Clearly not committed to fully telling the truth

Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

yes, why...?

Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

therefore...

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

That would not be “partisanship,” as Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe. It would be Congress doing its job by holding the president and his team accountable — a rare thing in the last six years.

the part i like the best is the first sentence...

In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that “people just need to hear the truth” about the firing of eight United States attorneys.

in terms less suited to the op-ed page of the nyt, kos offers his perspective...

Apparently, the way to set Bush off isn't to mismanage a war in Iraq and kill thousands of our own. That gets you a medal. It isn't to stay on vacation while a major American city drowns amidst neglect from incompetent federal agencies. That got Brownie a "heckuva job!".

But you say that Bush and his administration should be held accountable for their actions, and look out! You say that his people should testify under oath, and he's outraged that they won't be able to lie!

that's our president...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet