Dick Cheney Under Oath? NEVER!

This NY Times article from Tuesday says this:

"Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it."

Wait... "Interviewed under oath?" I thought Cheney and Bush met with Fitzgerald IN THE OVAL OFFICE, TOGETHER, and NOT UNDER OATH! Right? Remember? The media at the time didn't seem to have any problem with the keeping-their-stories-straight-tagteam, and not-under-oath "rules".
Does the Times-quote above mean that Dick Cheney has met MORE THAN ONCE with Fitz for Grand Jury testimony? Alone?
What about Bush? Imagine: Our DISTINGUISHED PRESIDENT being examined by Federal Prosecutors, while under-oath and alone... No "handlers" to coach him:

"...THE-TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, & NOTHING-BUT...?"

"Uhh, No sir. I don't reckonize ANY o' those names, Your Honor."
"None of 'em... sound familiar. Sir, can I go now? I gotta go Potty.

Testifying "Under oath," for Cheney, considering Fitzgerald's TWO-YEAR PILE of other evidence/testimony(You know, the post-Ashcroft stuff), might be problematic for the VP, considering his proclivity for things like lying and obsessive-secrecy. -HW

UPDATE, 10/30: Late... In the "comments" area of THIS POST at talkleft.com(Squeaky/fdl comment), I found confirmation that I'M NOT CRAZY; or at least not-alone:

"According to the NYT, they made a mistake, Cheney was not under oath when he answered questions for Fitzgerald in June of 2004."

END-UPDATE.