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”.