I am trying to put myself in the position of the surviving family members of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims, but it's impossible. The closest I get (not that it is a competition) is my close friend living two blocks from the World Trade Center and traveling to the Upper West Side during the mayhem. I tried calling him, to no avail, and for hours I did not know if he was alive. Being the pessimist that I am, I thought he was probably dead. Flashing back to that moment literally makes me quiver. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's past refusal to publicly testify before the Sept. 11 commission made the families quiver all over again.
To be clear, let's restate the facts. Rice refused to testify publicly on the grounds of the principle of separation of powers of the state and the longstanding principle of national security advisers not testifying publicly before Congress.
"But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress," Rice said on her recent appearance on "60 Minutes."
OK, so for a couple days the Bush administration cared about principle. It did not care about principle when it refused to extend the deadline for the commission to submit its final report, with no plausible reason for refusing a deadline extension. Principle takes a lower priority than the government being accountable to the public in this case because of the severity of the events.
Rice's recent appearances on "60 Minutes" and in op-eds in The Washington Post discussing the pre-Sept. 11 controversy contain the subjects she will discuss in front of the commission. This is hypocrisy at the highest level of government.
Rice seemed to have early onset of amnesia when remembering what her job description is. Her job is to advise the president on national security issues and to take steps to prevent harm to the United States. By not committing to public testimony initially, she shirked her responsibility to the public, the government, the president and the commission.
The president has made statements saying he will not allow 9-11 to happen again. OK, I am happy that you agree with every American on this issue, Mr. President. By not wishing the public to hear from top government officials you are denying the public its democratic, guaranteed right to hear the circumstances that led to our darkest days and to help prevent further catastrophe.
What is confusing about this controversy as well is other former high-ranking government officials who have agreed to testify before the commission. Bill Clinton and Al Gore are scheduled for private sit-downs with the commission. So far, almost every high-ranking official from the Clinton administration has testified, either privately or publicly. With these facts, what was the overriding reason for keeping Rice from publicly testifying? If these previous officials are willing to testify, what was stopping Rice?
I believe Rice was hiding behind principle because she had nowhere else to hide. Why didn't she have another reason? Because it was unavailable to her.
Rice's formal training in international affairs was focused solely on the Soviet Union, which would work if the Soviet Union still existed. The truth is not that the administration didn't handle the terrorist threat - it's that it did not have the capability to.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rice, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Clarke, the former counter-terror chief, all have Cold War backgrounds, making them unable to handle the threat from terrorism.
With this in mind, the reason for the invasion of Iraq becomes clearer. Their analysis that Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror is inevitable due to their Cold War mentality of state-sponsored terrorism, which is, for the most part, a thing of the past. The administration (with the exception of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has created doubts about the approach to the war on terrorism) is stuck in the Cold War mentality because of their past experiences in international affairs, which is all they know.
I wonder what Rice's response would be if she was asked to publicly testify before a panel of the victims' surviving families? She would probably say, "I can't, I have principles to follow."
Ryan Grannan-Doll is a junior in the School of International Service and is the assistant national news editor.
