Last week Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, took pokes at both presidents. What got most of the ink and airtime, though, is Clarke’s testimony, before the commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that Bush’s administration didn’t pay enough attention to Clarke’s warnings about terrorism.
The odd reaction from the White House has been to let Clarke remain the center of attention. Odd because Clarke is anything but an unimpeachable witness. Since 2001 he’s displayed a troubling ease in both praising and decrying the Bush administration’s preparedness against terrorism. This is a can’t-have-it-both-ways issue, yet the facile Clarke has tried to do just that.
Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice, the Bush national security adviser who could best answer Clarke’s current accusations, hasn’t been allowed to testify before the same commission.
Judging by her appearance Sunday evening on “60 Minutes,” Rice isn’t scared of tough questions about events before and after Sept. 11. She says she’d like to testify. But the White House says no, arguing that letting her appear under oath before the commission would violate the principle of executive privilege.
Reports swirled Monday that the White House and the commission were negotiating a compromise. That’s good because, as is, the administration looks needlessly defensive.
Executive privilege is a complex constitutional question. The point in this context is that a president is entitled to talk candidly with top aides without subsequent scrutiny from the legislative branch. The Sept. 11 commission is a creature of Congress. That said, the White House is relying on what John Lehman, a Republican on the commission, correctly calls “a legalistic approach.” This is a case in which being right on technical grounds can also amount to–Lehman again–“a political blunder of the first order.”
That’s a little over the top. Americans may be buying Clarke’s new book, but many aren’t buying his story. A new Newsweek poll finds 25 percent of the public viewing Clarke as a “dedicated public servant”–while 50 percent say he is “motivated by personal and political reasons.” After a week of bashing from Clarke and from Bushphobic Democrats, voters approve of Bush’s handling of homeland security and the war in Iraq by a margin of 57 percent to 38 percent, down from 65-28 six weeks ago. But, the magazine reports, “[B]y a 2-1 margin, voters say that the president and his administration `have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have’–and, by the same 2-1 margin, say Bill Clinton and his administration did not.”
Survey data released Monday by the Pew Research Center show that it’s Democratic challenger John Kerry, not Bush, who has been losing the confidence of voters. The two are running neck-and-neck among registered voters–47 percent favor Kerry, 46 percent favor Bush. In mid-March, Kerry led 52-43. But on the question of which man would do the better job of defending the country against future terrorist attacks, Bush continues to lead Kerry–53 to 29.
The White House shouldn’t waive executive privilege on the basis of polling results. It’s clear, though, that a majority of Americans see Bush as a steward they trust. Letting Condoleezza Rice testify under oath, in public, would let those Americans judge Bush all the more thoroughly.
