[mburbank]

I just found out an interesting tidbit.

Clarke's previous private testimony? Under oath.

Condi's private testimony? NOT under oath.

Now I disagree with her explanation of why she won't testify publicly, but I do follow it. Somebody want to explain why she hasn't testified under oath?

I also think it's cute that the bi-partisan investigatory comission UNANIMOUSLY think her explanation isn't cutting it. When your own party thinks you're sstonewalling, I'd say you're in trouble.

And you want to know the stupidest part? I personally don't think Condi has anything to hide. She'll stick to her sie and Clarke will stick to his and there'd be know damn way to prove who's interpretation was closer to the truth.

So why won't the administration let her testify (but are totally cool with her going on sixty minutes, meet the press and American friggin' I dol for all I know)? Because theya re control freaks and they are addicted to secrecy. They truly believe that the Amercian peopl should know as close to nothing as possible, not just about big things, but about everything, and that inlcudes congress.

It jives perfectly with Chenney statement tht the FRIGGIN COUNTERTERRORISM CZAR was kept 'out of the Loop' on COUNTERTERRORISM!