In a surprising about face, President Bush announced yesterday that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice would be allowed to testify in public, under oath, before the special commission on the Sept. 11 attacks. While withholding Rice's testimony was legally justifiable, the decision to allow her to speak represents a necessary step towards understanding how the attacks occurred.
Rice, as National Security Advisor, is not a Senate-confirmed cabinet member. There are no allegations of criminal behavior, and the issues on the table clearly involve national security. These circumstances combined with a historical precedent make for a strong legal argument against her testimony.
The problem was, many Americans were not buying the argument.
Preventing Rice from testifying was proving to be costly for the Bush administration. The move was even more baffling considering the numerous television interviews she has granted over the past few weeks. It led many, such as "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart, to snidely conclude that Rice was more comfortable on television where she "doesn't have to tell the truth." While such remarks were made in jest, the refusal to testify still struck many as suspicious.
And of course it fueled suggestions by the Democrats -- already taking advantage of former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke's accusations -- that the administration was inept when it came to the war on terror. If the Bush administration is to win the credibility war about national security, it will have to refute Clarke's charges that it downplayed terrorist threats before Sept. 11. Rice's testimony could go a long way towards that end.
That said, those who have criticized the government for its failure to prevent Sept. 11 need to tone down the rhetoric. It is true that tighter national security might have stopped at least some of the terrorists from conducting the attacks. And it is possible that Bush, whose forte was never international politics, did not fully grasp the danger al Qaeda presented. But regardless of the intelligence we did or did not possess, America simply did not have the political stomach to deal seriously with the threat. The mere suggestion of invading Afghanistan and dismantling the Taliban would have met a wall of opposition prior to Sept. 11.
Clarke's apology to the Sept. 11 victims -- though touching -- is unwarranted. The terrorists who financed, planned, and executed the attacks bear full responsibility. While there clearly was room for improvement, in the pre Sept. 11 world it is difficult to see how such attacks could have been completely prevented.
In the wake of the national security failure, the best outcome is an honest, open, and thorough examination of what was done and what should have been done. Allowing Rice to testify is a step towards meeting that responsibility.
More from The Tufts Daily
