March 30, 2004

CLIMBING DOWN

March 30, 2004 Letter from Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, to Thomas A. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. (From the Corner)

We continue to believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers counsel strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice's testimony before the Commission can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001 present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future Presidents to receive candid advice.

Nevertheless, the President recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the Commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and, circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001 does not set, and should not be cited as, a precedent for future requests for a National Security Advisor or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body. In light of the unique nature of the Commission and these additional assurances, the President has determined that, although he retains the legal authority to decline to make Dr. Rice available to testify in public, he will agree, as a matter of comity and subject to the conditions set forth below, to the Commission's request for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the Commission's statutory mandate.

The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the Commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the Commission does not set any precedent for future Commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a National Security Advisor or any other White House official. Second, the Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. The National Security Advisor is uniquely situated to provide the Commission with information necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. Indeed, it is for this reason that Dr. Rice privately met with the Commission for more than four hours on February 7, fully answered every question posed to her, and offered additional private meetings as necessary. Despite the fact that the Commission will therefore have access to all information of which Dr. Rice is aware, the Commission has nevertheless urged that public confidence in the work of the Commission would be enhanced by Dr. Rice appearing publicly before the Commission. Other White House officials with information relevant to the Commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the Commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the Commission with information through private meetings, briefings, and documents, consistent with our previous practice.

I greatly appreciate the strong support you expressed to me last night for an agreement to the conditions on which we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation and your commitment to strongly advocate for the full support of the Commission. If the Commission accepts the terms of this agreement, I hope that we can schedule a time as soon as possible for such a public appearance by Dr. Rice. I want to reiterate once again, however, that Dr. Rice would be made available to the Commission with due regard for the Constitutional separation of powers and reserving all legal authorities, privileges, and objections that may apply, including with respect to other governmental entities or private parties.

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - Commission access to the President and Vice President. I am authorized to advise you that the President and Vice President have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 Commissioners, with one Commission staff member present to take notes of the session.

This is a climb down, although politically necessary. It is one of the rare instances in which the administration, as Condi Rice was urged to do yesterday, chooses to rise above principle. The part about only doing this because Hastert and Frist agreed that it would not be a precedent is particularly silly, for being so transparent. I want to see Pelosi and Daschle agree. I expect that, far from agreeing, they, and the Democrats on the committee, will attack this agreement. The last thing they want is Dr. Rice's public testimony.

Posted by David Cohen at March 30, 2004 12:19 PM
Comments

What David said ... with added emphasis.

Posted by: Genecis at March 30, 2004 12:43 PM

Her responses will be bland enough, and three months from now no one will remember anything she said.

Beltway circle jerk.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 30, 2004 12:52 PM

I disagree slightly. Based on the Dems I talk to they think Rice is lying and can't wait to get her talking publicly. While I would love for Rice to body slam the Dems and Clarke my gut tells me Harry is probably correct.

Posted by: AWW at March 30, 2004 1:33 PM

Lying about what? Remember, they've had four hours with her and lying to them in private session is, legally, just as culpable as lying under oath in public session.

Anyway, my point is that the Dems would rather be able to score on the White House for "ducking" the commission than actually allow Condi to testify and have the whole thing boil down to a "he said/she said" that, as Harry points out, no one will care about three months from now.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2004 2:22 PM

What about those questions she can't answer because they might compromise national security. Won't the press charge her with covering up?

I think they'll suck up to her, but I think they'll try to lead her into lines of questioning where it will appear she's trying to hide something.

Posted by: NKR at March 30, 2004 2:55 PM

Pelosi and Daschle notwithstanding, bureaucracies run on paper, and once these agreements have been make in writing, that's that. Twenty years from now nobody will remember Nancy or Tom--or Hastert and Frist-- but the written agreement will still be present.

I don't think Bush lost anything at all here. When the dust settles, he'll be the one holding on to their clothes and they'll be the ones wearing a barrel.

Posted by: fred at March 30, 2004 3:32 PM

I agree with some of the comments above, that this will probably matter little months from now. However, there is always a chance of disaster, and the Democrats are clearly hoping to ambush and discredit Rice in public. Condi should give the commission a taste of Bush's preemptive strategy by opening with a statement something like this (by David Frum, via Instapundit):

"This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush's own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There's a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?"

After all, this is also a chance for the administration to make a public case, and something like this makes a great sound-bite. It would put the Democrats on the defensive, having to defend Clinton. And it would increase Rice's stock as a VP candidate.

Posted by: jd watson at March 30, 2004 4:35 PM

It's a risk. "There is always the chance of disaster".

And there is an equal chance of the opposite. I've been saying on Esmay that this could be reminiscent of Ollie North. Everyone thought he'd be the fall guy, geared up to fry him, and he shows up clean-jawed and in uniform, the lone warrior besieged by a bunch of howling time-serving, self-aggrandizing politicians... etc.

Now it's Condi in single combat. Alone, attractive, feminine, smart, good-heart, and I think quite capable of giving as good as she gets. This could blow Clarke, and everyone who signed up with him, out of the water.

Condi for VP? It's either "no way" or "fairly likely". We'll know very soon.

Posted by: Andrew X at March 30, 2004 4:48 PM

I'm with Andrew on this. Condi held her own as a black conservative in the heart of academia. After that, a paltry congressional panel is a cakewalk. I predict she'll make mincemeat of them.

I've been skeptical about Condi as VP (Sec of state still seems more likely), but this performance has the opportunity to change all that.

Posted by: Timothy at March 30, 2004 5:10 PM

This sure feels like one of those "please don't throw me into that briar patch" moments. Condi has become the story the last several days, erasing Clarke from the headlines, which means that whatever she says (which of course will be about how great the Administration is) will be the final impression that people take away from this whole process.

Posted by: brian at March 30, 2004 6:17 PM

jd;

Your fantasy, while enjoyable to imagine, won't happen. The Bush Administration just doesn't seem to be able to get a good story out about its foreign policy. I find much better defenses of it in the blogosphere than I ever see from the Administration itself.

I agree that it's a career moment for Condi. If she wants the big chair, she needs to swing for the fence on this.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 30, 2004 6:27 PM

Had Rice said anything in her closed door testimony that was incriminating against the administration or supportive of Clarke's side of the story, it would have leaked by now. So it's unlikely any bombshells will be lobbed at Condi in the public testimony. But even so, look for a long, dramatic soliliquy by Richard ben Veniste (in an attempt to channel Sam Ervin and the Senate Watergate hearings) damning the administration's policies to dominate the media's video clips and quoted exerpts of the hearing when it finally does take place.

Posted by: John at March 30, 2004 6:57 PM

jd:

Excellent. Are you a speech writer? If you aren't already, you ought to be.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 30, 2004 7:04 PM
« THE GOLDEN AGE OF RADIO ENDS (via Tom Morin): | Main | LET'S GET IT ON: »