Why Should Condi Testify When Clarke Refused?
Tue March 30th, 2004 01:26 MSTThe Democrats, the press and some members of the 9-11 commission are howling for Condoleeza Rice to testify publicly under oath to the committee, even though she has already given 15 hours of private testimony. The White House is resisting, saying they don’t want to set a bad precedent.
The New York Times, the bastion of truth and respectability, lists 2 past instances in which National Security Advisers have testified publicly, not to an independent commission, but to Congress. Furthermore, they don’t point out that these cases were both criminal matters, and no National Security Adviser has ever testified under these conditions about policy matters. Furthermore, the principle to be protected is the ability of advisors to be able to discuss anything, no matter how politically unpalatable, with the President. The New York Times also ignores that issue.
To the Times, the case is closed. Others did it, Condi should too.
But with the New York Times these days, not all the news is fit to print.
The Drudge Report adds the following relevant tidtbit that the Times must have lost to computer failure or something:
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.
Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee — due to a directive by the National Security Council.
…
The congressional record; Senator Bennett:
….
Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.
The reason the commission wants Condi to testify is due to the same Mr. Clarke’s self-refuted claims! Mr. Clarke refused to testify using exactly the reasons that Condi is using.
The irony is stunning. So is the New York Times journalistic incompetence.