WH terms to allow Condi's and *'s testimony

This Hendrik Hertzberg story in the New Yorker is a couple of weeks old, but deserves a timely kick today...

"...The <911> commission is having to pay dearly for what, in his statement, the President called without irony 'this level of cooperation'. The fine print was in a letter from Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, to Kean and his Democratic deputy, Lee Hamilton, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:

'The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the Commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the 911 commission does not set any precedent for future Commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a National Security Advisor or any other White house official.

Second, the Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice.

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accomodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement--Commission access to the President and Vice President. I am authorized to advise you that the President and Vice President have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 Commissioners, with one Commission staff member present to take notes of the session'."

<snip>

"...what about the 'one Commission staff member'? In Cicero's Rome, having a scribe take notes was the latest thing in audio technology, and so it remained right through the days when the young Charles Dickens earned his living in the press gallery of the House of Commons. Now, though, there are more reliable ways of keeping track of what people say in important meetings. Yet there will be no official electronic recording of Bush-and-Cheney's testimony...and there will be no transcript."

n/c

just who in the WH hasn't testified already? Who might the Commission want to talk to AFTER Bush/Cheney and Rice testimony?

The letter sounds like a typical lawyer letter, but strikes me a little odd that they feel they still have to protect (some?) others in the WH.

they didn't want any future terrorism staffers coming up with contradictions.