The Laughing Wolf

A Terrible And Costly Mistake

The decision by the President to allow his National Security Advisor to testify under oath in public before the 9-11 commission is a mistake of tragic proportions. Never mind election year politics, never mind that people are already licking their chops at this opportunity, and never mind the potential damage to anti-terrorism efforts. The real damage from this is the blow it represents to the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were a smart bunch, and when it came time to set up the government of the Republic, they played card sharp. What was needed was a dynamic stasis that would ensure the maximum amount of freedom and liberty, while preventing despotism and other ills plainly seen in the governments of Old Europe. A binary system is never stable (and is the reason the Republic is NOT a formal two-party system), just look at a see-saw, so they opted for the most stable structure of all, a tripod. In so doing, they not only stacked the deck, they stacked it so that it was almost frozen solid.

Not quite solid, mind you, for change is needed but they wanted to ensure it was not change of whim or passion. Change was only supposed to come after a lengthy and laborious process.

The key to ensuring this was the separation of powers. The government is divided into the Judicial, Legislative, and Administrative branches for a reason. Each has separate duties: different jobs and most especially different responsibilities to the Republic and to the Citizens of same. Knowing that the Legislative branch would be most readily susceptible to temptation, it was split into two houses, so as to provide a check. Knowing that the Judiciary would be the key factor in this Great Experiment, the decision was made to have it appointed by the Executive branch, with advise and consent from the Legislative. As a side note, it is this control that is at the heart of the current judicial appointments fiasco and really has been for about 100 years, since the Judicial branch is the deciding vote.

Since the beginning of the Republic, the different sides have tried to gain control of the system. Because of the clear separation of powers, this has been extremely difficult, and efforts have focused on other areas and issues. Sometimes, it has flared up into deliberate efforts to erode the power of one side or another. A good example of this is the War Powers Act, which no president has ever acknowledged as legal and binding. It was an attempt by the Legislative branch to seize control of the war making abilities of the Executive branch. Each side dances around it, but neither side really wants the courts to rule on it because each fears – rightly – the results of such a ruling. Until now, the same was true about testimony, especially testimony in a time of war.

At no time has the Legislative branch ever been able to compel a sitting president to testify under oath, except in an impeachment hearing. At no time has the Legislative branch ever been able to compel the top advisors to testify under oath, except in an impeachment hearing. The theory was that to do so would breach the separation of powers, and deny the President full faith, advice, and counsel by said advisors. That there could and would be no candid and full discussions, and through such that the ability of the President to make and set policy and decisions would be compromised. That then the Executive branch would be suborned to the Legislative, and the tripod destroyed. We would be back to the see-saw, except that this would also effectively give the Legislative branch full control of the judiciary, making it a monopod. A dictatorship or totalitarian regime in all but name.

I have heard the alleged agreement, that this will not be considered precedent. I have heard the platitudes that the Legislative branch can not and will not use this against this or any other administration by any part in the future. I have but one thing to say:

Bullshit.

When has any politician, and most especially politicians acting en masse for their own gain and to advance their party ever kept their word? Right now, I can only think of one member of Congress I would trust to honor this word, a Democrat, and he is leaving. Which means that I expect Congress to honor this so-called agreement in the same way I expect a shark to bypass a bleeding and thrashing animal in the water; that is to say, not at all.

If this goes through, there is no turning back and the damage can not be undone. The separation of powers will be undermined in a way that is clearly detrimental to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

To say that I am disappointed in President Bush is an understatement. To my mind, this is a clear violation of his oath of office, and to his duty to the Republic. What he is doing is the easy way, the way of the politician. Doing what is right is seldom easy, and most often is difficult and expensive to one’s person. Doing right, in this case, would have meant not unleashing Ms. Rice on television, but letting others carry the burden. Doing right in this case would have meant avoiding this situation, and most of all it would mean not setting a terrible, costly, and dangerous precedent for the future.

I expected more of Mr. Bush and his team. I expect more of any person serving as president. Over the last decade or so, I have been terribly disappointed in my Presidents, and in those serving in Congress. So, while I am disappointed in the President, I am hardly surprised.

The damage here is done. All any of us can do now, is try to make the best of a bad situation.

-30-