So, now that Hastert has backed down on the extension issue it looks like the 9/11 commission wants to play chicken with the president on his insistence that he not visit with the full panel and that his meeting last only an hour:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGSN5CPVF1.DTL
I recognize that it is rather extraordinary for a sitting president to testify before a legislatively created commission, as Scott McClellan chants very time a question gets asked about this. But since he's not giving much more in the way of a response or justification, I'm curious as to what others here see as the reasons for this stance.
You may have missed it because it happened on the same friday that the President's Nat Guard medical records were shown to the press for 20 minutes at the height of that particular circus, but the WH did originally say that the president would agree to testify before the commission. It was only later that same weekend that the admin "clarified" that it would only be meeting with the Chair for an hour.
This is a fine line to walk for the president, and if he's trying to gain the PR benefit of talking to these folks in the first place he runs the risk of looking like he has something to hide by imposing these conditions, even after releasing all those briefing memos, etc.
Or maybe this in combo with the Hastert gambit was a last gasp effort at trying to derail the commission without looking like he's derailing the commission. But that just seems too ham-fisted, even for these guys, as they prepare to wrap themselves in the national security flag at the convention in NYC. I dunno...
