White House Trying to Explain Rice Policy

AP ^ | 03/27/04 | TERENCE HUNT

[Pikamax]

White House Trying to Explain Rice Policy

Saturday March 27, 2004 3:31 PM

By TERENCE HUNT

AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - Condoleezza Rice says the Bush administration has a good story to tell about fighting terrorism and she's pouring it out in television appearances, interviews and newspaper articles. The one place she won't talk is in public, under oath, before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That is blossoming into a public relations nightmare.

The White House finds itself in the awkward position of trying to explain why Rice, the national security adviser to President Bush, can talk at length to reporters but not at the commission's televised hearings because of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

``This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities,'' said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. ``There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press.''

Instead of testifying publicly, Rice is requesting a private meeting with the commission - her second such session - to discuss what the White House says are mischaracterizations of her statements.

``I don't know necessarily what the difference is'' between a private interview and public testimony, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said. ``She's going to tell it exactly how it happened,'' he said.

Rice's selective silence denied the administration a chance to answer charges at the hearing by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, who accuses Bush of squandering opportunities to undermine the terrorist group al-Qaida and politicizing the fight against terrorism.

Clarke's charges strike at the heart of Bush's re-election campaign, raising questions about credibility, trust and Bush's strongest issue in the polls, the war against terrorism.

``In many ways, having a guy like Clarke do this now is the White House's worst nightmare,'' said Norm Ornstein, political analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Clarke's charges stole the momentum from the Bush campaign's effort to put Democratic rival John Kerry on the defensive with ads suggesting he was weak on national security and the economy.

Respected on national security issues, Clarke held posts at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Trying to damage Clarke's credibility ``is risky, first of all, because I think he's tough to pull down,'' Ornstein said.

Rice will try to gain ground in the public relations struggle Sunday by appearing on CBS' ``60 Minutes,'' the same program Clarke used a week earlier to level his charges and promote his new book, ``Against All Enemies.'' Bush's allies in Congress also sought to declassify two-year-old testimony by Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted Bush's handling of the war on terror.

Legal scholars say the White House has a difficult case on its hands as it tries to defend Rice's silence.

``When courts see them coming they lock their doors and run for cover, admonishing the political branches to work out their own difficulties,'' said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who served as a constitutional specialist in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. ``It really is a political question the judicial branch feels totally at a loss to resolve.''

Princeton University politics professor Keith Whittington said administrations run the risk of looking bad when they invoke executive privilege.

``It's hard to explain this kind of concern to the public, given that there's a strong need for accountability for those in office ... some transparency about what's happening in the White House,'' said Whittington, a specialist in constitutional issues.

Some Republicans lamented the White House's refusal to put Rice under oath.

``Personally I think her voice is so good, so powerful ... it would be to the administration's benefit'' if she testified publicly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican named by Bush to lead the commission, said, ``I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.''

But White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said that in order for presidents to receive the most candid advice from their staffs, ``it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the commission.''

---

[Tax Government]

Condi Rice in 2008.

[Dane]

That is blossoming into a public relations nightmare

Of course in AP world, where Clinton bravely fought terrorism with no repsonse to the first WTC attack, Khobar towers, the Cole bombing, etc.etc.

[ilgipper]

Reuters and the Associated Press have way too much power in this country. They, more or less, dictate public opinion, as they power so much print and internet news. What media companies do NOT use these news services?

[Eva]

Rice explained on the Hannity show that the reason that she was refusing to testify in public had to do with separation of powers. The Congress does not control the executive branch. She suggested that the Democrats were trying to do a power grab on the presidency.

[HarryCaul]

" the White House's refusal to put Rice under oath."

This is wrong. They are offering to put her under oath, in private.

Anyone with 2 brain cells in close proximity to each other knows a public appearace would be a televised grandstanding show trial, something not mentioned in the article.

This article isn't even close to being good reporting. This guy shouldn't have a job if he's not capable of getting such basic concepts straight.

[usmcobra]

"Some Republicans lamented the White House's refusal to put Rice under oath."

What? She wasn't under oath when she met with the Commitee behind closed doors?

That sounds like donkey dropping to me.

[spetznaz]

I know this will not go down well with everyone, but these are my personal views.

I do not think Condi should testify publicly. There is no tangible need for a public testimony. However i think she should give a private testimony under oath. Maybe someone can explain to me why she should not give her testimony under oath (don't bother with the public testimony part).

And don't get me wrong. This is not an assault on Condi. I respect her and honestly think that she is one of the heavy-hitters in our administration. Honestly, in my opinion, she would be the perfect buffer to a Hillary '08 run. Just perfect. However, going back to the oath thing, i would want a Dim adviser to testify under oath, and what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

Why shouldn't she testify under oath?

[prognostigaator]

Clarke, his mentors, and those members of the commission chose to make the issue partisan rather than to discover how 9/11 happened.

[Dane]

I do not think Condi should testify publicly. There is no tangible need for a public testimony. However i think she should give a private testimony under oath. Maybe someone can explain to me why she should not give her testimony under oath (don't bother with the public testimony part)

That has been offered already.

[Thom Pain]

Er, ah, Mr. Hunt. Hate to interrupt your rant, but there is this thing called the U.S. Constitution, and a concept of separation of powers, and if you had ever heard of it, or weren't too lazy, or too intellectually corrupt to look at it, you would understand why it is this way.

Sorry, everyone, for wasting bandwidth addressing these libs about Constitutional law and other legal concepts that they consider themselves above... Sigh.

[robertpaulsen]

"she's pouring it out in television appearances, interviews and newspaper articles. The one place she won't talk is in public, under oath,"

It's called the "Martha Stewart" defense.

[lonevoice]

It's been my understanding that Condi was under oath when she testified in closed door session with the committee. I've seen the question asked many times now, but without a definitive answer. If she is under oath in the private hearings, the administration needs to make that known to the public.

[myrabach]

I have a bit of a rant here and I just have to yell. I am so disgusted with a certain portion of this country... the media and the so-called democrats.

They are making a mockery of one of the most devastating attacks on our country... 9/11. This so called commission is using the attacks of that day to serve their own agenda and they don't care who gets hurt in the way.

I love our president and the class with which he has led this country after that horrible day. I can never forget how much I admired him and felt honored to have him as president. I can understand being for and against a party, I can understand politics... but what I can't understand is the blatant hatred exhibited by the enemies of our president.

I cannot understand how a commission can use a book by an obvious liar, to be the cornerstone of this investigation. This is not an investigation... where are factual documents? Where is the attention to honorable and honest men who have testified under oath? They have turned 9/11 into a circus of death to an honorable president they hate so much, simply because he is honorable.

I am appaled, I am sickened, and more than ever, I am determined to do all I can to ensure that GW is again our president. The very essence of our country depends on it. This has to be a media smackdown... somehow, we the people of this country need to take our country back. We need to wrestle the control back from the Clintons and what is laughingly called the "free press". I cannot even imagine what the alternative would be like.

Thanks for listening. And thanks to FR where true Americans can gather and share. You all give me hope!

[Tax Government]

Condi Rice should not testify under oath. She represents a branch of government that is independent of Congress. Her presence cannot be compelled; neither can she be required to testify truthfully.

If somebody is to swear an oath, let it be Congress -- to uphold the Constitution.

[arasina]

Great rant! I am determined to do all I can to ensure that GW is again our president.

Same here!

[Semper Paratus]

"Trying", loaded headline.

[Cboldt]

It's been my understanding that Condi was under oath when she testified in closed door session with the committee. I've seen the question asked many times now, but without a definitive answer.

Neither have I. But while looking for an answer, I did find this interesting piece of information:

"When asked whether National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice would give additional testimony before the commission, McClellan said that she has already provided four hours worth of testimony.

"She was more than happy to visit with the commission," McClellan said. "Only five members actually showed up, despite the fact that it was scheduled for the entire commission. You had another national security official under Dr. Rice who met with the commission and I think only four showed up."

Talon News -- Bush Agrees to Meet with 9-11 Commission <-- Link

[ken5050]

Most excellent rant, I hoped it helpd to get it off your chest..but rememebr, the dems aren't exactly political geniuses..this too will probably blow up in their faces..Frist is now trying to get Clarke's testimony to Congress declassified...the dems usually get the jump on these things...then the GOP reacts..butt he gloves are off...remember the Wellstone "memorial" service?...turned out to be the biggest political fiasco in a decade...

[Fizzie]

At the risk of sounding Pollyana-ish...

What's the big deal about testifying under oath? Either a person is honest or dishonest. They lie or they don't. I'm not speaking about little white lies like "Thanks for the great dinner" or "No, honey, I don't think you look fat in that dress."
Clinton apologists give Clinton a pass about lying under oath because (purportedly) "it was just about sex." That's how much testifying "under oath" means to them. So why is putting Rice under oath suddenly the Holy Grail? Because all of this is a politcal hatchet job, and Rice is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. This is not an attempt to get at the truth, it's a set-up.

I say Rice is taking the correct approach, citing the separation of powers, yet taking her message to the airwaves.