Elonka wrote:
] As for the flap about Rice testifying, I see both sides of it.
] I *don't* think that the National Security Advisor should be
] required to testify before Congress as a matter of course.
] Then again, this was a special case.

Why? I don't mean to drag you into a debate here. I honestly don't understand what the downside of executive testimony is and I've yet to hear a good explanation. I figure you can probably offer one. In Parliamentary systems the PM is required to respond to questioning on a regular basis, so its really not unheard of.

RE: Bush Agrees to Let Rice Testify Publicly