The media has made much of Condoleezza Rice's refusal to appear under oath, in public, in front of the 9/11 Commission. Compared to Richard Clarke's apparently altruistic eagerness to discuss anything regarding the Bush administration's handling of the War on Terror, Rice has been portrayed as secretive and apprehensive. The headlines cast her as someone who fiercely disagrees with the charges made, but cannot back up her story under oath.

Executive privilege has existed since the beginnings of American government, George Washington apparently invoked it himself. While executive privilege is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, separation of powers regarding the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, give presidential administrations certain rights against releasing information to the other branches of government. Presidents have argued that privilege is necessary for national security, and for being able to perform day to day functions without every comment possibly being "on the record." Privilege is generally only waived in criminal cases.

9/11 Chairman Thomas Kean said, "We recognize there are arguments having to do with separation of powers, we think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden." While the events of September 11th, 2001 were a horrific tragedy, given what we already know, there really doesn't seem to be much of a reason why administration officials like Rice should testify, publicly, under oath, or otherwise. It's clear that before 9/11, no pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan would have gained much support in America, let alone the U.N. None of Richard Clarke's reccommendations dealt with the possibility of an attack on our shores. The Clinton and Bush administrations considered terrorism important, but not necessarily urgent. (It's also interesting to note that the U.S. never got a chance to respond to the U.S.S. Cole bombing, and yet we were still attacked on 9/11.) Even the pious Richard Clarke was more concerned about Cyberterrorism prior to 9/11. He now claims he had no choice but to focus on cyber security, but his comments prior to 9/11 prove otherwise.

The truth is, no one saw 9/11 coming. People have imagined the possibility of jets being flown into buildings before 9/11, but no one ever thought it would actually happen, and not on the scale that it did. We fooled ourselves into thinking that it could never happen to us, that no terrorist would bring bloodshed to our shores.

While the ideology behind the 9/11 Commission is admirable, lessons are not being learned. Rather than try to figure out how to better fight the war on terrorism, the commission is mired in scandals involving who does and does not participate. The Bush administration has agreed to let Rice testify in public, and under oath, with the condition that executive privilege still exist. Regardless, the President and his administration have every right to fight for the protection of executive privilege.

James Golden is a political columnist for MBGZ.com