DugR, when there is conflicting testimony, the first thing I look at is what is the person's likely motives for saying what they are saying.

Clarke has nothing to fear. He can't get fired, because he isn't in the administration anymore. He apparently doesn't fear prosecution for perjuring himself, so presumably he either has the goods, or knows where the goods are at the very least, that would exonerate him of any such charge.

Now, what would Rice's motives be? To protect the president and his administration, including covering her own ass, so there are no more investigations into adminstration actions.

Let us not forget Doug, in the Watergate era, Nixon administration officials lied, engaged in a cover-up, and conspiracy to cover-up, lied again and again to Congress and the American people, and finally, did jail time. Quite a few of them, in fact.

These are serious charges we deserve to the answers to, yet you and some others here, are pretty damn glib about all this. You are prepared to dismiss anything former administration officials have said that is critical of the president and the current administration.

Why would you be so uncritical and unconcerned about these charges, given the history of such deceptions, conspiracies, and cover-ups being exposed in our recent history?