Just minutes ago, the White House announced that NSA Condi Rice will testify before the 9/11 Commission, thus caving to intense political pressure.
This, in many ways, was inevitable. The alleged “compromise” the White House was floating never made any sense, and with so many public officials — including Republicans — insisting that the reasons for not cooperating were terribly unpersuasive, it looked increasingly like Rice didn’t have much of a choice.
Now comes the tricky part. How in the world will Rice explain her lengthy record of inconsistencies and obvious falsehoods?
Update: The always-great Tom Schaller had an amusing take on the White House’s decision-making process:
Clearly, because the president doesn’t need polls or focus groups to tell him how to make up his mind, here’s what must have unfolded during the past week: The president and his top advisers spent hours discussing various theories of the constitutional separation of powers, examining the precedents, and generally ruminating on the significance and standards for claiming executive privilege, both for the immediate as well as long term. They brought constitutional scholars to Crawford as the president vacationed, and in long, tedious sessions weighed the merits of the various and competing theories related to the separation of powers, never for a moment averting their eyes from the broader goal of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.
When they came out on the other side, this always-humble, self-effacing Administration arrived at a reasoned, measured, high-minded conclusion that, in order to uphold the country’s highest principles, their initial resistance to allowing Rice to testify in public and under oath was bad for the country and our Constitution, and reversed their position accordingly.
This is the sort of thoughtful, bold, decisive leadership we’ve come to expect from our president.
Yes, in case there was any doubt, Schaller is being sarcastic.