Does Condoleezza Rice's agreement to testify about her role in misleading the public about the invasion of Iraq have you dancing? You might want to sit down for a moment. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo has noticed something about the Bush administration's 'liberality.'

rice and white house make skippy's new poll awol to relevancy

now, we're not saying we had anything to do with it, but. . .

the day after we set up a new poll asking if condoleeza rice should testify before the 911 commission, the white house does the one flip flop we like to hear, and announces that dr. rice (and her uncle ben) will indeed testify publicly, and under oath, too!

however, there is a condition (and we're not talking about awol's skin blotches): the
atjoucon tells us:

the decision was conditioned on the bush administration receiving assurances in writing from the commission that such a step does not set a precedent and that the commission does not request "additional public testimony from any white house official, including dr. rice,'' white house counsel alberto gonzales said in a letter to the panel.

well, one hand, they apparently don't have a dictionary handy, because once you do something the first time, that's the very definition of "precedent."

on the other hand, this administration is never one to worry about precedents.

I have mulled what Rice's testimony would mean a bit. Not so much in regard to information, which she will try to divulge as little of as possible. But, in regard to mind games and group psychology. Rice would make a good sacrificial victim. You know, the person who gets thrown overboard as an offering to the gods when a situation becomes theatening. Her constituency is neglible and her support soft. Of course I am aware that conservatives like to cite her as a Negro they approve of. But, that kind of thing is always dubious. The support can be retracted at the blink of the eye since the supporters perceive the person as only a token. Support from the African-African community? Don't make me laugh. I do need to clarify that I use the term 'sacrificial victim' for convenience. Since Rice, proudly, is as responsible as the other architects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, she is just as guilty as they are.

Visit Skippy, the blogger who posts big thoughts in small letters. Tell him you are sorry about his poll.

Note: This item is part of a column that appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.