Perhaps Im off-base, but isnt it possible that the Bush administrations hemming and hawing about whether National Security Advisor Rice would publicly testify before the 9/11 committee was orchestrated in advance? I would suggest that it was decided immediately after Clarkes testimony that Rice would appear. By initially refusing the committees request, the president was able to make it clear that this was a one-time phenomenon, not a precedent-setting event--and since the committee is not compelling the National Security Advisor to testify, I question how important a precedent this could set in any case. Also, it has served to focus more attention on Rice, who is perhaps the administrations most effective and persuasive speaker. It is almost certain that many, many more will tune in to watch her testimony than heard Clarkes. The result is that this might well lay to rest his accusations far more effectively than if she had appeared before the committee immediately thereafter.