"That distinction made by Clarke does ONLY represent his OPINION, it does not constitute fact."

true. it is his stated opinion and since he headed the counterterrorism policy for the duration of al-quada's development it should get some weight. but it doesn't mean he's incontravertably correct. we need to hear the conflicting opinions testified to UNDER OATH placing the opinion-holder under penalty of law if he/she is lying or manipulating facts for political gain. but if the documents that he presented to rice in january are indeed the same as the national security directive rice signed in september as the bush plan to counter terrorism, would you agree with clarke that that would prove that even tho the bush admin. was offered the same plan in january nothing was done for 8 months? of course, we can't know these facts for sure unless the materials are declassified and dr. rice agrees to testify UNDER OATH to her part in this scenario.

"...at least that is not my reading of the difference between "urgent" and "important."

bush's own words in the book "bush at war" are that he felt no "sense of urgency" about pursuing bin laden. i'd say the differences between urgent (we've got to get on this RIGHT NOW) and important (we're concerned about this and we'll get to it as soon as we can) are easy to see.

"So why testify?"

because the american people and the families of 9/11 victims have a right to know the truth about how their elected officials handled what GWB calls their "most important duty", protecting american citizens. there are conflicts in this testimony that she may be able to resolve. to not do so is unpatriotic, cowardly, and disingenuous. the separation of powers ploy is a legalistic charade to avoid her responsibilities as a part of the government agencies that handled this duty. and for GWB to refuse to allow her testimony just reinforces the perception to those americans that are not "true believers" that he's got something to hide. if there is nothing, we need to know it. if there is something to hide we've got to know what that is.

"I have heard on numerous TV talk shows (including even CNN) that any member of the Administration that
presents testimony before a Congressional committee MUST tell the truth whether or not they are under oath.
That does not seem to faze any of the naysayers in this community however."

let's exercise a tiny bit of critical thinking here, even if it hurts our little brains. 1.) things you hear on TV talk shows are not necessarily true. they are not obligated by any authority to provide truth and may even be infected by "liberal bias" or be part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". 2.) if one does not testify UNDER OATH one cannot be prosecuted for perjury. the charge of perjury means "lying while under oath". a president or senior offical might fire a staffer who he thinks lied while not under oath but cannot prosecute him/her under the law. that's a big difference when you're trying to get the truth out. 3.) why does this not faze "naysayers"? because it's such an obvious load of horsepucky to anyone who knows or cares anything about the law, beaurocratic procedure or the need to be sure about what really happened on a day that "changed everything".

"So what I wrote was not something that I "thought up," I was merely reporting what those who are much more knowledgable than I said. AS to the difference between testifying under oath or simply testifying, I would assume you are right. But it is conceivable, I believe, that if one was found to have lied, not under oath, they could still be prosecuted."

while i'm sure there are people much more knowledgeble about things than you, dougR, and myself, we are still responsible as americans to do some critical thinking and research and educate ourselves as well as we can to make informed decisions to preserve and strengthen our democracy or someday we will surely lose it. how can a person be found to have lied about testimony and be prosecuted if they have not sworn to tell the truth? tho you say you can concieve of this, do you have any evidence of this happening, any knowledge of law or systems that could bring such a charge in absence of sworn testimony, or any basis for this idea besides you thinking "well, surely this could happen"?

by the way, dougR, still waiting for a reply to my question about specific bush lies over on the "popular views of
the bush admin." thread.