BREAKING NEWS: Rice to Testify
From CBS News:In a 60 Minutes interview aired Sunday, Rice cast herself as ready to testify but restrained by the principle of executive privilege.
"Nothing would be better from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there's an important principle involved here," Rice said "It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress."
But after the parade of current and former officials that have gone before the commission, Rice's absence, say former White House officials, is playing as a negative — creating the perception that she has something to hide.
Add to that Rice's recent blitz of the public airwaves to state her case — while stonewalling the commission — and it appeared to some that the White House had little choice.
Matt's Chat
I have two things to say about this... It is an outrage because we have no set a precedent for having non-elected, non-confirmed advisors/staffers to the president of the United States subjected to testifying before a Congressional committee. This is dangerous because in the future, Presidential advisors will have second thoughts about what they say to the President (Democrat or Republican) which means that the President may not get the kind of advice that he needs.Ultimately, this is a huge win for the President. Anytime the subject is terrorism, the President wins. Just watch the polls in the coming weeks, my friends... Chuck the Schmuck and Teddy Boy will be sorry they pushed for this.
Mark's Remarks
Be careful, libs, for what you wish for......Condi is very convincing and articulate, and she uses logic, not hate, smear, and black helicopter theories.
This does set a precedent, no matter what the legal mumbo jumbo agreement says. It seriously damages the executive's ability to get unfettered and unadulterated advice. It damages the principle that has been held up since the Eisenhower admin, on through the Clinton years. While executive privilege is a many faceted issue, the purpose of it being invoked here was clear and in line with previous administrations. To set this type of precedent (even if the agreement says it is not setting one) is dangerous, and may be damaging to the office of the Presidency.
