why is Condoleezza Rice refusing? What is she hiding?

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...rticle&sid=688

High level Bush Administration officials appear before 9/11 Commission, why is Condoleezza Rice refusing? What is she hiding?
By John Greeley

For months now, Condoleezza Rice has negotiated fiercely over the details of her appearance before the commission investigating the tragedy of 9/11, formally called the Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States. She agreed to appear in private session but relied on Executive Privilege to avoid appearing in public. This is curious; if for no other reason than so many highly placed officials have agreed to do so. Even this afternoon?s appearance by the Secretary of Defense was informative, civil and a perfect demonstration of how investigative hearings should be run. The people deserve nothing less.

It is possible that she is simply avoiding the public embarrassment certain questions are sure to bring her. For example, on May 16, 2002 our national security advisor said: ?I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.? True, her expertise does lie elsewhere. While a professor of Political Science at Stanford she specialized in Eastern European studies and her first job at the White House was Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council. Perhaps her focus was too narrow to include other areas of the world. But as national security advisor she at least ought to have widened her horizons and made herself more open to what else was going on in the world.

For example, Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows of the 9/11 disaster who also lobbied Congress and the president to appoint this commission made this simple observation: ?How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility.?

Ms. Rice has been the national security advisor to President Bush since January 2001. She is acutely aware of just how important her testimony is in this instance, and has been highly visible touting it on various television shows these days desperately and acerbically defending the Bush Administration?s actions, or the lack thereof. This is especially true in the light of the damning assertions made by Richard Clarke in his new book, ?Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.? Mr. Clark accuses Ms. Rice of being unaware, among other things, of the existence of al Qaeda when he first briefed her on the subject. This may, in point of fact, be true, but now is her chance to defend whatever she did know and how she acted based on it.

Hiding behind executive privilege in times like these is not a good idea. The American people have a right to know why their elected representatives and those they appoint to protect and defend them do what they do. All her refusal to step out into the light of day to openly discuss her actions does is to create suspicions. And I think it is safe to say that those suspicions will translate into unfavorable votes against President Bush in the Fall.


John Greeley is a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, a graduate of St. John's University Law School and a contributing editor at Intervention. You can email your comments to John at john@interventionmag.com


Posted Tuesday, March 23, 2004

[BLUEHAWK]

I, too, am mystified that Ms. Rice will not be speaking before the committee when so many other and higher ranking members of the administration are.

It is my sense that if she is not being held back for just cause having to do with the extremity of her classified information (which I seriously doubt), then it is more likely because of her race, her gender and her very high rank within the intelligence and defense community. She is being protected as an electoral asset. I can think of no other reason for her not testifying, and if she were directed to by the CINC, then she certainly would do so or not be on staff another day. My further supposition is that it is the NRC (if not the American Enterprise Institute) who is primarily behind this. Ms. Rice is categorically acerbic and arrogant with everyone, if what I have read about her is accurate. There are a good many liberals I have heard say how disappointed they are in her performance as a "black woman" in high position. This last fact is significant because the loyal opposition does hope for at least some plausible something or someone(s) within new administrations to rally round, or in which/whom to find common ground (sort of like Clinton appointing a Republican Secretary of Defense, or David Gergen as an advisor) in spite of the election results. Rice was, evidently, one of those appointees whom liberals held out some optimism about when she was announced... it would be impossible to imagine anyone not knowing her politics beforehand, but her connection with the female and black vote was, I think justifiably, seen as being positive territory by both sides.

Being tremendously qualified academically as she clearly is, it is worth noting that her primary professional focus had been the Soviet Union. The danger may reside in a perception that Ms. Rice, like Justice Thomas, was advanced prior to having actually performed at the level expected, largely on the grounds of her ambition, gender, race and intelligence... unlike General Powell whose history demonstrated "field experience". Our President has come to the defense of Ms. Rice on a number of occasions, and that is good enough for me... so that is also why I do not think it was HE who directed her to decline the invitation to speak publicly. I believe the NRC is afraid not of WHAT she would say, but HOW she would say it. Clinton was unable to stop himself from allowing a similarly voiced spokeswoman, whose name I forgot the moment it was broadcast, to represent our government at the debacle over WTO and GATT in Seattle... perhaps it was a cautionary tale the NRC took seriously. In tender times a bit of gentility has its place, and Ms. Rice ain't got much.

The parallel might be suggested of Clinton's dismissing his Surgeon General (in one of his more cowardly moves), but the two relative positions in government are in NO way comparable to the slightest degree.

[MORTARDUDE]

Do you remember Alexander Butterfield and the Watergate hearings ? ....... ( just IMHO ... somebody is going to spill the beans.... )

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Actually Larry, I don't remember Butterfield's involvement with Watergate at all... I am embarassed to report that the Watergate period of time was coincident with my one and only "apolitical" negligent modes after graduate school... I had to read up on the whole thing ten years later

So, what DID happen in that instance?

[MORTARDUDE]

Mike :

Check this :

http://www.chron.com/content/interac...ate/tapes.html


9/11 is a huge can of worms that most of the rest of the world recognizes for what it is.....if and when it becomes apparent thru our "managed news media" what really happened, it will make the JFK Coup / Vietnam / Watergate debacles look like a walk-in-the-park...by comparison... just IMHO

Larry

[SuperScout]

Either by valid precedence, or by force of law, neither the President nor the National Security Advisor are required to offer public testimony to a commission. Harken back to the days of the Warren Commission, and see if either the President of his National Security Advisor ever appeared before the Commission. (Hint: they didn't!) Besides, Dr. (not Ms., Miss, Mrs.) Rice has testified behind closed doors, and can offer little else than that which has already been said by Powell, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and the other bevy of folks. Methinks the hand-wringing about the lack of her public appearance is just the whinings of people who want/need face time to try to intimidate her, bully her, or preach to her.

[BLUEHAWK]

Well, I guess it was okay to have face time to do all those things with our Secretaries of State and Defense (among others), but not with Condoleeza Rice?

Bull...

It stinks Scout, it stinks, and no good whatsoever is served by her absence.

The deed is done, time to keep moving.

[MORTARDUDE]

It is interesting you should cite the Warren Commission in response to a post about 9/11. It is an abomination of the highest magnitude. Anyone who uses it as a pretext to defend anything done by this President is as blind as I am old. Just IMHO.

Larry

[melody1181]

I think it is unbelievable that neither her or Bush will not testify...in public or with out a limitied time. I do not thing either are to blame but they both make themslefs look suspicious(sp?) when if they just did it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

[BLUEHAWK]

I respect a President in office for protecting executive privilege... indeed, such a honor ought be accorded the highest officer of our land unless and until such time as they, and they alone and personally, demonstrate unworthiness. No CINC tells, or should tell, all.

However... as for all others, whether by action of themselves or their superiors, they are seen to be or are made or become or are deemed exempt from heartfelt scrutiny and questioning of, by and for those in whose names and lives they act whether by election or appointment... something is wrong, very wrong.

The deed is done, time to move along.

The human memory is a wonderous manifestation of divine will...