WILL SHE OR WON’T SHE?….This is getting ridiculous. CBS News reports that Condi may testify after all:

Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts…tells CBSNews.com the change in policy is being discussed at the highest levels in the White House. Rice reportedly believes that it might be positive for her to appear. But President Bush makes the final decision, and is thus far against it, says Roberts.

But here’s what the Washington Post says:

The leading possibility is for Rice to submit to another private session with the commissioners and allow them to release a transcript, the aides said. The aides said they believe no consideration is being given to yielding to the commission’s request that she testify under oath and in public.

….The White House did not allow a recording to be made of what Rice said when she met privately with the commissioners for four hours in February, the aides said

The executive privilege issue has always been a crock since no one is compelling her to testify and therefore no precedent would be set. But regardless, what’s the difference between testifying in private and then releasing a transcript vs. simply testifying in public in the first place? If they aren’t afraid of making the content of her testimony public, what are they afraid of? Her facial expressions? Her tone of voice?


UPDATE: Josh Marshall has more transcript shenanigans. And as long as you’re over there, he’s also asking exactly the right question about why we’re still treating Ahmed Chalabi with kid gloves.

Our ideas can save democracy... But we need your help! Donate Now!