Secretary of State is 'testifying' right now before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on corruption in Iraq. The dynamic is exactly what it usually is, in these hearings. Rice herself seems averse to answering any question with a direct yes or no, even given ample time to modify the initial answer. Her standard lead-ins are "Well, let me first just say . . ." or "I would like first just to say . . .," etc, even in response to questions where a clear statement supporting the basic principle would serve her and even her administration better. But she virtually always drops into educationese, or bureaucratese. I have seen and heard her do so enough, over a period of several years, to hypothesize that for her it's a matter of self-defense, or of her own importance, not to include a yes or no in an answer even when doing so would be a better idea.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's questions about corruption in the Iraqi government include a couple of significant acts. Here is the Q-and-A, in the shorthand of paraphrase:

One. Prime Minister Maliki is credibly alleged to have intervened into a corruption investigation targeting his cousin, the transportation minister.
Q. Are you aware that Maliki intervened to stop an investigation into his cousin, the transportation minister? –
A. I am not directly aware of every allegation.
Q. You’re the Sec of State. This is an allegation that the prime minister has interfered with an investigation into his cousin, the transportation minister; do you know whether he did? –
A. I can't comment on this specific allegation, I don’t want to do so without reviewing precisely what you're asking about.
Q. When will yr investigation be complete? --
A. [no date or time frame given]
Q. What do you know? –
A. I'm overseeing a very large dept, we receive many allegations of corruption, we investigate them all.
Q. This is a big deal. –
A. I agree with you, it’s a big deal.
Q. This is not a minor allegation –
A. Precisely because it's not a minor allegation, I don’t want to speak before investigating.

Two.
Q. There is a secret order, from the Iraqi govt, that the committee on corruption cannot refer the Iraqi pres or ministers without the prime minister’s permission; is this true? –
A. Mr chairman, no one in Iraq is going to escape corruption probes no matter what kind of order there is.
Q. Are you aware of that order? --
A. I will have to get back to you. I don’t know precisely what you are referring to. It is our understanding that they’re [govt officials] not immune.
Q. We held a hearing about this order on Oct 4, you don't know about it? –
A. I'm telling you that I will get back to you on this question. If there is such an order . . . that wd certainly be concerning.
Q. This order was discussed at our Oct 4 hearing, we expected you wd come in and give us yr view of the order; you ought to tell us that you are as outraged as you are –
A. It wd not be the intention of US that any official of Iraq wd be immune to investigations of corruption. Not an acceptable policy from POV of US.

Et cetera.

Suffice it to say that any attempt to run out the clock in one of these hearings, by any witness or speaker, is by and large supported by the Republicans on the Committee, who usually either can't see what all the fuss is about or can't see the point of bringing it to the public's attention. Today's hearing has been no exception. Longwindedness and lack of clarity and expressions of safe general principles are supported; information of utility to the public tends to be curtailed. But then most of them apparently support staying in Iraq.