Clinton had to be sworn in and his testimony was shown on TV again & again...

[LaPera]

Mice or Men?

Bush is offering to let his maid Harriet and his crooked brain Karl talk to congress
IF it's without being under oath and behind closed doors.

CNN says the Democrats are "huddling" to see how they might respond.
I suggest they respond with a giant, "Fuck that."

This is where the Demo-cowards really need me.

First, they should tell Bush to GFY and tell him to shove his offer.
They should demand that Miers and Rove show up to be sworn in or face the subpoenas.

NOBODY will give the Bush bastards the benefit of the doubt on this one.
They lied and lied and lied and now they want to talk without being under oath
so they can lie and lie and lie without any penalty? No fucking way!

Then they should start the taunting.

"Why can't the Bush administration tell us what happened under oath?
What do they have to hide that they can't be sworn in?
Clinton had to be sworn in and his testimony was shown on TV again and again and
that was about his personal life - not the crimes committed in our name with our money.
What do the Bush bastards have to hide? Why can't they just tell us the truth under oath?"

It's so easy!!

Third graders do it every day - why can't the Democrats figure anything out?

It's so easy!!

Just keep repeating "What do they have to hide?
Why can't they be under oath when they tell us what happened?
Are they refusing because they plan to lie to us again?"

It's so easy!!

Another thing: No pre-conditions.

None of this bullshit where "You can ask about this but you can't ask about that."

Screw you - this will be as wide open as Kenneth Starr's witchhunt.

It's so easy!!

If Bush refuses just remember that time is on OUR side.
Every day, for weeks and weeks, just keep repeating "What do they have to hide?
Why can't they be under oath when they tell us what happened?
Are they refusing because they plan to lie to us again?"

It's so easy!!

Bush will claim "Executive privilege," but who will buy that?
Even if it meets the standards for EP, everyone will assume Bush is just lying again.

It's so easy!!

Will the Democrats cave in?
Like they've done hundreds of times before?

Or will they stand up and do their damn jobs and
slap the most unpopular politician in modern history?

http://www.bartcop.com/

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Cafferty made a good point a few minutes ago.

He said if they are not under oath, how do we know if they are telling the truth? :shrug:

[GreenTea]

2. Exactly! All testifying should be put under oath, what do they have to be afraid of

by being put under oath if they are telling the truth? Why go behind close doors and not under oath, the ONLY reason is to be able to LIE!

No one should ever object to being put under oath...Clinton and 31 of his close aides were sworn in and put under oath.

[Laurier]

7. Good point but with this proviso

if they are under oath, how do we know if they are telling the truth? :shrug:

[GreenTea]

8. We can't...but Rove's sworn testimony would be on the record & when proved false....

which it will undoubtedly be, then Rove would have to pay the consequences, if not under oath than he can't be charged. That's BushCo's hope, and the republicans with their MSM will fight to the end to protect Rove from having to be sworn in.

The Dems must fight on and be strong and they will expose the lies.

Rove knows ALL and would have to depend on a pardon...but he would be gone with his lies.

Not much of course will change, but we may be rid of Bush's brain, (hopefully a tarnished Rove in the future).

That's, I suppose, the best we can hope for with the little dictator and the fascist corporate imperialist controlling the executive branch.

[Laurier]

11. I guess I should have used the "sarcasm" smiley...

What I meant to convey is that if their lips are moving, they're lying, thus whether they are under oath or not means little. In other words, I don't think the oath means anything to them. That said, I do understand the point about having them under oath and its usefulness for future charges, etc.

I won't quit my day job and go into comedy any time soon :)

[ComerPerro]

10. we get a transcript, it goes on record, and we can hunt down lies

[LibDemAlways]

9. If they're not under oath and there's no possibility of

being indicted for perjury, you can safely assume they are lying their asses off fast and furiously.

[ComerPerro]

3. main talking point now is that somehow making them be under oath

will open the door for the Dems to further politicize this...


riiiiiight

[LaPera]

4. The whole reason for this is BushCo playing politics with judges they didn't agree with...

Because the judges were doing their jobs.

Bush/Rove are not going to get away with it....Would they even agree to putting Rove under oath behind close doors, of course not. - Bush is lying & bluffing and scared, just hoping the his republican stacked Supreme Court will back him up...the Democrats should not back down!!

[ComerPerro]

5. and the really ironic thing about supposedly firing attys for "poor performance"

is Bush's continued pattern of rewarding failure and incompetence.

[The Doctor.]

6. This requires kicking.

"What do they have to hide?" Is a perfect mantra.

Because it's quite obvious that they have something to hide.

[B Calm]

12. Are republicans above the rule of law?