The White House “offer” to let Congress “interview” Karl Rove and other key aides about the firing of a group of U.S. attorneys ? but not “testify” under oath or with a transcript made ? is a laughable dodge. It would have done credit to Richard Nixon in the days of his Watergate travails.
Not since Nixon gave heavily edited transcripts of the White House tapes to Congress in the Watergate investigation has such a transparent pitch been made to derail or undermine a legitimate congressional inquiry.
That gambit more than 30 years ago only served to underscore the Nixon gang?s pathetic efforts to thwart the Senate Watergate Committee?s pursuit of evidence of a White House cover-up. It inspired the Capitol Hill sleuths to press on with their investigation.
What makes the current White House proposal so ludicrous is, first of all, that no such high stakes seem to be involved in the current congressional desire to take formal testimony from Rove and the others. And second, why shouldn?t they be sworn to tell the truth like anyone else, and their testimony recorded and set down?
If the issue is executive privilege–the claim that the executive is entitled to hear from his aides without what they have said to him in private made public ? President Bush has the right to invoke that claim. But to send them up to Congress under such limitations is clearly making an offer the legislators should refuse.
In Wednesday?s briefing by presidential press secretary TonySnow, the oft-maligned White House press corps relentlessly peppered him with questions that stripped away the vacuous nature of the no-oath, no-transcript proposal.
At excruciating length, Snow sounded like a more polished Ronald Ziegler, Nixon?s mouthpiece, ducking Watergate bullets or declaring previous alibis “inoperable.” After calling the offer “an extraordinarily generous” one, Snow argued it didn?t matter whether the aides took an oath or their exact words were transcribed.
“Do you want to get at the truth or do you want to create a political spectacle?” he asked. “The question you need to ask is what do you gain from the transcript, and the answer is, not much.”
One incredulous reporter replied: “You gain accuracy… what was said, not a characterization of what was said, but you have exactly what was said.”
When Snow argued that the White House was offering “interviews,” a reporter reminded him that the senators “say they want testimony. [In] testimony, there is a transcript. This is not an interview. You want it to be an interview, but it?s up to Congress. They?re the ones investigating…”
A questioner reminded him: “Tony, Congress has held hearings from time immemorial. Presidents have even gone there to testify there. What would make this a political circus?” To this, the press secretary for the President of the United States replied: “Are you kidding me?… You do not believe that this would be a political circus?”
Snow allowed in response to another question that members of Congress who heard the aides? remarks would be free to take notes and pass on what they had been said to the press and public.
“So is it the White House?s position,” a question came back, “that the public should be satisfied with the representations of members of Congress about what administration officials testify?… Why do you have a transcript of this briefing every day, and you won?t have a transcript of what Karl Rove is going to tell Congress?” Snow dug in. With all the e-mails and other data already given out, he wondered, “and you?re haggling over a transcript?”
A reporter, noting that Bush had said “we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,” asked him whether the president “feels as though Karl and other top aides are being unfairly targeted, in some way singled out? Is he feeling sort of like he needs in way to protect them from a…?”
Snow broke in: “I think what the president is really trying to do is protect the integrity of the institution.”
All the above comes from the White House transcript of Snow?s briefing. It sure was helpful to have in trying to understand the administration?s offer.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
