It seems to be as I supposed it would be. Were Condleeza Rice to testify under oath before the committee, the majority of you folks wouldn't believe her if she refuted Richard Clarke's testimony.

So why testify?

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.

DougR