Condoleezza won't testify in public..at least not as is yet being reported.

The law:

"This is mostly about politics, not about the legalities," said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the College of William and Mary who specializes in separation of powers. "There's not much they can point to as settled law to prevent this. This is a matter of political judgment, not legal judgment. ... It hasn't kept her from talking to the press."

Sorry, Condi. No apparent legal cover.

Of course, even the most casual observer will note that Dr. Rice has been sprinting from network to network to tell her tale.

Am I the only one that sees a touch of irony here?

Then there was Bush's odd statement this past week:

"If our administration had intelligence that terrorists were going to hijack an airliner on Sept. 11 and fly it into the World Trade Center we would have acted on it."

Very guarded statement. Bush may have been careful to name the specific date and target..no mention of the Pentagon. Why not?

While the GOP wants secret documents released in an effort to discredit Clarke, Dick Cheney's Energy Policy documents -- which have been ordered released by two court decisions -- remain secreted away.

Then there are the Presidential Daily Briefs many of which haven't been made available to the 9-11 Commission, and those that have are available only to Executive Director Zelikow and commission member Jamie Gorelick.

Zelikow is a horrible pick to serve on the Commission, much less be the Director.

I think everything should as transparent as possible. Not what the White House, and the Commission deem necessary.

Let's get it all out in the open, and see if some simple truths can be found.

Rice and Bush should testify publicly, under oath. That is what we deserve as citizens. Anything less will leave much doubt in the minds of thinking peoples everywhere.

These people tend to vote.