Sure, we’ll let Rove and Miers talk to congress about the DOJ firings, as long as they don’t have to promise officially to tell the truth." This is our government’s idea of openness. Guess that’ll clear everything up. :dubious:
Not only not under oath:
Thankfully, the Democrats smell blood in the water and there is nooooo way they are going to accept that.
Good job Chuck. You want to ask them why they lied to Congress. It’s best not to give them the forum to lie again.
Whatever. Rove is virtually untouchable and Miers, should she have anything valuable to say, is under Bush’s protective wing. It’s a nice gesture, I suppose, but ultimately fruitless.
All the nastiness won’t come out for another five years or so (far less than I previously believed) when folks start writing their books. Of course, the books won’t matter a damn. They will come out, though.
Still, if they can’t get an explanation under oath, they should not settle for the kind of crap Rove is trying to pull here. Rove won’t testify under oath? Good, then every morning he can start his day with Chuck Schumer asking why he needs to have lying as one of his options.
Oath. No oath. No matter. Rove can lie equally well either way. The issue is really the White House making everyone understand that ordinary rules don’t apply to one of their own.
But there is a distinction. Lying under oath to congress is illegal. So I say make him take a bigger risk if he’s going to lie.
“Negotiation over. Here’s your subpoena.”
This would be more viable in the House, since:
Pelosi to Rove: “Testify under oath, fatboy, or your lardbutt is headed to jail.”
Of course, Alberto could kill this one, but it would look pretty damned bad if he did. Might even get non-fringe types talking about impeachment.
Wheeeeee!!! Anyone else getting “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” blasts from the past?
How’d you like to be the U.S. Attorney who gets handed the subpoena on the issue of whether U.S. Attorneys can be fired for disobeying the wishes of the President?
Yeah, but Clinton got a blow job.
It’d be amazing how many USAs got “poor performance evaluations”, I suspect.
-Joe
Lib, I truly hate to steal the thunder of your masterly sardonic post, but you know damn well that every time that gets brought up, some rock-ribbed Republican will pop up to note that he was impeached, not for the blow job, but for lying about it under oath. I trust the relevance to the issue of the circumstances under which Rove and Miers are willing to testify is fairly clear?
By the way, would somebody hand Fielding a copy of the Constitution, and suggest he read what the Supreme Law of the Land has to say about (a) the powers of the Congress (cf. Article I) and (b) the powers of the Counsel to the President and his political and tighty-rightie advisors (uh, my copy doesn’t seem to have any definition of those offices in it).
In short, Fielding doesn’t get to choose whether they testify under oath, Bush doesn’t get to choose whether they testify under oath, the Congressional committee is the group that gets to choose whether they testify under oath.
This turn of events just makes me sick. I smell the republicans walking away from this not brought to honest account. 
Both Bush and Alberto know that he’s on his way out, so maybe the AG is being kept in place by Bush so he can do just that. It would explain the delay in firing.
They’re running out of people to throw under the bus on behalf of Rove. I don’t see a “no oath interview” placating Congress the way the administration obviously expects it to.
Aaaannnnd, breaking news confirms that suspicion
But did you see Bush’s announcement? He was MAD.
All must Quail before the power of an Angry President!
Shit, meet fan. This confirms my suspicion that Gonzo is being kept in place just to play a few more Admin dirty tricks.
Oh, but that was funny. I could practically hear him sputtering as I read it.
“My lawyers said they don’t have to talk to you! You’re all just mean, and I’m gonna tell everybody you’re bad and not to vote for you!”
“If the Democrats really want to see the right information, they should really let my subordinate lie with impunity to a few people in private, rather than at risk of jail to many in public.”