Puffed Rice...

Drudge said:
[Tue Mar 30 2004 10:43:17 ET]

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 2004
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
2100 K St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:

As we discussed last night, the President is prepared, subject to the conditions set forth below, to agree to the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for public testimony, under oath, by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

The President has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the Commission and instructed the Executive Branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the Commission. To my knowledge, the Executive Branch has provided access to documents or information in response to each of the requests issued by the Commission to date, including many highly classified and extremely sensitive documents that have seldom, if ever, been made available outside the Executive Branch.

As an additional accommodation, the Executive Office of the President has available more than 20 EOP officials, including the National Security Advisor, for private meetings with the Commission. As you know, based on principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers, Presidents of both parties have long taken the position that White House advisors and staff are not subject to the jurisdiction of legislative bodies and do not provide testimony - even on a voluntary basis - on policy matters discussed within the White House or advice given to the President. Indeed, I am not aware of any instance of a. sitting National Security Advisor testifying in public to a legislative body (such as the Commission) concerning policy matters.

We continue lo believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice's testimony before the Commission occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future Presidents to receive candid advice.

Nevertheless, the President recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the Commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as, a precedent for future requests for a National Security Advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body. In light of the unique nature of the Commission and these additional assurances, the President has determined that, although he retains the legal authority to decline to make Dr. Rice available to testily in public, he will agree, as a matter of comity and subject to the conditions set forth below, to the Commission's for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the Commission's statutory mandate.

The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the Commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before die Commission does not set any precedent for future Commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a National Security Advisor or any other White House official.

Second, the Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. The National Security Advisor is uniquely situated to provide the Commission with information necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. Indeed, it is for reason that Dr. Rice privately met with the Commission for more than four hours on February 7, fully answered every question posed to her, and offered additional private meetings as necessary. Despite the fact that the Commission will therefore have access to all information of which Dr. Rice is aware, the Commission has nevertheless urged public confidence in the work of the Commission would be enhanced by Dr. Rice appearing publicly before the Commission. Other White House officials with information relevant to the Commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the Commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the Commission with information through private meetings, briefings, and documents, consistent with our previous practice. I greatly appreciate the strong support you expressed to me last for an agreement to the conditions on which we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation and your commitment to strongly advocate for the full support of the Commission. If the Commission accepts the terms of this agreement, I hope that we can schedule a time as soon as possible for such a public appearance by Dr. Rice. I want to reiterate once again, however, that Dr. would be made available to the Commission with due- regard for the Constitutional separation of powers and reserving all legal authorities, privileges, and objections that may apply, including with respect to other governmental entities or private parties.

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - Commission access to the President and Vice President. I am authorized to advise you that the President and Vice President have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 Commissioners, with one Commission staff member present to take notes of the session.

1 look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to help it obtain the information it needs to fulfill its statutory mandate.

Sincerely,

Alberto R. Gonzales
Counsel to the President
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if holding Condi back has been a covert Bush plan to let the Democrats have enough rope to hang themselves? Rice is intelligent, educated, black, and a woman, and I have the feeling when she testifies she is going to show the American voting public how moronic the Dems truly are. For instance, looks like Dickie Clarke's credibility has taken a slide south:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37790

Many of former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke's friends are saying his anti-Bush diatribe has cost him his credibility. ..
When Clarke fingered President Bush for having "botched the response to 9-11," he and other critics left out a major point: Until just two months before the attack, nearly all the senior counterterrorism and intelligence officials on duty at the time were holdovers from the Clinton administration......Some of those who have worked with Clarke have expressed surprise at his sudden vitriolic attacks. Rice and others on the NSC insist that Clarke never made known his present grievances on fighting al-Qaida or preparations for the battle with Iraq while he was in the White House, or even afterward during the early weeks of the Iraq fighting...

This must be how a "botched responce to 9-11" works, eh Dick?

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm
Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets
By Paul Martin March 30, 2004
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
 
tr040403.gif
 
Well, it looks like Mr Clarke didn't do such a swell job convincing Willie that terrorism was the most imminent threat to our security.

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.
Click to expand...

Washington Times
 
Gonz said:
Well, it looks like Mr Clarke didn't do such a swell job convincing Willie that terrorism was the most imminent threat to our security.


http://www.anncoulter.org/default.htm

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

...PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.
Click to expand...
 
Monday, March 22, 2004 10:24 p.m. EST
Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/22/223420.shtml


Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

"I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for," Ijaz told Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends."

He said he also personally negotiated an deal "to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer."

But Ijaz told Fox:

"In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again."

The unofficial diplomat said that if Clarke hadn't put up roadblocks to obtaining Sudanese intelligence, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 might have been prevented.

He called Clarke's account denying offers of Sudanese cooperation "absolutely disingenuous; it comes very close to flat-out lying."

After months of denials from his former aides, ex-President Clinton finally admitted that he personally turned down the offer by Sudan to arrest bin Laden.

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," Clinton told a New York business group in February 2002.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

In his book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke called reports that Clinton had turned down the Sudanese offer "a fable."
 
That's how far out of whack this whole thing has gotten us. The left say it's BUsh's war for oil. The right says Clinton started it. Everybody forget:

BINLADEN STARTED IT!
 
Gonz said:
That's how far out of whack this whole thing has gotten us. The left say it's BUsh's war for oil. The right says Clinton started it. Everybody forget:

BINLADEN STARTED IT!
Click to expand...
I think you're discussing two different wars. :shrug:

Edit: He certainly started one of them though.
 
Which is precisely why we're having problems.

(not you specifically but that ideology in general)
 
Looks like I was right after all. This whole commission is nothing but a witch hunt. I'm watching this on TV, and all I can get from this is 'who are we going to blame for this', instead of 'How can we prevent this in the future'. Everybody on that commission looks like they're only after votes in the next election instead of how to protect the citizens. Then again, how could I be so naive as to believe otherwise... :rolleyes:
 
After hearing her put Bob Kerry in his place I nominate her for president.

2 hours of leading monologues interspersed with useless questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top