"Rice and the rest of the administration refuse to take an oath because they know they are lying through their teeth. Clarke has in no way been discredited, contrary to what DougR would have you believe."

Rice is the only member of the Administration asked to testify by the commission who did not testify under oath.

I admit the difference between Clarke's testimony and his book are not enough to support any charge he's not telling the same story. I don't know about the comparison with his 2002 testimony.

On the other hand, whatever Clarke's perception of the focus on terrorism in the Clinton and Bush administrations, neither accepted his most aggressive proposals for dealing with terrorism. More to the point, as I understand it, when senior officials of both administrations were asked whether Clarke's proposals have prevented 9/11, both responded that they believed they would not.

If that's the case, why am I supposed to get excited about Clarke's testimony? Because Bush would rather have attacked Iraq, but accepted that we had to concentrate on Afghanistan first after the attack?

That's kinda the point made in the Seatle Times yesterday:

"The Sept. 11 commission hearings are being broadcast in political stereo.

"Those listening on the political right hear half the argument — that former President Clinton is to blame for not stopping the terrorist attacks of 2001. Those listening on the left hear the other half — that President Bush is to blame.

The result so far is that neither side accepts a view blaming or excusing both presidents. 'Each side is listening to the side it wants to hear,' said John Zogby, an independent pollster based in New York. 'I don't see it changing minds or swaying people one way or the other.'

But it sure keeps us talking, doesn't it?