Time to compromise

THE BUSH administration is understandably wary of Democrats bearing gifts, especially when the Democrat is Charles E. Schumer. The New York senator is not only the party’s point man in savaging the administration for the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, he is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the administration still would be wise to embrace a compromise that Schumer floated this week about terms under which current and former White House officials, such as Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers, could testify to Congress about whatever roles they may have played in the firings.

President Bush had previously insisted, unreasonably, that White House aides brief Congress in private, without a transcript. The Senate has authorized -- but not issued -- congressional subpoenas requiring Rove and Miers to testify under oath.

The Schumer proposal, announced Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” neatly splits the difference -- calling for a private meeting but with a transcript, “and we can reserve judgment as to whether we meet them publicly afterward.” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, quickly embraced Schumer’s idea.

That the White House played an important and intrusive role in these firings is already clear. Whether that involvement was designed to interfere with particular investigations (something Bush concedes would be a scandal) is a legitimate and vital question for Congress to pursue.

In opposing sworn testimony by his present and former White House advisors, Bush has invoked executive privilege and the need for presidents to be able to receive candid advice from their advisors. The fact that the best-known defender of executive privilege -- President Nixon -- asserted it to conceal his own wrongdoing doesn’t mean that this principle isn’t important. But the best way for Bush to preserve it is to embrace a compromise that would spare the nation a constitutional confrontation.