Xtratime Community banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i'm watching right now the 9/11 investigation.
george tenet is on the grill.
i'm so frustrated because i can't get all of he is saying.
seems he just said very deep things, because the way he talked, he is not like the others who went above him.
will we have somewhere the the whole report on what he said?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,807 Posts
I'm sure the transcripts, or at least excerpts, will be available soon. I'll have a look later. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
thank you tim:)
someone in the assistance tryed to speak up (we didn't see who it was) but seems he stoped to speak or have been stoped.
if you do have some info about it, let me know please:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
jeeeez!, all of this english to read;), i will read it tomorrow morning, thank you tim:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,157 Posts
It's quite ridicilious, IMO, that the national security adviser would refuse to testify in such an inquiry. But that's politics, folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,820 Posts
one of the panelist actually said yesterday that he would give his questioning time to another member of the 9/11 commission, if he gives him his time when & if Rice is questioned :D

Interesting testemony yesterday. Cant recall when was the last time i watched CNN for so long :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,518 Posts
From what i've seen of the hearings, it's easy to see why George Tenet kept his job even after 9/11. He's a very charismatic figure.

And i can see why Condi Rice is reluctant to appear before them, that Kerrey dude is quite a hardass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,932 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
indeed, george tenet is very charismatic, i felt completly under his charm:tongue:

about kerrey, sure!
if you do have something to hide, might be difficult to face him:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,202 Posts
well i lisened to rumsfeld and albright and a lil of tenet


albright did a decent job from what i heard...recognized the threat...

rumsfeld got grilled hard...said no one though they would use planes and them a member of the commision immediately listed like 12 instances where it was done before or attempted....looked really bad



tough tough questions being asked....when i have time this weeken imma print it out and read it all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,807 Posts
Rice Discusses Terror, but Not Under Oath

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) says the Bush administration has a good story to tell about fighting terrorism and she's pouring it out in television appearances, interviews and newspaper articles. The one place she won't talk is in public, under oath, before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 1, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That is blossoming into a public relations nightmare.

The White House finds itself in the awkward position of trying to explain why Rice, the national security adviser to President Bush (news - web sites), can talk at length to reporters but not at the commission's televised hearings because of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

"This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. "There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press."

Instead of testifying publicly, Rice is requesting a private meeting with the commission — her second such session — to discuss what the White House says are mischaracterizations of her statements.

"I don't know necessarily what the difference is" between a private interview and public testimony, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said. "She's going to tell it exactly how it happened," he said.

Rice's selective silence denied the administration a chance to answer charges at the hearing by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who accuses Bush of squandering opportunities to undermine the terrorist group al-Qaida and politicizing the fight against terrorism.

Clarke's charges strike at the heart of Bush's re-election campaign, raising questions about credibility, trust and Bush's strongest issue in the polls, the war against terrorism.

"In many ways, having a guy like Clarke do this now is the White House's worst nightmare," said Norm Ornstein, political analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Clarke's charges stole the momentum from the Bush campaign's effort to put Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites) on the defensive with ads suggesting he was weak on national security and the economy.

Respected on national security issues, Clarke held posts at the Pentagon (news - web sites), the State Department and the White House in the administrations of Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) and George W. Bush.

Trying to damage Clarke's credibility "is risky, first of all, because I think he's tough to pull down," Ornstein said.

Rice will try to gain ground in the public relations struggle Sunday by appearing on CBS' "60 Minutes," the same program Clarke used a week earlier to level his charges and promote his new book, "Against All Enemies." Bush's allies in Congress also sought to declassify two-year-old testimony by Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted Bush's handling of the war on terror.

Legal scholars say the White House has a difficult case on its hands as it tries to defend Rice's silence.

"When courts see them coming they lock their doors and run for cover, admonishing the political branches to work out their own difficulties," said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who served as a constitutional specialist in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. "It really is a political question the judicial branch feels totally at a loss to resolve."

Princeton University politics professor Keith Whittington said administrations run the risk of looking bad when they invoke executive privilege.

"It's hard to explain this kind of concern to the public, given that there's a strong need for accountability for those in office ... some transparency about what's happening in the White House," said Whittington, a specialist in constitutional issues.

Some Republicans lamented the White House's refusal to put Rice under oath.

Personally I think her voice is so good, so powerful ... it would be to the administration's benefit" if she testified publicly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican named by Bush to lead the commission, said, "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."

But White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said that in order for presidents to receive the most candid advice from their staffs, "it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the commission."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,820 Posts
Republicans are trying to "declassify" his testimony given in 2002 in order to show discrepancies between what he said in front of the 9/11 commission.....

Best part is that they dont want entire inquiry declassified, but just what he said.

Trying to silence an administration critic publicaly, huh? :D

9/11 commission already has his 2002 testimony at their disposal, so declassifying it and making it public wont make any difference to the working of 9/11 commission....
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top