*, the initial goal was to take out a German V-2 installation in occupied France. A PB4Y-1 was fitted with remote control gear, a forward-looking television camera to be used in the final run in to the target, and 25,000 pounds of explosives. Since there was no time to develop remotely-controlled takeoff equipment, the aircraft was to be flown to an altitude of 2000 feet by a pilot, who would arm the explosives, hand the aircraft over to remote control, and then bail out.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_29.html

HOW can she NOT know how the oldest Kennedy boy died?

On August 12, 1944, Ensign Joe P. Kennedy, Jr. volunteered for a highly risky mission officially called "Operation Aphrodite" (also known as "Project Anvil") to pilot a PB4Y-1, the Navy version of the B-24, loaded with 21,470 pounds of explosives – a flying bomb -- across the English channel towards the German V-1 missile sites on the other side. His orders were to aim his plane at the sites and bail out before the plane was exploded by radio from an accompanying plane. On this mission Col. Elliot Roosevelt, the President's son, was in the control escort plane. Immediately after its take-off from Winfarthing-Fersfield airfield Roosevelt detonated the bomber killing Kennedy and the other officer on the plane, Lt. Wilford J. Willy. Joe Kennedy, Sr. always believed that FDR had arranged the death of his son. We have the anomolous case of a US President murdering the brother of a future US President. In 1974, after Truman's death, Merle Miller published a 1961 interview with Truman done on tape in front of three witnesses in his best seller entitled Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman. Truman, according to Miller, was in Boston in 1944 in the Ritz-Carlton hitting up Joseph Kennedy for campaign funds for FDR's run for fourth term, and "Old man Kennedy started throwing rocks at Roosevelt, saying he'd caused the war and so on. And then he said, 'Harry, what the hell are you doing campaigning for that crippled son of a bitch that killed my son Joe?'"
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html

Oh Aphrodite
http://www.b17bomber.de/english/aphrodite5.htm
Perjury is yours.

[Old and In the Way]

19. Wow, the stuff you learn here........

I never knew about the Roosevelt/Kennedy connection. I do know Joe was being groomed by his father for a Presidential run, but never heard about the Roosevelt connection. Very wierd.

[HereSince1628]

11. I like the idea of dragging this into spring...

The closer to the election it is when the Bush Administrations failings are made known the better.

Lets see, finish, with a public statement, in June, then the executive summary is made available say the day before the final
and probably only) presidential debate.


Works for me.

[aquart]

12. Lots of criminals get really nervous under oath.

In fact, if called back to testify numerous times on the same subject, they begin to develop nervous twitches and tics.

A favorite prosecution trick is to ask them a parade of questions they will lie to, then ask one in which they can safely tell the truth. The vocal difference, the stress relief is so intense and so visible, the previous lies stand out as obvious.

Come on, Condi, what were you doing on 9/11? The day before? At the briefings in the summer? What's your favorite place to spend a summer?

[TeeYiYi]

24. I've actually seen Condi in this situation . . .

re: "ask them a parade of questions they will lie to, then ask one in which they can safely tell the truth. The vocal difference, the stress relief is so intense and so visible, the previous lies stand out as obvious."

Besided the nervous twitches and tics she regularly develops on the Sunday morning shows, I saw her on Oprah on the edge of a nervous breakdown until Oprah switched the subject to Condi's personal life. The visible change in her physical demeanor was more than transparent. The relief on her face. The sweat stopped rolling. That woman is a bundle of nerves in a TV interview. I don't know why they (BFEE) let her do it.

Interesting explanation aquart. Thanks.

TYY

[Manix]

18. I don't believe Rove will allow this to happen.

nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. So Perjury is Plan #1

Can't wait to see Plan 9.

[KeepItReal]

22. Condi Rice would have to admit that she *was* warned and did nothing

...about Al Qaeda. I believe Sandy Berger (her predacessor) handed her all the info she needed on that threat. She chose (or was told) to do nothing.

Damn I hope the 9/11 commission can get her under oath.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. What is she worried about?

It's not like they're going to ask her if she had sex with an intern. Now that might cost her a job. But that she was purely incompetent and allowed Cheney to create delays and that we lost valuable time in setting up national security policy...why no one would even bat an eye.