Opinion
 

Rice's side needs to be heard

by Matthew Bean

The 9/11 commission has been attempting to get U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the panel publicly and under oath. Rice is apparently unable to give testimony due to a White House policy that sitting National Security Advisors do not testify before Congress. 

Rice recently appeared on 60 Minutes and was quoted as saying "nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify," and many news reports seem to confirm her willingness to talk. The White House has even been negotiating with the commission to allow Rice to testify in private and shortly afterward possibly releasing her testimony to the public, but the 9/11 commission has thus far been insistent that Rice make a public appearance.

Why all the hullabaloo? Well, last week Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, gave some fairly incriminating testimony to the panel where he asserted that Bush did not respond quickly enough to the terrorist threat, among other things.

Rice has openly said that she'd like to share, and with the harsh allegations levied last week by Clarke, I would think the White House would be more than willing to let Rice go before the commission, especially if what she has to say is as supportive of President Bush's actions as what she's said to the press on the matter.

Why is this an issue, and why can't Rice speak openly? It makes no sense to me. This is especially important, because Clarke's comments have cast a bad light on the administration's behavior, and it looks like he has a new book to promote.

Hmm, it seems that Clarke's new book is currently the No. 1-selling product on Amazon.com, and that book just happens to be about the Bush administration's response to the 9/11 attacks and the terrorist threat. Wow, who would have imagined? What a coincidence that Clarke's book is released so close to the 9/11 panel. 

Am I implying, and not very subtly, that Richard Clarke might have intentionally given excessively harsh testimony to the 9/11 commission in an effort to create a publicity buzz for his book? Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying.

I'm certainly not opposed to someone trying to make an honest buck, and I applaud Clarke's efforts to make enough money to line his underwear with $100 bills. I just feel that his behavior has been a little too blatant.

Of course, just because his testimony is an incredible public relations move, and the fact that it's incredibly critical of Bush, doesn't make what he said incorrect. How can we know if what Clarke alleges is true? Let Condoleezza Rice testify, of course.

From my perspective, it seems that all the arrows point to letting Rice testify publicly before the 9/11 panel to clear the storm cloud rolled in by Clarke, White House policy or not.

Maybe I've missed something, but the only reason I can see for not allowing Rice to go before Congress would be if she really does know something that would corroborate Clarke's testimony and therefore further harm the White House's reputation. Everything Rice has said to the press thus far seems to indicate that is not the case, however.

I feel that Condoleezza Rice should go before the 9/11 commission and spill the beans because she obviously knows something important. I don't care if the White House caves and lets her testify before the public or if Congress caves and lets her speak to the panel in private (though I admit the former would be most ideal), but we need to know what she has to say.

Bean, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at me@mattbean.com.