Rice Must Tell Story in Full

National security advisor Condoleezza Rice’s appearance before the 9/11 commission will not shove her unwillingly into the spotlight. She’s already led a public campaign to discredit allegations by her former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that the administration failed to focus on terrorism before Sept. 11. But Rice’s public testimony under oath, which President Bush resisted before capitulating to public indignation, will provide her the opportunity to more soberly make the administration’s case for how it is conducting the war on terror.

To “lay out the facts,” as Bush said Tuesday she would do, Rice must give up her nitpicking rebuttals of Clarke and talk honestly about what the administration did and failed to do before 9/11 to prevent a terrorist attack. She should robustly explain why it was imperative to attack Iraq despite the now-clear cost to the larger fight against Al Qaeda and its subsidiaries.

Facing up to what wasn’t accomplished will be as important as stating what was. Rice has made much of a secret presidential directive dated Sept. 4, 2001, instructing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to draw up plans “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan.” But actual operations were slated for years later. As for the national security advisor herself, in an undelivered Sept. 11, 2001, speech published in part by the Washington Post, Rice focused on missile defense and said that while it was useful to worry about suitcase bombs, “why put deadbolt locks on your doors and stock up on cans of mace and then decide to leave your windows open?” Being mistaken is not a disgrace. Only by knowing what was ignored or unseen can future attacks be effectively prevented.

The more worrying question is whether the administration’s focus on Iraq was and is a damaging diversion from the war on terrorists. J. Cofer Black, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, testified to the House International Relations subcommittee Thursday that, in Iraq, foreign fighters seek to create what was never there: “These jihadists view Iraq as a new training ground to build their extremist credentials and hone the skills of the terrorist.” Commission members should press Rice about why she believes attacking Iraq was worth draining military and financial resources from the fight against Al Qaeda forces still in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Rice is famous for sticking to the White House message on any topic. She skillfully turns a question to fit her desired answer. However, she will not be able to treat inquisitive commission members with the scorn that she reserved for terrorism expert-turned-author Clarke.

Rice will be the only person on Bush’s staff to testify publicly before the commission. She should offer a detailed and forthright accounting. Perfection is much harder to regard as the truth than the warts-and-all version.