The name I left off the list was Secretary Powell. Much of what I let pass from Powell I file under "G" for Good Solider. Clarke briefing reporters? Good Soldier. It's a lot easier to dismiss than Wes Clark giving a speech. And even that can fall under Good Soldier. At any rate, I'm much more entertained by the flap coming up in this morning's headlines: It goes on. This little war of words should make for some good obsessive late-night reading when the transcripts come out. And heaven knows, there's only a glut of reporters if there's nothing to report. • Babington, Charles, and Walter Pincus. "GOP Leaders Seek Releaase of Clarke's 2002 Testimony." Washington Post, March 27, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28227-2004Mar26.html
So I let it go last night when I first heard the phrases, "executive privilege," and "thinking of future presidents." It's a bad joke going back to Nixon, at least. All anyone had to do was show the President a four-frame Doonesbury strip, and maybe one of the Sunday colors, in order to demonstrate the bad tactic chosen. And today, a reversal--Dr. Rice can testify in public, under oath before the 9/11 commission. Nonetheless, all sorts of fodder remains: "I won't testify unless I have Dick right there"? (O-tay, Mr. President!) As Mr. Bush explained: I had to make a couple painful edits for length, else I would have reproduced the whole speech. Bush noted that-- • 800 members of the administration have been interviewed • 20 White House officials have testified or will testify soon • Dr. Rice has already spent four hours privately with the commission --and went on to say that he ordered this level of cooperation because a complete picture of the events leading to 9/11 is necessary. And yet it's this much of a struggle to get the President himself to cooperate? Even to that degree? How can we possibly have a complete picture without the executive branch telling us what it knows? Executive privilege is an interesting thing, but if the White House is at all genuine in this, it will drop its talk of such concerns. Some things are just that important, and a committed, honorable Executive knows that. _____________________ • Allen, Mike, and Dan Eggen. "President to Let Rice Testify About 9/11." Washington Post, March 31, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37465-2004Mar30.html • FDCH E-Media. "Bush Delivers Remarks on Rice Testifying for 9/11 Commission." Washington Post, March 30, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36823-2004Mar30.html
I also don't see why its taken as a given that the President will not testify under oath. His bad precedent argument doesn't hold water, and if he accepts that its ok for Rice as long as its understood not to be setting a new precedent then why not for him as well? Really, its understandable that he will be testifying in private since they will be discussing issues that are probably classified, but why not under oath? All it would mean is that if he didn't tell the truth he could be charged with perjury, which shouldn't be an issue if he intends to tell the truth. His not testifying because he legally doesn't have to seems akin to someone pleading the fifth in this instance.
Bush made clear he will not testify under oath. He did make the concession of going beyond meeting with only 2 members of the commision in private for only one hour and expanded that to meeting with all 10 members of the commision plus one commission staff member in private and not under oath. I am not clear on the rules Cheney has imposed but it could be safe to assume they are similar.
