Not that there aren't overwhelmingly important questions for Rumsfeld to address. For instance, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita disclosed this unbelievable fact Monday:

Q: Have any military intelligence personnel been relieved, reassigned, gotten a letter or anything as a result of what happened at Abu Ghraib?

DiRita: I don't believe so. At the moment I don't believe so.

How is it possible that military intelligence officials at Abu Ghraib--whom Taguba concluded "actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses"--are still operating at that prison? How many interrogations have they conducted? Under what conditions?

Does anyone think that an appearance on the Hill will cause Rumsfeld to deviate from that line? Or even clarify if, perhaps, a request for more information about the abuses would have been inappropriate or prejudicial to the investigations? What you're more likely to get out of Rumsfeld is offensive innuendo. Again, from yesterday's press conference:

Q: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Navy looking into detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay and Charleston. Was that triggered by some allegations of abuse, or what are they looking at?

RUMSFELD: I'm not in the position to say whether--there are other allegations of abuse. That is a pattern and a practice of terrorists, to allege abuse.

Yes, like those terrorists at Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. At this point, can anyone expect anything else out of Donald Rumsfeld? His relationship with candor is, as he might say, a known known.