It's time to talk

Every once in a while, it is heartening to unfold a copy of The New York Times and see only happy headlines and happy pictures. This happened Wednesday when page one spoke of increases in congressional child care, barroom pancakes for early-bird Yankees fans and a Buddhist monk who had his bag of string stolen but got it back from a hairdresser who found it on the street.\nRight at the top was a great headline: "Bush allows Rice to testify on 9-11 in a public session."\nThis is a gratifying turn of events and not simply because I like seeing Bush defeated. Condoleezza Rice needs to testify because it forces the Bush administration to remember it works for the people. For far too long, Bush and his cronies have acted with the utmost impunity. Combined with his staff's top-notch ability to keep mum, it is hard as hell to know what they're actually up to.\nAn honest president is an open president, and Bush has been anything but open. One of "The Daily Show's" favorite games is to see how many times White House spokespeople repeat the same one-line message in a single news conference. The Bushies are notorious for avoiding questions from the press and for not deviating from the official message of the day. Can someone infer anything good from such secrecy?\nI doubt anything Rice says will be terribly earth-shattering. Still, Bush's zeal in gagging her makes it plausible she knows one or two things of interest. Up until now, Bush had invoked executive privilege to keep those items quiet. This little caveat keeps cabinet conversations confidential in order to allow candid speech between the president and his secretaries.\nThese political games are all fine and dandy in most circumstances. But there is only one thing Bush can fear would force him to strain his credibility in an election year. And that, of course, is if he learned of the threat and ignored it.\nIf that's the case: damn executive privilege. I want to know about it.\nAccording to the Times, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will also testify before the commission, but not under oath. Thomas Kean, the commission's chairman, has decided not to press the issue.\n"(Kean) suggested that it would be improper to try to place Bush and Cheney under oath, noting that they had already made a major concession by agreeing to appear," the Times said.\nFor some reason, Kean thinks Bush is being accommodating just by showing up. Back in the 1960s, Kean said, the Warren Commission asked Lyndon Johnson to testify about the Kennedy assassination. Johnson refused, saying in a letter: "Presidents don't do that."\nIn other words, Johnson said presidents don't have to stand before their bosses and be held accountable. He was wrong then and is still wrong now. It's time for Bush to learn that lesson, as well.\nThe president and vice president should be placed under oath. Why should we give them the loophole to not tell the truth? The American people are their superiors, and as our representatives, the commission should stop at nothing to find out who was responsible in 2001.\nKnowing who is at fault will not change the death count of Sept. 11. But, if we discover a negligent president, we might lower the body count from 2004 through 2008.