Squiggy
ThunderDick
Rice Discusses Terror, but Not Under Oath
35 minutes ago
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice listens to President Bush
WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice 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, 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 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, the State Department and the White House in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton 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."
35 minutes ago
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice listens to President Bush
WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice 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, 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 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, the State Department and the White House in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton 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."
Since she got put in the spotlight, however, she doesn't have many opportunities to do that. Did you know she is/was also a concert pianist?