Rick's Cafe Americain

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is happy to talk about the Bush administration’s handling of the terrorist threat—as long as it isn’t under oath.

I believe the Commission should be required to draw an adverse inference.

From what I saw of the 60 Minutes episode, she did not do a great job of defending the decision.  She basically said that they were unable to find an instance where a National Security Advisor has testified before Congress.  But she did not articulate a very strong reason for that and did not tell any anecdotes of when “so and so refused to testify in X situation.”

But I think it is great.  Makes the Administration look like they are hiding something. 

From what I heard on NPR this morning, the administration’s reasoning is even more ridiculous: sitting NSA’s have testified before, just not on “policy issues”.  Condi has been quoted as saying that she would love to testify, that she wants nothing better than to testify, but it would set a bad precedent.  It is not clear to me whether the decision not to testify is hers or the administration’s (i.e., does she really want to testify but the administration is refusing to allow it, or is this just an excuse?).

I like the adverse influence theme, but there is a flaw in the argument even though I won’t say it.

If any of her testimony would compromise national security, she can certainly (a) refuse to testify about certain things or (b) have the hearings closed to the public for those particular bits.  That is not the reason being put forth, however.  IN fact, Condi has said she is willing to meet with the Commission (privately) and tell them everything she would say were she under oath.  She just won’t do it under oath.

I have only two things to say about that.