March 30, 2004
Rice to Testify in Front of Commission
Facing mounting pressure from many fronts, the White House has reversed course and Condoleezza Rice will testify publicly and under oath to the Sep. 11 Commission, MSNBC reports.
Additionally, President Bush and VP Cheney will testify to the entire Commision instead of just in front of the two co-chairs of the committee. Their testimony will remain private, however.
This seems to be the best case scenario in terms of trying to all of the information pertinent to the 9/11 commission's investigation. Rice had little ground to stand on in her refusal to testify, seeing as the commission was only established by Congress and not a Congressional Commission.
Ultimately, we need to do whatever we can to assess what happened prior to 9/11 in order to change the way the government operates, so that we can prevent future attacks. But you cannot fix the future without fully understanding the past.
Additionally, by testifying Rice can answer claims Richard Clarke while under oath under a similar set of circumstances. It was not fair to Clarke to attack his testimony across the airwaves, hitting a larger audience while simultaneously avoiding the issues of perjury. Hopefully, that threat will replace the political character attacks with honest recounting of the facts.
Maybe I'm naive to think that Rice's testimony will change anything. But it certainly can't hurt anything in regards to getting to the bottom of the issue.
Posted by blipsman at March 30, 2004 10:51 AMthe rest of the story: the white house is only alowing this if the commision promises that this will not become precedent.
Posted by: Miguel at March 30, 2004 11:08 AM“the white house is only alowing this if the commision promises that this will not become precedent.”
So?
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 30, 2004 11:19 AMThat sounds like a reasonable request, provided they don’t make it a one time thing, either, should circumstances suggest it necessary.
The role of the government is to protect its citizens. This goal needs to take priority over political considerations. Maybe the testimony will tarnish the Bush administration and he will lose the election. Maybe it’ll boost the American public’s preceptions about the Bush administration’s actions. But either way, the more testimony heard about the events leading up to 9/11 the better able the government will be to understand why such an event was able to occur so that we may prevent future events.
Posted by: blipsman at March 30, 2004 11:25 AMCribbed from Markos:
Clearly, because the president doesn’t need polls or focus groups to tell him how to make up his mind, here’s what must have unfolded during the past week: The president and his top advisers spent hours discussing various theories of the constitutional separation of powers, examining the precedents, and generally ruminating on the significance and standards for claiming executive privilege, both for the immediate as well as long term. They brought constitutional scholars to Crawford as the president vacationed, and in long, tedious sessions weighed the merits of the various and competing theories related to the separation of powers, never for a moment averting their eyes from the broader goal of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 30, 2004 12:19 PMWhen they came out on the other side, this always-humble, self-effacing Administration arrived at a reasoned, measured, high-minded conclusion that, in order to uphold the country’s highest principles, their initial resistance to allowing Rice to testify in public and under oath was bad for the country and our Constitution, and reversed their position accordingly.
This is the sort of thoughtful, bold, decisive leadership we’ve come to expect from our president. Isn’t it comforting to know that the people running our country are the sort of principled “adults” George W. assured us from the very start of the Bush Administration had now risen to power?
She needs to testify so that we can try to get the debate off the hyper-partisan path that it went down last week. This has been obvious to everyone except the White House for several days. To me, it is beyond dispute that Clinton didn’t do nearly enough to respond to al-Qaeda, and Bush wasn’t really interested in the issue until 9/11. However, my conclusions are based strictly on hindsight, and (with the exception of Richard Clarke) I haven’t heard anyone claim that he or she tried to do more to prevent a terrorist attack in the U.S. and was thwarted. It is amazing to me that anyone can even suggest that 9/11 was somebody’s fault other than the 19 murderers on those airplanes and the organization that supported them. My sincere hope is that the 9/11 Commission will be able to complete its public work soon and that it will be able to produce a unanimous report that will provide lessons for the future without attempting to assign blame for the past.
Posted by: Todd P. at March 30, 2004 01:51 PMIn another thread, I offered speculation about other reasons why the administration didn’t want Rice to testify. (besides the ludicrous conventional wisdom reasons, either “covering up criminal activity” or “defending the Constitution”)
Now that she is actually testifying, I’ve finally figured out a truly plausible reason why they fought so hard to keep her out of the commission spotlight: The Administration didn’t want to legitimize the commission.
Without her testimony, the hearings look unbalanced. With the ommission of Rice’s testimony, and with the inclusion Clarke’s explosive testimony, it would have been easy for the Administration to paint the commission as a corrupted, politicized affair. Many conservatives have already earnestly begun the process of discrediting the commission.
Rove & co. underestimated the pressure that would befall Rice to testify. Now, they are forced to have her testify, restoring the “point/rebuttal” balance of the commission’s proceedings, and restoring the balance of the commission’s eventual final report.
Rove tried to go for a political Hail Mary here, trying to undermine the commission. He lost this one. Big time.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 30, 2004 02:07 PM
