“precedent” is a lousy excuse
Condoleezza Rice says she won't testify in public under oath before the 9/11 Commission because there is no precedent for any Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (the actual title she holds) to do so. She sounds like it's a portentous thing in place since the founding of our Republic.If that were the case, she might have a point. But this position didn't even exist in our government until 1953. Here is the list: United States National Security Adviser - Wikipedia.
And, let me see. Who were some NSAs who testified under oath to Congress. Ah, Sandy Berger, before the 9/11 Commission. And, oh yeah, John Poindexter before the Congress (remember Iran-Contra?). Anthony Lake, before the Joint Intelligence Committee in September 2002. And that's gleaned from a quick google of: "Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs" testimony Congress
Oh, wait, I guess she means she can't testify NOW, while it counts, but has to wait until (hopefully) the end of January 2005, when she is no longer the SITTING NSA. It'll be too late then because the Commission will be finished.
All this stonewalling indicates is that Rice is covering for her boss. And her ass. If indeed the gub'mint did everything right, there is no reason not to testify. And if the gub'mint screwed up, we need to know now, BEFORE the election (remember Madrid?) Rice's refusal to testify in public, under oath, probably is a threat to our national security. Think about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/29/04 at 09:34 AM
Next entry: worth paying full price - Hellboy
Previous entry: the world as 100 people and stuff