Wampum

Let Me At ‘Em

I know that this dates me, but I was a big fan of the Portland Trailblazers in the Bill Walton era.

One Portland player, Maurice Lucas, was an enforcer. He was about 6’9” and 250 pounds of muscle. He also had a mean streak developed growing up in a very tough section of Pittsburgh. He could and did intimidate players, referees, reporters and even his own coaches. Whenever the game got overly physical, particularly if other teams were trying to muscle Bill Walton, Lucas would quickly put an end to it, with an elbow if possible and with his fists if necessary.

In one playoff game, an opposing player drove to the basket only to be leveled by Lucas. The opposing player, not knowing that it was Lucas who had fouled him, jumped up, cursing, looking for a fight. Lucas puffed out his chest and took one step forward. The opposing player saw, for the first time, that it was big, mean Maurice Lucas who had fouled him. He quickly began having second thoughts about the wisdom of fisticuffs. He clearly was scared.

At about the same time, referees and other players had surrounded and restrained both players. Once Lucas was firmly held by two or three other players and the danger had passed, the opposing player’s attitude changed again. He began pointing at Lucas and yelling “I want a piece of you.” Once he was in no danger, it was easy to pretend to be brave to try to save face. No one watching the game was fooled in the least.

Who was the opposing player? I do not wish to say but for the purpose of this post, let’s think of him as Condi Rice.

Dr. Rice says she would be “delighted” to testify before the 9/11 commission.

The Times reports:

Ms. Rice has said repeatedly that if she had her way, she would testify, and late on Thursday she offered to be interviewed in private, as she was for four hours on Feb. 7. But President Bush, her close confidante, has been adamant, White House officials say, that any public appearance would violate longstanding precedent against incumbent national security advisers testifying before a legislative body.

Ms. Rice is described by administration officials as being frustrated at having to remain publicly silent before the commission and as being eager to make her arguments against the case that Richard A. Clarke, her former subordinate, has marshaled against her.

Dr. Rice says she really, really wants to testify but Mr. Bush just won't let her. The president is “adamant” in refusing to allow her to testify publicly and under oath.

What the basis for the refusal? The White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a letter to the 9/11 commission Chair and Vice Chair setting forth the reasons for the refusal to turn Condi loose. He wrote:

More important than the legal precedents are the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers at stake here. In order for President Bush and future Presidents to continue to receive the best and most candid possible advice from their White House staff on counterterrorism and other national security issues, it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the Commission.

That argument has a degree of plausibility but is, in fact, unmitigated garbage. The key word is “compelled.”

The 9/11 Commission has not issued a subpoena to to compel Rice to testify. It is perfectly clear that Dr. Rice could voluntarily (with White House consent) agree to appear before the committee and testify in public and under oath.

The protections for the National Security Advisor can not be greater than those of the President at whose pleasure she serves. If the President could voluntarily testify before the commission there is no reason why Dr. Rice could not.

The precedent of a sitting President testifying voluntarily before a congressional body is clear and indisputable.

A month after becoming President as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford issued a pardon to the former president. A firestorm of criticism erupted over allegations that a deal of resignation for a pardon had been made.

PBS describes how Gerald Ford handled the controversy:

The pardon, coming only one month after Nixon's resignation and Ford's inaugural, also provoked a new suspicion to imperil Ford's fledgling presidency:

Was there a deal between Nixon and Ford?

Responsible voices in Congress raised the question... To make a truthful response, Ford knew that he would have to disclose that Al Haig, Nixon's chief of staff, had proposed a pardon as a condition for Nixon to resign. With his usual directness, Ford decided the best way to handle the problem was for him to go up to the House, testify, and spell it out...

Ford did testify before Congress, as no president had ever done before. Before the House Judiciary Committee, Ford gave his account of what happened in his meeting with Haig. Was there a deal? one representative asked.

Ford's reply was blunt: "There was no deal. Period. Under no circumstances." .....

If a sitting President can voluntarily testify before a Congressional Committee without the Republic falling, there is no constitutional reason that the National Security Advisor can not voluntarily testify in public and under oath.

What stopped the basketball player from instigating a fight was his abject fear of Maurice Lucas. Once that fear passed, he tried to save face with a show of bravado.

The only thing stopping Dr. Rice from testifying, publicly and under oath, is her and the President's abject fear of the facts becoming known to the American people.

The rest is just a show of bravado to save face.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at March 26, 2004 08:25 PM | TrackBack