Rasmussen has a
poll showing that the public views Rice's testimony more favorably than Clarke's.
I can understand that the public just really wants to believe this administration, but how is it that the defensive, filibustering testimony given by Rice has more credence than the rather straightforward testimony given by Clarke?
As near as I can figure out, it revolves around the media treatment of the two. Multiple rebuttals by the administration are given to singular instances of damning testimony; hell, time was spent in the news cycle on the idiotic and subject-changing "is he gay?" type smears that went out from deep within the Fortress of Ineptitude.
A media that seemed so ready to begin picking this administration apart (and it's high time they did) now seems to be returning to their previous role as another relay point for white house spin.
However, the story's only a day old, and I'm waiting to see what another week will bring.
But for now:
Goddamnit.