longer?
I was watching the Capitol Gang last night on CNN. Bob Novak implied that Dr. Rice will have to testify in public and under oath at some point. If her actions are defensible as she implies, and I have no reason to doubt what she is saying, then getting the information out in a public forum as quickly as possible is the bast option that she can pursue. Some people are now comparing her to Admiral John Poindexter, who many, including a lot of conservatives consider to be the worst National Security Adviser since the office was initiated.
-- Modified on 3/28/2004 7:28:00 PM
Just read that many congressional Republicans are now pressing her to testify under oath before the Commission.
I suspect that her argument against testifying, i.e., the separation of powers, will ultimately suffer from the number of talk shows she is doing with Talk Radio personalities.
I agree that once she's said it all to Tim Russert, then the only issue left is to decide whether it has to be repeated under oath.
However, the defensibility of her not testifying will only be tested if congress decides to petition the Supreme Court to override executive privilege, ala Nixon; HIGHLY unlikely that a Republican body will take that action in an election year.
Bush knows this is SOLELY a PR issue and will never be heard by the court.