[Coeur de Lion]

Give me a break! She absolutely should testify before the commitee. One, there's nothing lost if she does. And secondly, that would prevent the media and the dems from using her lack of open testimony as proof that there must be some substance in Clarke's lies!

[cksharks]

Gimme a break I am glad that they are not listening to you and giving up on seperation of powers.

[elfman2]

"Give me a break! She absolutely should testify before the commitee. One, there's nothing lost if she does. And secondly, that would prevent the media and the dems from using her lack of open testimony as proof that there must be some substance in Clarke's lies!"

What’s “lost” if she testifies is this committee fading from memory rather than a second round of high profile officials looking like defendants and democrats launching into anti-Bush diatribes in questioning. Another thing lost is Democrats ability to keep the administration on the defensive for another week carried live on all networks.

You really think that her testifying would keep Democrats from claiming it as proof that Clark has substance? I think they’d just call for the CIA Chief, Sec Def, VP and on until someone finally refused, and then they’d call that “proof”.

[Shermy]

I she/CBS does not point out :

1. The absuridty of Clarke's statement about her not knowing AQ,

2. Clarke's pal is Rand Beers and identify him


I'll say the Bush Admin is rank amateurs. All the other disputes are a pissing match.

Clarke is a Kerry op, he did not think up the "important, not urgent" meme all by himself.

[norton]

"Give me a break! She absolutely should testify before the commitee. One, there's nothing lost if she does. And secondly, that would prevent the media and the dems from using her lack of open testimony as proof that there must be some substance in Clarke's lies!"

I take it you don't play either card or chess very much.
When the other guy is leading with a feint, you don't want to follow because he has something else in store. Sometimes called an ambush.

Ms Rice has already testified in private, to change that now would be to hand the bad guys an ace, or in this instance, leave the Queen at risk.

PS....NOTHING is going to "prevent the media and the dems from using her lack of open testimony as proof..." of any damn thing they agree to!

[ladyinred]

There is a little matter called National Security that those on this so called commission are fully aware of that makes it so that Condi Should not testify live on television.

There is nothing they can ask her on camera that they can't ask behind closed doors. If their real intent was to find out what went wrong, they wouldn't be whining about her only appearing off camera.

All they will do is make speeches and smear her, and if their actions of late mean anything, they will not care a bit about our national security. This is all about political points, not our country's best interests.

[CyberAnt]

She's alreadya testified for 4 hours - privately.

Remember - whenever the dems (primarily senators) demand anything from Bush it's because it's payback for what the repubs did to Clinton. That's all it is - petty payback.

However, they also want the President to be subserviant to them (the dems). Let them yell - what else is new!