|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 :::
Steven Jens wrote, just below, on the Rice testimony story:
I might be wrong, but I don't think there was all that much political damage in the end. And this may have been a negotiating tactic -- by pretending that this was a big concession, the administration might be hoping to avoid giving up something else. If Eric was alienated by the ultimate concession -- I assume he counts as one of Bush's core supporters -- I'd like a better understanding of why.
This I will provide:
- I can't see how it was a "negotiating tactic". What else could they possibly be hoping to avoid giving up? Perhaps they were trying to keep the press busy on a non-story for several days, keeping them away from real issues. That's all I can think of.
- I don't know if I'm one of Bush's core supporters. I voted for him in 2000 and may do so again. Nevertheless, this affair has made me examine two disturbing alternatives:
- Let's say that the Bush administration really believed the the principle of separation of powers and that's why they didn't want Rice to testify. Their considered belief was that a National Security Advisor should never be testify under oath before a committee established by Congress. While I disagree with this argument for largely irrelevant reasons, I can respect it. They believe that the administration should have one public face and that internal discussions should not be made public -- and that making such discussions public at the request of an organ of the legislative branch compromises the ability of the executive branch to formulate policy effectively. If this is true, though, then why and how did they change their minds?
- Have they all of a sudden decided that separation of powers is an unimportant doctrine -- just in the span of a few days reversed a strongly held view on political philosophy? That's very disturbing and does not speak well of the administration's understanding of political philsophy or constitutional law.
- Or have they decided that they should violate their principles on the grounds of political expediency? That's worse!
- Alternatively, we can examine the possibility that their motives for initially trying to prevent Rice's testimony were not philosophical, but political. They didn't want her to testify, but they have now backed down under mounting political and media pressure. So, what possible political motives could they have had for wanting to prevent Rice from testifying under oath? They can't believe that she'll look bad on TV, because they send her around to every talk show on Earth. So, they must be afraid of what she'll say to the commission. Does this imply that what she would say under oath would differ from what she has already told the commission in her earlier testimony, which was not under oath? Or that her testimony will be contradictory to other administration testimony? Or simply that her testimony will not reflect well on the administration? None of these alternatives is good.
This is the sort of thing that can alienate supporters. Either the Bush administration has weak principles, poorly thought-out ideas on constitutional law, or something to hide. Maybe more than one.
::: posted by Eric at 9:35 PM
|
|
|
|
