Sept. 11 Commission Sets Rice Hearing for April 8 | NYT

[Ediacara]

Sept. 11 Commission Sets Rice Hearing for April 8

By PHILIP SHENON and DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: April 1, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 1 — The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said today that it would hear testimony from the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, next Thursday.

In preparation for her appearance, from 9 to 11:30 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building, the staff of the commission is conducting a detailed review of all discrepancies found between the public and private statements of Ms. Rice and Richard A. Clarke, Mr. Bush's former counterterrorism director, in drawing up questions for her, commission officials have said.

The independent, bipartisan commission's leaders and the White House had been trying to schedule sworn testimony by Ms. Rice for late next week, so this afternoon's announcement that she would appear for about two and a half hours next Thursday was not unexpected.

More at the New York Times

[papau]

1. But will Sibel Edmonds testimony be discussed?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used - but not specifically about how they would be used - and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities - with skyscrapers."

[cliss]

2. I'd say Condiment has a huge problem.

She's got 2 problems: 1) her view of the facts which contradict Richard Clarke's testimony. 2) her own views which contradict themselves. She has given different versions of events leading up to 9/11 and afterwards.

She's painted herself into a corner. If she's going to testify under oath, she will be forced to choose one version over another. It's going to be difficult to do the double-talk like Rumsfeld has had decades to practice on.

It's either going to be: 1) security was a priority before 9/11 or 2) security was not a priority before 9/11.

[Moderator]

3. locking

dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=455725