"Do you swear to tell the whole truth..."

The SS Condoleeza is listing badly, taking on water, beginning to leak her copious haul of oil.

She agrees to "talk" -- again. But there is no mention in the story about testifying under oath. Now, I don't want to impugn Dean Rice's integrity, but wouldn't that be somewhat significant?

Of course (this being the Bush administration in spin cycle), it gets strange:

"In indicating her desire to return, the White House said she wanted to rebut statements made in this week's public testimony before the panel. In particular, Gonzales said Rice wanted the chance to argue that she was not inaccurate when she wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece this week that the administration's post-Sept. 11 plan called for military options to strike al-Qaida and the Taliban."

Wha?

If I recall correctly, post-Sept. 11, we in fact took "military options to strike al-Qaida and the Taliban."

In Afghanistan.

If this is a rebuttal to the consistent accusations that Bush & Co. were fixated on Iraq prior to Sept. 11 and planned to use the Sept. 11 attacks as pretext to overthrow Hussein, then it's pretty pathetic.