Replies to post #38167 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Chris McConnel]

Tougher to lie when you are under oath

Well Hap, there's Condi, on the Fox News propaganda channel. She seems to have plenty of time to talk to Bush friendly news organizations. But seems to have a really, really, really hard time, doing it under oath, in front of the commision.

...

(March 26, 2004 -- 07:45 AM EDT // link // print)

Last night MSNBC is reported that, according to a senior White House official, Richard Clarke's testimony on the 9/11 "terrorist attacks was considered so damaging that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice planned to ask the panel for a private interview to answer his allegations."

Again, the request is for a private interview. But if you read down into the piece it seems the hang-up may be that Rice or the White House don't want the testimony to be under oath.

The article says that "panel has consistently required anyone rebutting sworn testimony to be similarly under oath." Since Rice is now under fire and the Commission has more leverage, they may hold the line.

Now, what's going on here exactly?

Every White House tries to keep what we might call a penumbra of protection around White House aides. I noted yesterday that two of Rice's predecessors, Brzezinski in 1980 and Berger in 1997, have submitted to testify. But clearly it doesn't happen often.

Yet, having said that, it is very hard for me to grasp the constitutional issue implicated in Rice's taking an oath to tell the truth when she speaks to the Commission.

A constitutional issue involved in a presidential aide speaking to a fact-finding commission? Not a determinative one, I think. But yes, an issue.

Whether the testimony is public? Maybe.

But whether or not the testimony is sworn? I don't get that. This seems especially the case when she wants to appear specifically to rebut other sworn testimony. How can you claim the need to preserve the confidentiality of the president's communications with his top aides, then break that confidence to refute someone's criticism, and then say you won't make the charges under oath?

As far as I can see this is not compelled testimony. So presumably Rice can simply decline to answer questions she thinks tread too closely on her confidential advice to the president, right? Certainly there could be some invocation of executive privilege?

Obviously, not having the testimony sworn gives her ... well, more leeway.

But I'm not sure what the grounds there are to justify it -- especially as she is now eager to speak with the Commission again to challenge Richard Clarke, who, as we know, had to make all his claims under oath. Once again, she wants to lacerate her opponents, but never on a ground that makes for even close to a fair fight.

-- Josh Marshall

[thepennyking]

George W. Bush is a compulsive liar.



He shows his contempt for the American people whenever he says anything in public. Why do you think he smirks so often? It's because he knows he's lying and he's amused that everyone else is a fool for believing him.

In particular Bush lied to the people of the United States and to the entire world when he declared in late 2002 and early 2003 that Iraq had developed and deployed "weapons of mass destruction" and was an imminent threat to its neighbors and to the U.S. itself.

... George W. Bush and the members of his administration argued, day after day, week after week, month after month, that Iraq was in possession of massive stores of mass destruction weapons that would be delivered to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for use against the United States. ...

"We have sources that tell us," said George W. Bush on February 8 2003, "that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt," continued Bush on March 17 2003, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." ...

George W. Bush, on March 18, had delivered a letter to Congress explicitly indicating that an attack on Iraq was an attack upon those who perpetrated September 11. Paragraph two reads, "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

On May 1 2003, when he announced the end of "major combat operations," Bush proclaimed, "We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda." ...

The uranium claims were based on crudely forged documents, the mobile labs were weather balloon launching platforms sold to Iraq by the British in the 1980s, the al Qaeda claims are utterly impossible to establish as true, any connection between Iraq and September 11 was publicly denied by George W. Bush himself recently, and the mass destruction weapons are utterly and completely absent.

— William Rivers Pitt: Donkeys of Mass Destruction

http://truthout.org/docs_03/112403A.shtml

William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.

http://www.serendipity.li/impeachment.htm