Rice to Testify
She’ll probably get points now just for testifying, regardless of what she actually says. In an odd twist, the administration is trying to borrow a page from Bush v. Gore:
In a letter to the commission, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales said the commission must agree in writing that Rice’s appearance would not set a precedent for testimony by White House staff.
In Bush v. Gore, the majority knew they were writing a bad ruling, and so decided to simply declare that the case would not serve as a precedent for future cases:
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
Of course, things become precedents by virtue of happening, not by virtue of beind declared a precedent. On the other hand, I supposed Gonzales is technically correct that Rice’s appearance won’t be a precedent since previous National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sandy Berger have testified before Congress. So what Gonzales must mean is that Rice’s testimony could not serve as a precedent for National Security Advisors testifying before “independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature [of the President].”
I now present to you, without further ado, Rice’s upcoming testimony:
- Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man in the world’s most dangerous region.
- No one could have predicted that terrorist would use planes as weapons. But had we known that terrorists were going to attack with planes on September 11th, 2001, in the a.m., we would have done everything in our power to prevent it.
- When we went to Camp David to plan our response to the al Qaeda attack, it was a map of Afghanistan that was rolled out on the table.