[Timeout]

I agree with the president's decision about Dr. Rice's testimony.

I shared emails with Jonah Goldberg on this subject today...we were discussing how the media is offering NO CONTEXT on the executive privilege issue...

Jonah,
You're right that the media has given no context to Dr. Rice's refusal to tesify.

That context might include:
1) No NSC advisor in history has testified on policy issues. (Every instance of previous NSC testimony was in the context of a criminal investigation.)

2) Unlike Cabinet heads, advisors to the president are not confirmed by Congress. The president relies on the unfettered opinions of his advisors. If they worried that every conversation was subject to Congressional review, would they feel as free to agree---or disagree----with the president in the messy early days of policy formulation?

3) We are at war. Do we want our NSC advisor disclosing policies and strategies in public? I feel certain that, if Dr. Rice testified publicly, partisan members of the commision would ask repeated questions to which Dr. Rice would be compelled to answer, "I cannot discuss that for national security reasons". It would make her look bad.

4) If the White House allowed her to testify, what's to stop Congress from citing other "important matters" and demanding that she testify on, say, Iraq policy? Or Pakistan policy. Or Israel policy. All important, and thus ripe targets for future Dem mischief. The wall of separation between the oval office and capitol hill would have been breached for all time.

I would guess most Americans interpret the refusal to testify as evidence of something to hide. And why shouldn't they---given the lack of context provided by the media?

[BigWaveBetty]

You both are right however I think we might be seeing a rope - a - dope strategery (hey, just trying to keep my thinking outside the box thingy ready).

Perhaps it's because Condi is so smart and that I'm no where near her kind of brain power but I believe she would run circles around even the slimiest of those (Ben Venesta) on the panel. Holding to their guns on the issue of privilege then giving in satisfies all sides. And brings more attention to a public hearing, which makes it hard for the media to pick and choose what they want to report.

I don't mind, call me naive. :-)

On Special Report tonight, Brit said that some of Condi's interview was cut out of the 60 minutes show Sunday night. Specifically when she told Bradley that Tenet had met with the president 46 times with some other info.

[Endeavor]

The problem is, the White House is providing no context for the executive privilege argument. They can't depend on the media to put forth their point of view. The White House should be pounding the airwaves with WHY it's a big deal, not just that it IS a big deal. After all, they're the ones standing on precedent.