Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Found this article on Bloomberg.com this morning. It was short - so here it is in it's entirety.
Sept. 11 Commission Wants Rice to Testify Under Oath, NYT Says March 30 (Bloomberg) -- The Sept. 11 commission investigating the terrorist attacks will ask Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to testify under oath in any future questioning because of discrepancies between her statements and those made by former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, the New York Times said.
``I would like to have her testimony under the penalty of perjury,'' the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, told the Times
Rice has given one private interview to the 10-member, bipartisan commission and has requested another. The White House has cited executive privilege in refusing to allow her to testify before the commission in public or under oath.
The White House declined to respond to Kean's comments, the Times said, although one official said last night that several options were under consideration that might lead to a compromise.
This almost makes me laugh. They seem to be questioning Condoleezza's integrity. If they look back, there have been discrepancies with everyone verses what Clarke has said. Hell, he's contradicted himself.
In what little I've been able to see of the commissions hearings, no less that 3 people have contradicted Clarke and/or questioned his tales. These were all under oath. Why is it so vital that the National Security Advisor testify Live while WE ARE STILL AT WAR!!! Get that, we are Still At War. To me, that is the key. I have no issue with her testifying, and would eventually like to know all the details, but it can wait until We Are NOT At War anymore.
This entire issue has come down to matter of integrity and honor. Clarke versus Rice. Not even close, in my book.
UPDATE: As everyone is more than aware of at this point, Dr. Rice will be testifying before the commission. Right/wrong/indifferent - I'll shut up now.