Richard Clarke is a damn hypocrite weasel, being exposed more and more by the hour for the fraud that he is. He and the lapdog liberal media are calling for Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly in front of that kangaroo commission. Well, for the same reasons Rice is not testifying publicly (she has already spent 4 hours behind closed doors with them), Clarke (on my 28th birthday, no less) cited privilege in refusing to testify in front of the The Y2K Committee.
Clarke's hypocrisy is blatant and obvious here. No reason to expand on that. But, why isn't the liberal media running with this? We all know the answer. It helps Bush. If the media were intellectually honest, they would investigate this, and report that Rice (and Clarke was too) is well within her rights not to testify. This is a well-established precedent. Where can this precedent be found? Why, in one of the liberals' all-time favorite Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)!!
Here are the relevant parts:
In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
In more simpler terms, the President should be able to solicit honest advice for their advisors, without fear that what they say will be on full public display afterward. If this threat were apparent, it would place a "chilling effect" on the advice given to the President, who would not be able to make fully-informed decisions. And;
Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
Simply put, in only a criminal proceeding can the claim of privilege for Presidential communications be trumped, but even then, only when a judge reviews the material in camera. (In the privacy of the judge's chambers)
It is beyond disgraceful that the 9/11 Commission is allowing itself to be used like this. And the usual suspects are out in force:
"Three thousand people died on our shores and on their watch. There should not be the slightest question that any White House staff member asked by the commission to testify under oath and in public must do so," he said.
There is only 2 reasons that Democrats want Rice to testify publicly:
1 - To destroy a possible future political threat. Is there any doubt that if she ran for President, Republicans would rally around her?
2 - To get her to say something like, "We discussed the possibility of airplanes being hijacked in a briefing," so that the lapdog media can run with the "Bush Knew" meme again.
The difference between the previous administration and the Bush administration is in full view right now, for all to see. Not once have we heard, nor will we hear, something like "There is controlling legal authority that Rice does not have to testify."
President Bush and Condi Rice cannot win on this, simply because of the dishonesty in the media. If she testifies, they'll find something (regardless of the truth) and pound it to death. If she doesn't, the "what are they hiding?" meme will go on for months.
