Partisans who have been hoping to hurt President Bush with 9/11 Commission wrangling just made a HUGE mistake. You see, this week, they got what they wished for in that the President finally agreed to allow his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to testify publicly under oath in front of the 9/11 commission. Which brings to mind the old adage, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
By forcing Dr. Rice to publically testify, they have just given President Bush his own "Richard Clarke moment." How so? Very simple.
When the time drew near for Richard Clarke to publically testify, the media began a frenzy of speculation about what he might say and the ultimate impact his testimony might have on President Bush's reelection efforts. On the day that Richard Clarke testified, he had the attention of a far larger audience than he otherwise would have commanded, which is just what he wanted to help spur book sales. That, and the controversial nature of his testimony have put him all over the airwaves since, right where he wants to be.
Similarly, even before Richard Clarke's public testimony, Dr. Rice was the subject of great speculation by the press. Since Clarke's testimony, speculation has increased exponentially. Because many Democrats, quite a few Republicans, and most of the Media wanted Dr. Rice's public testimony, a massive amount of attention has been focused on her. Its an issue that has been made known all across the world at this point.
This past weekend, Dr. Rice appeared on 60 Minutes and stated that she would love to testify, but that she cannot. Her appearance there helped underscore the important precedent that her public testimony would set. I thought Dr. Rice's points were well made and, thus, the media spin of a stonewalling administration was nicely deflected.
Now, suddenly, she can testify. What a coincidence! The media frenzy has intensified further with speculation on what she might say during her testimony.
At this point, Dr. Rice's upcoming testimony has received at least as much, if not more media attention than Clarke's controversial book. And because Dr. Rice has yet to testify, it gives the media more speculative leeway and makes for a better story. All eyes are now focused on Dr. Rice, and Clarke's new book, as well as his testimony, have taken a back seat.
Very bad move on the part of Democrats if you ask me, but good news for those of us who support the President. Democrats have given the initiative back to President Bush after having just gained it in a major way with Clarke's testimony. And the fact that Dr. Rice is scheduled to appear sometime next week means that Clarke's 15 minutes of fame are rapidly coming to an end.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
The problem, as I see it, is that expectations are too high. If she doesn't deliver, Bush looks like a buffoon, who has entrusted the security of the nation to a dolt.
I hope she responds well to the pressure. But if she doesn't, it's a boon for the Dems.
2 - David Flanagan
My money is on Dr. Rice.
David
3 - Ed Garcia
Rice's testimony will be made under the cloak of blackmail from the WhiteWashHouse. Thus she will be allowed to repeat her previous lies without fear of rebuttal by further queastioning of her or any of the moral relativists currently in the executive branch. The BushCo memo to the commission reads, "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 if 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."(previous practice: secret, not under oath).
This is not about getting at the truth, it's about the last media echo that the public hears is the spin put out by the WhiteWash crew. Reminds me of the Soviet Union, as currently the right-wing counterestablishment resembles the apparatus that ran the Soviet Union. The Russians called it the "apparat"- a vast
bureaucratic web of power that housed and carefully crafted the organs, official and unofficial, of the government.
4 - David Flanagan
...the right-wing counterestablishment resembles the apparatus that ran the Soviet Union.
Ummm... sir, would you like fries with that conspiracy?
5 - Mark Edward Manning
Slam-bang! You just hit another home run, David. Great, great entry! ~ MEM
6 - bhw
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the country who cares only about finding out what actually happened [or didn't] in the years and months leading up to 9/11.
I wanted Condi to testify publicly because she was going around on TV with a pr campaign rebutting someone else's testimony. If you want to rebut sworn testimony, get sworn in yourself.
If Clarke is lying now or lied in the past, I want to know. I just want to know what happened and how we can prevent more terrorist attacks on this soil and elsewhere.
9/11 is the one event that should not be politicized, and yet here we are. It sucks.
7 - Mark Saleski
Democrats and the media wanted ...
hate to tell ya, but there are republicans on that panel as well.
a home run? nope.
just more TalkRadioRegurgitations(tm).
8 - David Flanagan
9/11 is the one event that should not be politicized, and yet here we are. It sucks.
I agree wholeheartedy, and yet here I am writing an article talking about the political strategy around Dr. Rice's public testimony. The unfortunate reality here is that the 9/11 Commission has those who want the same as you; answers regarding what happened and solid solutions to prevent another such attack.
At the same time, if you read the papers and hear the inside chatter as I do living in the DC area, you'll find that numerous Democrats are excited about the prospects of making the President look bad just before the election. Do you think it a coincidence that the commission releases its finding a day BEFORE the Democratic National Convention?
Kerry and many others decried a recent Bush ad that featured about two seconds worth of video from the ground zero shortly after 9/11, accusing the President of "politicizing 9/11." Meanwhile, they desperately hope to politicize this issue and use it in their favor in November.
I don't want to paint all Democrats with this brush, though. There are many who honestly want the truth and won't stoop to such tactics. At the same time, there are plenty of Republicans who WILL stoop to such tactics. No party is immune from partisanship.
Unfortunately, the 9/11 Commission should never have been allowed to convene against the backdrop of this upcoming Presidential election. This alone assures me that the motives here are political.
Thanks.
David
9 - Debbie
"I wanted Condi to testify publicly because she was going around on TV with a pr campaign rebutting someone else's testimony. If you want to rebut sworn testimony, get sworn in yourself."
How many times has this ever happened in the past, that a National Security Advisor testifies publically under oath before a panel? This is not the norm, so the Admin is taking it seriously and is willing to go to extremes to supply the panel with information. This executive privilage stuff is not made up by one side or the other.... once you have set precedence it can be used in court to compel future National Security Advisors to testify in political witch hunts, not good for the nation. The President needs to have 'candid answers' from all of his advisors and be able to openly discuss strategy without the fear that 'partisan politics' will twist it to their advantage. Just the fact that Bush is willing to go this extra step, shows that he does think that this panel is important.
"If Clarke is lying now or lied in the past, I want to know. I just want to know what happened and how we can prevent more terrorist attacks on this soil and elsewhere."
So do I.
"9/11 is the one event that should not be politicized, and yet here we are. It sucks."
Dream on, Washington politicizes everything. That is how politicians attempt to keep in power....
Personally, just once, I would love to see one of them just stand up and denounce and call attention to all of the posturing. The problem is that they only do it to the 'other side' which just makes more partisan politics. They need to point it out in their own parties and refuse to take part in it. It will never happen because the power hungry in Washington would eat them up and spit them out, so the game continues.
Ed,
""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 if 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."(previous practice: secret, not under oath)."
This is about getting at the truth....you don't realize what a HUGE break from previous practice this is in allowing a National Security Advisor to testify publically under oath before the commission is. There has always been a historical precedent of executive privilege....this was for all parties. There is a very important reason for this, as stated above the president NEEDS to receive 'candid answers and advice' from all of his advisors. If they can't speak freely without worry just think of the damage this could do. How paralized the executive branch would be and it would give way too much power to the legislative branch. Bush is trying to allow the testimony to help the commission while trying to balance the seperation of powers clause...not an easy task, but an important task.
10 - David Flanagan
a home run? nope.
Again, my money is on Dr. Rice. I'm sure that partisan Democrats will not, on the whole, be convinced, but its the swing voters and the undecided voters who will finally have the opportunity to hear Dr. Rice's thoughts regarding 9/11. I've heard her many times and I know that she will do well.
David
11 - Mark Saleski
very 'on message' of you.
do they teach you this stuff at the meetings or does it come naturally?
12 - bhw
I don't expect politicians to leave 9/11 alone, politically speaking, but I guess I was hoping more from everyday Americans.
13 - David Flanagan
do they teach you this stuff at the meetings or does it come naturally?
It comes naturally. :-)
Thanks for noticing.
David
[NOTE: This is meant to be a humorous reply rather than a smug or arrogant response. We now continue with our regularly scheduled messages.]
14 - Shark
Sorry, Dave, like it or not -- As with all 'people' in the news, it's not about the 'substance' of what they say, it's about looks, *'personality', and perception.
Which means Condi is a huge deficit. She could be truthful, articulate, and promise to heal the sick and raise the dead, but bottom line is she comes off as a skinny black version of Martha Stewart.
(*This is also why they keep Cheney hidden in a bunker most of the time.)
15 - JR
This past weekend, Dr. Rice appeared on 60 Minutes and stated that she would love to testify, but that she cannot...
Now, suddenly, she can testify. What a coincidence!
Indeed. Someone not as well-versed in the subtle but important differences between Democratic candidates and Republican candidates might even call it a "flip-flop".
16 - David Flanagan
it's not about the 'substance' of what they say, it's about looks, *'personality', and perception.
I disagree. Did Richard Clarke look that impressive? Not to me, but he came off as very authoratative during his testimony.
Condoleezza Rice comes off as very professional, very confident, intelligent, articulate and honest. One of her advantages is that she does not come off as a typical politician.
And I believe that Dr. Rice is honest and not a typical Washington politician. Yes, she has worked in that world for a long time, but she does not seem to have been poisoned by it either.
Again I say, my money is on Rice.
Thanks.
David
17 - David Flanagan
Republican candidates might even call it a "flip-flop".
Label it a flip-flop if that makes you happy, but, ultimately, the key here is that Dr. Rice's testimony will be seen and heard by a very large audience, and her testimony will then be the talk of the nation for days more. This is a better situation for Dr. Rice and the Bush Administration than if she had testified before Clarke.
Much better.
David
18 - Mark Saleski
WARNING! WARNING!! FLYING RATIONALIZATION ALERT!!!!
it's a flip-flop.
19 - David Flanagan
it's a flip-flop.
Okay, it's a flip-flop. And Democrats made a huge mistake when they forced this issue. One way or another, it's a move that will come back to bite them.
David
20 - Mark Saleski
and again i will say that it was NOT only the democrats who wanted her to testify.
21 - David Flanagan
Mark,
You are absolutely correct. So what?
I wanted her to testify too. Nearly everyone did. Republicans in Washington want Dr. Rice to testify because they KNOW she will impress Americans who listen to her testimony.
And this nearly unanimous call for Dr. Rice's gave President Bush two additional wins in that it gave him the mandate he needed to justify sending Dr. Rice to give public testimony and it gave him leverage in getting the commission to agree that there will be no further calls for his administration officials afterward.
You see what this does? It makes it that much more difficult for the commission to play politics with the President.
All of this is good for Dr. Rice and the Bush Administration, not for Democrats. This is a huge strategic error on their part.
David
22 - Mark Saleski
the sad point in all of this is that the debate is couched in terms of who 'wins' or 'loses'.
my interest is in the truth coming out, the primary beneficiary being the american public.
i don't give a crap if it helps or hurts either party.
23 - David Flanagan
my interest is in the truth coming out, the primary beneficiary being the american public.
I wish things worked that way in Washington. Sadly, they don't, otherwise, the 9/11 Commission would never have been scheduled during an election year and Democrats never would have arranged the final release of its findings for the day BEFORE the Democratic National Convention.
David
24 - Dan
It was not a flip flop. Not in the usual sense. Both the panel and the administration wanted her to testify. An unprecedented suspension of rules regarding separation of powers had to be accomplished first.
I have no doubt in Condi's ability. She was brilliant on 60 minutes. She put Howard Dean to shame on meet the press. If this weren't a slam-dunk for the administration, they could easily and rightfully have stonewalled.
25 - David Flanagan
If this weren't a slam-dunk for the administration, they could easily and rightfully have stonewalled.
Bingo!