Rice and Separation of Powers - Not Anything New
From Perry on Politics:The 9/11 Commission should be satisfied to have Rice testify behind closed doors, as national security is an issue. The only reason they don't like this is that the political attack is removed from the issue and the players in this game don't get their soundbite.And Tim leads us to this article from the Washington Post:
The larger issue at stake is the weakening of the executive branch at the hands of the legislature. While the media for the most part is against the Bush power struggle with Congress, they have not always been that way.
The media supported a strong chief executive under both FDR and Truman. In 1953 the New Republic criticized Eisenhower for not standing up to Congress. On May 18, 1953, Wilfred Brinkley wrote:
"The current gravitation of power into the hands of Congress at the expense of the Executive is a phenomenon so fatuous as to be incredible if the facts were not so patent."
He was not alone. When Eisenhower invoked executive privilege denying the UnAmerican Activities Committee information, the New York Times wrote on May 18, 1954 that the committee " had no right to know the details of what went on in these inner Administration councils."
And lastly, on May 20, 1954 the Washington Post wrote that the administration was "abundantly right to protect the confidential nature of executive conversations."
The White House's refusal to permit national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is not unprecedented in the practices of both the Bush administration and previous administrations, according to legal analysts and a report by the research arm of the Library of Congress.
Presidential advisers and other White House staff members have on occasion testified about policy matters before congressional committees since the end of World War II -- but far less frequently than Cabinet secretaries, who are subject to Senate confirmation.
Whatever their political or other motivations may have been, presidents have generally cited the separation of powers, and the need for confidential and candid executive deliberations, in explaining their resistance to testimony by those White House staff members who, like Rice, serve the president and are not confirmed by the Senate.
But these distinctions and justifications remain relatively undefined and have never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Such a court battle would probably occur only if the commission sent Rice a subpoena, as some members have suggested, and she resisted it.
Historically, clashes over White House staff testimony have been settled through compromise between the executive and legislative branches, with each side vying for advantage in the same forum where the dispute over Rice is being played out: the court of public opinion.
Matt's Chat
This is all about politicizing intelligence and 9/11. I'm amused by these folks who were screaming about Bush's 9/11 ads are the same people driving this ridiculous witch hunt...Mark's Remarks
The politicizing continues...these liberal smear artists are really sad....they are attempting to smear an administration that did more in the first five months than Clinton did in his first 6 years in Office to fight terror.....and it is sad that people like Richard Clarke are smearing intelligent and capable people like Condi Rice, simply to massage their own sad and guilty consciences. Let's get off of the blame game, because it is a game the Clintonistas will lose, if they allow the truth to come out....Let's instead review what we can do better to prevent this mess...That is what this commission should be for, not trying political grandstanding, as idiots on the commission like Bob Kerrey have done. It is sad that this commission is more about smear and nuance than finding out solutions for issues.
