ED BRADLEY:
The secretary of state, defense, the director of the CIA, have all testified in public under oath before the commission. If - if you can talk to us and other news programs, why can't you talk to the commission in public and under oath?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.
Rice Defends Refusal To Testify (Washington Post, March 29, 2004, page A01, registration required): National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, at the center of a controversy over her refusal to testify before the Sept. 11 commission, yesterday renewed her determination not to give public testimony and said she could not list anything she wished she had done differently in the months before the 2001 terrorist attacks. [...] Rice gave no ground on the administration's decision that she will not appear in public before the panel or testify under oath because Bush officials believe doing so would compromise the constitutional powers of the executive branch. The renewed refusal came despite the panel's unanimous plea for her testimony. [...] Two Republican officials, who declined to be identified because they are not supposed to talk to reporters, said White House aides are discussing ways they could compromise with the commission, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, perhaps by agreeing to the declassification of Rice's private testimony. "That would show people that she is cooperating, and make it clear that her testimony is consistent with her public pronouncements," one official said. "That would help our credibility."
Well ... no, it really wouldn't.
The problem is that the administration is (1) badly mishandling the public side of this, and (2) absolutely wrong, but since when was that news? As far as the public side goes, the administration's position is that the presidential advisors should not be required to testify before Congress, because the executive should not be required to testify in front of the legislative in that way when no legal wrongdoing has been alleged. And I get that, I really do. Of course, the problem with that position is that when the secretaries of state and defense have already testified, it makes the administration in general and Rice in particular look nitpicking and stupid. It's also simply wrongheaded; at this point, there's nothing to lose by publicly admitting that they got caught out looking the wrong way. After all, I think we've all pretty much figured that out by now.
The solution the administration is floating, to have Rice "voluntarily" testify before the commission -- but not under oath -- might solve the separation of powers issue, to the extent that one exists anywhere but in their heads, but makes their public relations problem even worse. This "private testimony", in theory, would allow her to give testimony without acknowledging that the commission had the right to command that testimony. The problem is that to the public, refusal to give testimony under oath looks like lying. People don't see the niceties of the separation of powers issue; they only see that the government is flatly refusing to allow one of its advisors to testify unless she isn't sworn in. It looks for all the world like they're saying, "Lying! She plans to lie! But if she's not under oath, they can't do anything about it!"
They can't even take their normal political tack and paint this as a partisan issue, because the commission is led by Republicans. Their maneuvering room in this is sharply limited.
They need to do one of two things: either bite the publicity bullet and say that Rice won't testify no way no how and there will be no further public comment on this issue, or let her testify. (I rather hope they keep on like this. If Kerry's smart, he won't say a word about this; they're doing all the damage for him their own damnselves.)
Posted by iain at March 29, 2004 11:27 AM
