Blood in the water

[khaosworks]

Throw The Bitch Out - Maybe The Sharks Will Leave Us Alone By Mr. Terence Chua, Pitying The Sacrificial Lamb.

Rice to testify in public, under oath
Bush, Cheney also to appear before full panel
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 7:55 p.m. ET March  30, 2004

WASHINGTON - In a reversal, President Bush said Tuesday that he had agreed to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify in public and under oath before the Sept. 11 commission to give the nation "a complete picture" of events leading up to the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Bush said he and Vice President Dick Cheney also agreed to meet together with the full panel in private, abandoning their earlier insistence that they would meet only with the commission's chairman and vice chairman.

"This commission has been charged with a crucial task,"Bush told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "To prevent future attacks, we must understand the tactics of our enemies."

In a letter to the panel, the White House sought written assurances that Rice's testimony would set no precedent and that no more public testimony from any White House official would be requested.

The commission accepted the terms, saying in its response that "Dr. Rice's appearance before the Commission is in response to the special circumstances presented by the events of September 11 and the Commission's unique mandate."

Standing on principle
Commission member Slade Gorton, a Republican former senator from Washington, said the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States accepted the stipulation that it not call other White House officials because "we hadn't planned to."

“I think the White House would have been better off if it had made the agreements sooner, but I’m delighted,” Gorton said. “I have felt all along that her public testimony would be good for the country.”

The White House and Rice had maintained that requiring a national security adviser to testify under oath would compromise “executive privilege,” which allows a president to exchange ideas freely with an adviser without fearing that they would be made public.

"A president and his advisers, including his advisers for national security affairs, must be able to communicate freely and privately without being compelled to reveal those communications to the legislative branch," Bush said.

"We have observed this principle while also seeking ways for Dr. Rice to testify," he added.

So let's see.

Under public pressure, the White House has agreed to let Condi Rice testify on oath before the 9/11 commission, on the following conditions: that this isn't be taken to be a "precedent", and that nobody else from the White House will be asked to testify - and that they only have one shot at Condi, and can't call her back again.

Am I the only one who's saying, "What the fuck is this kind of chickenshit bargaining?" Not being held as a precedent I can understand, but what is this you only get her to appear once crap? What, she's going to stand up, one of the commissioners is going to ask, "One more thing..." and then Bush and Cheney are going to jump up and down with their (pardon the expression) hair on fire and go, "Uh uh! You had your chance! No takebacks! Nyeah nyeah nyeah!" And Bush and Cheney testifying in private? Why? We already know Cheney has his hand up Bush's ass and that Bush can't put two words together without slurring his words or mentioning, "madman," "nukuler weapons," or "evil." We're grown-ups. We can take it.

That being said, why do I also have the sinking feeling that Rice is being tossed out as a sacrificial lamb? I have this vision (I'm having a vivid imagination day today, so bear with me) of Bush and Cheney in that scene from "Spies Like Us" showing a picture to the Ninjas, with Cheney doing the Chevy Chase role: "This is my sister... you can all have her."

Okay, that was too much recap for a crap line. Sorry. But the feeling remains. Already the Washington Post is reporting today a speech that Rice was supposed to have given on 9/11 that doesn't mention Al Qaeda or Islamic terrorism, but concentrates mainly on missile defense, which was Bush's big thing back then. While this is potentially damaging to the White House's denial that they did see Al Qaeda as an urgent priority, it's probably more damaging to Rice's credibility - which leads me to suspect that the next step, if Rice doesn't put up a good showing, will be to try to claim that it was Rice who dismissed Clarke's concerns and did not pass it up to the President, who of course would have taken Al Qaeda a lot more seriously if Rice, his National Security Advisor, had only come up to him and told him so. But the good Doctor didn't. That incompetent bitch.

Or am I just wearing my tinfoil hat again?

Comments

[actiasluna.livejournal.com]

I agree. She's being set up to be the goat.

And she's an easy, convenient, and _comfortable_ target for a lot of people.

*sigh*

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

A small point of language that I've been wondering about: Dr Rice is being called the only White House official to testify publicly; her testimony was a potential compromise to executive privilege within the white house; etc.

What does "White House official" mean? How is Dr Rice more of an adviser to the president than, say, the other members of the Executive branch who have already testified publicly (namely, the Secretaries of Defense and State)? Messrs Rumsfeld and Powell are clearly senior officials in the government, but they don't count as White House because they're on the Cabinet, and Dr Rice isnt? The President's conversations with Dr Rice are private, but not with Cabinet members?

Also, why isn't the National Security Adviser a Cabinet-level position? For that matter, and now that I think of it, why do we have separate people for "National Security" and "Homeland Security"?

This whole thing with Dr Rice is proof, to me, that the hearings should've been driven by Congress. Then they could subpoena anyone they wanted, up to and including Prince George himself. Obviously, that's why this isn't being run by Congress, but I've gotta rant somewhere.

[billroper]

This is a Congressional commission. It's not a Congressional committee conducting the investigation, but that would be a different thing altogether.

In either case, they can subpoena witnesses from the Executive branch. However, the only ones who are generally required to submit to a subpoena are the members of the Executive branch who are subject to Congressional approval -- such as, for instance, the Cabinet members who have already testified in public in front of the commission.

The National Security Advisor is one of the President's personal advisors, not subject to confirmation by Congress, and not generally subject to Congressional subpoenas under the doctrine of separation of powers.

Congress can't subpoena the President or Vice President to testify either. (Or I suppose a better way to put it is, they can subpoena them, and the subpoenas can be ignored.)

Does this help?

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you.

So at what level can Congress actually compel the President to testify? Impeachment? (Not that I'm opposed to that, of course, but I haven't seen any evidence that it should be tied to the events of 9/11; only the stuff afterwards.)

For some reason I believed this commission was Executive instead of Legislative. But I've been terrible at paying attention to political news over the last few months (well, until I created an LJ account and added KhaOS to my friends list a couple weeks ago). I have enough stress without that extra help. :)

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Oh, yeah.

I have many cynical thoughts, which I will not state at this time.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Of course Rice is being tossed out as a sacrificial lamb. The other alternatives are all more important folk, named Bush, Cheney, and Rove, none of whom the current High Official Bastards feel they can spare.

On the other hand, Homeland Security was created post-9/11, while Condi's post is a longstanding one. If in fact she was asserting pre-9/11 that the greatest threat to the US was long-range missiles based in Iraq, it shows that either (1) she had terrible intelligence, or (2) she (and/or her bosses) had a particular agenda they were preparing to present to the populace. Which agenda they pursued anyway, despite a clear and demonstrable alternate threat. Pfui!

I heard something on newsradio and am now searching for a link that would interest you. It seems that an armed forces brass left some notes in a Starbucks regarding recommendations on policy wrt Richard Clarke. Said notes were found by an employee and provided to a liberal organization; their contents were basically "leave him alone and it will all blow over."

If I find a link to this I'll come back here with it. Could be all sorts of interesting.

[hoo.livejournal.com]

And here I'd bought the idea that they'd be making Rice Secretary of State next term, so they could keep a black face without it having to be Powell.

[batyatoon]

I have this vision (I'm having a vivid imagination day today, so bear with me) of Bush and Cheney in that scene from "Spies Like Us" showing a picture to the Ninjas, with Cheney doing the Chevy Chase role: "This is my sister... you can all have her."

Well, if you're right, the next thing to happen will be something like: Bush grabs a flimsy-looking stick and yells "Take one more step and I start swinging! ...For god's sake, show some balls!"

Oog.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

And Cheney will whisper, "I think it's too late to try and impress them."

[batyatoon]

And oh, will he ever be right.

[acrobatty.livejournal.com]

Actually, I doubt it. One of Bush's most definining character traits, which he shares w/ Poppy Bush, is personal loyalty. If you're a Bush man, he'll stick by you. Conversely, if you betray the team, he'll hound you till your dying day.

If Bush had wanted sacrificial lambs, he would have fired Tenet after publicly blaming him for not giving sufficient warning about the yellowcake thing (amusingly, the Bushies managed to say that simultaneously with "but we did listen, we took the CIA's name off the info when they insisted that it wasn't to be trusted!" But I digress). Instead, he delivered a fairly mild rebuke and then made it clear that Tenet was still a valued member of the team.

I may be wrong, but I'm certain. Bush has a lot of faults, but this ain't one of 'em.