The ridiculous charges involving the alleged "differences" between Clarke's testimony to the Congressional 9/11 Committee and the 9/11 Commission raies an entirely different question in my mind: Why Condi does not want to go under oath?
I am unsure if she has ever testified under oath before, so she probably need not worry about possible perjury issues arising from the difference between her congressional committee vs. 9/11 Commission testimony.
BUT, cleary she would be worried about having to testify under oath about public things that she has said regarding everything surrounding 9/11. Could that be because she would not repeat under oath what she has already said in public?