It was just announced that Condi Rice will testify under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission. A deal has been struck, whereby (somehow) this will not set a
precedent. I actually thought that she shouldn’t testify publicly and under oath for three reasons: One, it will set a precedent for any future NSC chief to testify on policy issues, a very bad idea that may affect future conversations and advice given to a president. Two, there is a danger that this will turn into a shouting match between Rice and Clarke--he said, she said--that the Demos will try to use for ordinary partisan advantage in the campaign. While this attack on the Bush team hasn’t worked so far, it may open up other avenues of attack and she will be the one at a disadvantage. If she doesn’t say everything she knows about anything asked of her--even if the silence is due to sound reasons of national security--she will be the one who will be the accused of stonewalling or lying by the Democrats. Three, the public conversations will continue to move away from what Clinton did not do regarding terrorism, which is the intent of the Democrats. Oddly, even though they have already been successful in doing that, they still have not gained any political points. This is proof that the people overwhelmingly (still) trust Bush and his administration on the conduct of the war on terror over any Democrat, including Kerry.