So let me get this straight ---> Condi LIED in her closed door testimony -

[Stephanie]

- excuse me, mispoke - and so she is demanding to go back in, but NOT under oath, to change her story.

NO evidence has been presented that the testimony Richard Clarke gave behind closed doors contradicts what he said Wednesday, UNDER OATH, but Frist wants a perjury investigation anyway, just to see if they can find something.

That's what's going on here, right?

[chillwindblowing]

1. if it looks like a duck

I am begining to get the picture and it is not pretty:donut:

[jbfam4]

2. You know how the gop stick to the rule of law

when it is in their favor....Since Condi is leaving in Dec...why not go in and be sworn in? Is she the one that will take the fall for *Bush?

[Bunny]

3. Condi's leaving in Dec?

What did I miss?

[Streetdoc270]

4. Yep after her boss is voted out of office

:evilgrin:

[xultar]

5. Is it really testimony if you aren't under oath? n/t

[proud patriot]

6. sounds like you understand perfectly

:crazy: It's crazy I know

[nostamj]

7. not really, IIRC

Condi is saying that she LIED (well, not REALLY) when she first said the "WE could not have imaginied slamming planes into buildings"

NOW she told (NOT under oath, PRIVATELY) that she 'misspoke' when she said that.

SHE (not WE) didn't know about the intelligence, SHE was a clueless cretin who didn't know about the 'airplanes as weapons' scenerio.

THAT, she wants us to believe.

NOT!

[Oilwellian]

8. It wasn't really testimony

It was more of an interview. That said, she wants to try and discredit Clarke's testimony (under oath) and I just don't see the Commission allowing her to try without her being under oath as well.