I'll try to address some of these...
PDiddie wrote:Bush delayed giving the commission access to presidential daily briefs, eventually allowing the commission to take a quick look at the documents and take White House-approved notes in a controlled facility. Chairman Kean was refused to even make a copy of the documents.
Have you ever worked with classified or sensitive information? I have, both in the military and in civilian life. You have to protect it, to make sure unauthorized people don't get their hands on it. You can't leave it around unguarded where any passerby could read it. And you certainly don't publish it on the Internet. Presumably the commission's final report will be available to the general public. For that reason, the administration is right to check what information is being given to the commission, and to refuse to allow the commission to make copies of the confidential/sensitive raw data. As far as the delay, here's what the press secretary said about that:
Quote:MR. McCLELLAN: Well, wait a second. First of all -- let me -- what I was hitting on. We have provided the commission with more than 2.3 million pages of documents, more than 100 briefings -- including at the head of agency level, more than 780 interviews and meetings with administration officials, more than 900 audio tapes of meetings and other materials, more than 60 compact disk of radar, flight and other information. As the letter points out, we have provided more than 20 officials from the executive office of the President to meet with the commission in private.
This is all about making sure that the commission has all the information they need to do their job. And that's what we have done from the beginning. The commission has stated publicly that we have provided access to everything that they have requested.
Q That's after months of delay.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, wrong, wrong. No, the commission has said from very early on that we have provided access to everything that they have requested. Obviously there is always discussion when you're talking about sensitive national security documents. There's always going to be discussion about how that information is provided to the commission. But they have had access to every single thing --
Q There hasn't been a delay, there hasn't been a delay in providing this access?
MR. McCLELLAN: We have worked very closely and cooperatively with the commission to make sure that they can complete their work in a timely manner. And the commission chairman and vice-chairman have repeatedly stated -- and in fact, in their statement they released today stated that we have provided unprecedented cooperation with a congressionally mandated commission.
PDiddie wrote:Bush didn't want to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly under oath, again giving in only after political pressure (from Republicans on the Commission like John Lehman, no less) forced him to relent.
Here's what was said about that issue in a
press briefing:
Quote:Q Scott why did the -- why did the President reverse himself on Dr. Rice's testimony? It seemed so important last week that she not testify publicly under oath, and now all of a sudden there's this reversal.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, a couple of things. Let me back up for a second. We have worked closely and cooperatively with the commission from the very beginning to make sure they have all the information they need to do their job. We have provided the commission unprecedented access to information, including our most sensitive national security documents. The commission has itself stated that we have provided access to everything that they have requested.
Now I think a couple of things here. We have provided -- we have been provided written assurance from the commission and from -- and we have been provided assurance from congressional leaders that this testimony by Dr. Rice will in no way set a precedent; they will continue to uphold an important principle, which is the separation of powers issue.
But I think also, we have to keep in mind that in recent days and weeks there has tended to be more focus on the process, rather than the substance. And the President believes it's important for the focus to be on the substance. The work of the 9/11 Commission is very important. And we want to continue to do everything we can to make sure that they have all the information they need to do their job. And I would remind you that -- what I've said previously. It's important that if the commission has additional recommendations -- beyond everything that we're already doing since September 11th -- to prevent another attack from happening, that we have those recommendations as soon as possible.
I don't really understand the issue of separation of powers as it relates to public testimony by an administration official. I would like to see a better explanation of it. But that was about all I could find.
PDiddie wrote:Bush has struggled furiously to limit his own time in front of the commission, beginning with an offer of a meeting only one hour long with only two commissioners. Bush has now agreed to meet with the whole commission, but only if Vice President Cheney is with him.
I'm not sure there's a good answer for this one. I did find some responses in
this press briefing:
Quote:MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about a sitting President and Vice President of the United States, as well. And this is -- this is a good way to help them get the information they need to do their job. And they -- and the commission, I might point out, unanimously welcomed the decision.
Quote:Q If they have different recollections, wouldn't it be more helpful to the commission to hear from them separately?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think this is a game of "gotcha." This is about making sure that they have the information they need to do their job. And that's the spirit in which we're working. They already have much of the information they need. This is a way for them to sit down with the President and Vice President and learn additional insights into how they go about piecing all this information together. And this is a good way to do it.
I think the question was dodged and not really answered, but I don't think it's something of great importance. Some people do, but I don't.
PDiddie wrote:Richrd Clarke is to be praised for risking himself in this onslaught of coordinated Republican smear.
'Traitor', says Tarantulas.
And "traitor" I will continue to say. As I stated in another thread, if Richard Clarke's allegations are true, they will be corroborated by other administration officials. So far I haven't seen other people stepping forward saying "Yes, he's right, I saw the same thing from a different angle, the President didn't care about Al Qaeda until after 9/11," etc. Instead, here's one guy trying to sell his book, coming out with unproven statements that no one else agrees with. Some people have characterized him as a "whistleblower," but I think we all know what he really is. He's a disgruntled former employee. When he didn't get the number two job he wanted in the new Homeland Security department, he resigned and started writing his book. And the book has been released at a time when it can do the most damage to his former employer. What Clarke forgot is that as a government employee, many of his previous statements (that provide evidence that he's making up the allegations in his book) are available and can be brought out to show what a liar he is. And I hope his previous statements do come back to haunt him, and are made part of the 9/11 report, so there's no question about the actions taken by this administration in response to terrorism.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace