Perhaps I’m off-base, but isn’t it possible that the Bush administration’s 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 Clarke’s testimony that Rice would appear. By initially refusing the committee’s 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 administration’s most effective and persuasive speaker. It is almost certain that many, many more will tune in to watch her testimony than heard Clarke’s. 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.
Absolutly. Don’t forget that the DNC’s Plan to use a public hearing as a means of attacking President Bush was outlined in the famous Cyber Memo of last December. So Rove has had several months to plan his counter attack. What he has done is build a situation where in peoples minds, Clark is what they see when they think about the Democrats and Condi is what the see when they think about the Republicans. It is a minor form of brand building. This is great for the Bushies, since Clark is a lothsome self-serving Brown-nosing slug. Ever American knows a Clark. The guy who is clawing his way to the tops by sucking up to his boss while stealing credit for good work and shifting the blame for bad. We peons recognised Clark as soon as he opened his mouth. Kerry is losing about 3 points a week while this farce of a hearing goes on. You know it’s a farce because Clinton (the former president) hasn’t been called. The longer it goes on, the more Mr. Rove likes it.
Feen el haweya