by TChris

In an attempt to blunt critics who say that the Bush administration has been less than fully cooperative with the commission investigating the administration's response to terrorism prior to 9/11, the White House has agreed to make national security advisor Condoleezza Rice available to answer more questions. However, her return appearance is subject to two stipulations: she will only answer questions in private, and she will not answer questions under oath.

The insistence on a private appearance, arguably justified by the need for secrecy with regard to some aspects of national security, is undercut by Rice's frequent appearances on news shows to spin the administration's viewpoint. More troubling, however, is the administration's refusal to let Rice testify under oath. Does the White House think that lying is so ingrained in Rice's job description that she shouldn't be subject to a criminal penalty for lying to the Commission? Does she plan to answer questions with her fingers crossed behind her back?