Commission omission: Bush serves Rice to 9/11 commission

Manchester Union Leader ^ | March 31, 2004 | Editorial

[billorites]

THE WHITE HOUSE announced yesterday that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice would testify before the 9/11 commission. It’s about time.

Not letting Rice testify was a political blunder. Most Americans will never get the full explanation for President Bush’s reluctance to hand Rice over to the commission. (The President was concerned about setting a legal precedent that could be used to compel other executive branch officials to testify before Congress in the future.) All they will hear is that the White House wouldn’t let Rice appear. It makes Bush and Rice look like they both have something to hide.

Yesterday the White House said Rice could testify as long as the commission agreed that this did not set a precedent for compelling the appearance of executive branch officials. This should have been done at the start.

Bush also agreed that he and Vice President Dick Cheney will testify before the full commission, instead of the commission chairman alone, as Bush originally wanted.

Having Rice and Bush address the charges made by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke is important for setting the record straight. That’s what Congress created this commission to do, and Bush should have known all along that his reluctance to put himself and Rice on the stand would look worse than any gaffes they might make while testifying.

[billorites]

Strategery.

[Coop]

I like how all these talking heads and editors keep saying not having her testify earlier was a political blunder. Says who? The President's approval numbers and head-to-head-vs.-Kerry numbers remained static or even improved a bit, and I saw one poll where 25% felt Clarke's charges were serious, 25% didn't know, and 50% thought they were politically motivated. And that was before Rice appeared on 60 Minutes and the news of her testifying before the commission came out.

Someone please show me this blunder.

[samtheman]

Yesterday the White House said Rice could testify as long as the commission agreed that this did not set a precedent for compelling the appearance of executive branch officials. This should have been done at the start.

Even Fox News fails to see the obvious strategy here:

Please, oh, please, don't make me through Condi into the briar patch!

[NHResident]

Please note: The Manchester Union Leader has a conservative (mostly) editorial page. It is NOT by any stretch (except in direct comparison The Boston Glop or Concord (NH) Monitor)a beacon of conservative reporting or thought.

The reporting (except for a limited number of local stories on the order of describing the latest rash of 'cow tippings') mostly comes right off the AP, Reuters, etc. 'wire.' You get the most appallingly and typical mainstream media anti-conservative, anti-Bush, anti-capitalism slant on the front-page. Everytime I have contacted the paper about the contrast between accurate reporting and 'off-the-wire' boilerplate stories - the response is that with a limited budget for original reporiting they must use nationally sydicated stories.

[Puppage]

Not letting Rice testify was a political blunder

This paper couldn't be more incorrect. The opposition has been misunderestimating GW from the very begining. Condi will now be able to refute all the lies without looking like she has an ax to grind, or an agenda.

Brilliant!

[meenie]

The testimony will have to match the memos and e-mails that she received or the Democrats will have more weapons to use against the administration. The tragedy of this whole episode is that no action is being taken to remedy the intelligence shortfalls that allowed 9/11 to take place. The sharing of information readily available was the underlying cause of 9/11. How do you make a bumbling bureaucracy efficient is the real question that should be answered.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Seems to me that as the Rice "executive privilege" issue demonstrates who gets called to say what, and under what conditions, isn't going to be governed next week by this week's agreement between the WH and anyone else, it's now mostly a *political* question. And to the extent that Rice's sworn testimony is at odds with Clarke's likely the
pressure will only increase for the release of documents which might resolve such questions, documents which of course will raise *other" questions, and so on...

Looking ahead you also have the problem of commission members who may not be satisfied with Bush and Chaney's un-sworn private testimony - if one or two should decide to go off the reservation post-commission the WH's potential problems are endless.

OTOH, I don't see that Kerry gaining much traction from this issue either - I think this is just going to be an ongoing, divisive, ugly story right down to election day.

[Eala]

[section9]

I have thought of that, as well. Personally, I don't think she's going to concentrate on the contradictions inherent in Clarke's testimony or fall into the trap of contradicting herself. Rather, she is going to concentrate on the main thrust of Administration Policy relative to 9-11 and after.

Be Seeing You,

Chris