What David said ... with added emphasis.

Her responses will be bland enough, and three months from now no one will remember anything she said.

Beltway circle jerk.

I disagree slightly. Based on the Dems I talk to they think Rice is lying and can't wait to get her talking publicly. While I would love for Rice to body slam the Dems and Clarke my gut tells me Harry is probably correct.

Lying about what? Remember, they've had four hours with her and lying to them in private session is, legally, just as culpable as lying under oath in public session.

Anyway, my point is that the Dems would rather be able to score on the White House for "ducking" the commission than actually allow Condi to testify and have the whole thing boil down to a "he said/she said" that, as Harry points out, no one will care about three months from now.

What about those questions she can't answer because they might compromise national security. Won't the press charge her with covering up?

I think they'll suck up to her, but I think they'll try to lead her into lines of questioning where it will appear she's trying to hide something.

Pelosi and Daschle notwithstanding, bureaucracies run on paper, and once these agreements have been make in writing, that's that. Twenty years from now nobody will remember Nancy or Tom--or Hastert and Frist-- but the written agreement will still be present.

I don't think Bush lost anything at all here. When the dust settles, he'll be the one holding on to their clothes and they'll be the ones wearing a barrel.

I agree with some of the comments above, that this will probably matter little months from now. However, there is always a chance of disaster, and the Democrats are clearly hoping to ambush and discredit Rice in public. Condi should give the commission a taste of Bush's preemptive strategy by opening with a statement something like this (by David Frum, via Instapundit):

"This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush's own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There's a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?"

After all, this is also a chance for the administration to make a public case, and something like this makes a great sound-bite. It would put the Democrats on the defensive, having to defend Clinton. And it would increase Rice's stock as a VP candidate.

It's a risk. "There is always the chance of disaster".

And there is an equal chance of the opposite. I've been saying on Esmay that this could be reminiscent of Ollie North. Everyone thought he'd be the fall guy, geared up to fry him, and he shows up clean-jawed and in uniform, the lone warrior besieged by a bunch of howling time-serving, self-aggrandizing politicians... etc.

Now it's Condi in single combat. Alone, attractive, feminine, smart, good-heart, and I think quite capable of giving as good as she gets. This could blow Clarke, and everyone who signed up with him, out of the water.

Condi for VP? It's either "no way" or "fairly likely". We'll know very soon.

I'm with Andrew on this. Condi held her own as a black conservative in the heart of academia. After that, a paltry congressional panel is a cakewalk. I predict she'll make mincemeat of them.

I've been skeptical about Condi as VP (Sec of state still seems more likely), but this performance has the opportunity to change all that.

This sure feels like one of those "please don't throw me into that briar patch" moments. Condi has become the story the last several days, erasing Clarke from the headlines, which means that whatever she says (which of course will be about how great the Administration is) will be the final impression that people take away from this whole process.

jd;

Your fantasy, while enjoyable to imagine, won't happen. The Bush Administration just doesn't seem to be able to get a good story out about its foreign policy. I find much better defenses of it in the blogosphere than I ever see from the Administration itself.

I agree that it's a career moment for Condi. If she wants the big chair, she needs to swing for the fence on this.

Had Rice said anything in her closed door testimony that was incriminating against the administration or supportive of Clarke's side of the story, it would have leaked by now. So it's unlikely any bombshells will be lobbed at Condi in the public testimony. But even so, look for a long, dramatic soliliquy by Richard ben Veniste (in an attempt to channel Sam Ervin and the Senate Watergate hearings) damning the administration's policies to dominate the media's video clips and quoted exerpts of the hearing when it finally does take place.

jd:

Excellent. Are you a speech writer? If you aren't already, you ought to be.