From 60 Minutes:

ED BRADLEY:
The secretary of state, defense, the director of the CIA, have all testified in public under oath before the commission. If - if you can talk to us and other news programs, why can't you talk to the commission in public and under oath?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify. I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here ... it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.

Memo to Dr. Rice: I call "bullshit." What about Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1980 and Samuel Berger (twice) in 1997? They testified -- under oath -- and so can you. What have you got to hide? The 9/11 investigation is arguably the most important government investigation since Watergate. The White House is behaving the same way now as it did (under Nixon's leadership) back then.

As Josh Marshall says:

In any case, there's a high bar for testimony from a National Security Advisor. But it's happened before. And more than once. If they wanted her to testify, she could testify. What they want is for her to be able to lacerate her critics, discuss whichever parts of her advice to the president would be helpful to her politically at the moment, and freely declassify documents which she or the White House believes will hurt her enemies.

Josh Marshall also weighed in this weekend on the White House's character assassination campaign against Richard Clarke:

What this is about isn't Condi Rice or Richard Clarke or even George W. Bush. It's about what happened -- finding out what happened.

One side wants to find out; the other doesn't. This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed.

This administration has used and continues to use literally unprecedented means to maintain secrecy in order to keep this information -- what happened -- bottled up in the White House and in other parts of the executive branch. . .

. . .This is Plame all over again, just with the lights on -- a kind of behavior -- a mix of pervasive secrecy and the use of state power to punish political enemies -- that is literally a danger to the republic.

(Make sure you read Josh Marshall's entire post; it's worth it.)

As I said regarding AWOLGate, release all the information. Selective declassification and release of documents makes me wonder just what this Administration (which has, if you'll recall, repeatedly shown that it's decidedly lacking in the truth-telling department) is trying to cover up.

Bring the light.