From Bush’s laughable defense of the U.S. Attorney scandal. Expect to see the talking point on talk radio, cable news (especially Fox News Propaganda Network), and on the rightie blogs.
I hope Sens. Schumer, Leahy, etc. are having a good laugh while their staff type up the subpoenas.
UPDATE: Here is Sen. Leahy’s response to the earlier, laughable offer:
“I was glad to meet Mr. Fielding and I welcome the fact that these issues have his full attention.
“I don’t accept his offer. It is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome.
“Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day.
“Testimony should be on the record, and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability.
“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming.
“The straighter the path to the truth, the sooner we will finally know the facts.”
“I hope the President will agree to be forthcoming.
Bwa-hahahaha!
Bush is 100% right. It is nothing but a partisan fishing expedition.
I don’t care to repeat for the umpteenth time why.
Jay, I’m sure we’re all happier if you don’t spout the same bullshit again.
I look forward to the subpoenas. Our petit Empreur certainly doesn’t like being challenged does he?
My favorite observation:
So Jay, he admits that members of his inner circle should speak to members of congress, but his condition is that in order to provide openness - we should allow them to testify about past deception without benefit of being under oath. A few weeks ago you thought Josh Marshall was crazy to even be probing this, somehow I don’t think you’re the best person to be listening to.
Jay, I am not familiar with the right-wing talking points. Why exactly is the charge of obstruction of justice and lying under oath not worth investigating? Also, are you happy with the way the Bush administration used the Patriot Act in a partisan political manner?
Conyers is all ready to churn out subpeonas. They should open a new investigation into the outside emails Bush Administration members have been using as well.
It’s certainly not a partisan fishing expedition when the White House attempted to obstruct justice by removing Lam from her investigation of the White House role in the Cunningham Case
Nike: Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why it isn’t a fishing expedition, simply because a Republican President attempted to influence the investigation of a Republican Congressman?
Do you seriously believe that, in the interests of ‘justice’, a Democrat(ic) President would throw a Democrat(ic) Congressman to the wolves?
See Jefferson, William, Rep (D) La, for details…
Frank, what a weird memory you have of past events.
I think most Dems were calling for full accountability while Denny Hastert and Newt Gingrich were concerned about the precedent of an FBI raid of a congress person’s office.
Frank, what a weird memory you have of past events.
I think most Dems were calling for full accountability while Denny Hastert and Newt Gingrich were concerned about the precedent of an FBI raid of a congress person’s office.
That was then, this is now.
Instead of investigating why a President fired US attorneys which is perfectly within his rights, why don’t liberals start calling out the Democratic leadership for essentially offering bribes for votes?
Of course, telling people they’ll get loads of pork if they’d just go along with the Democrats ‘plan’ for Iraq isn’t important. Parading Karl Rove in front of a Senate Committee for political purposes is more important.
And now as Frank points out, you have the Democrats allowing a corrupt, bribe taking member of the House to be a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Full accountability my big white ass.
But hey, Bush fired 8 US attorneys! Nail his ass!
Here’s the link to story where the Democratic leadership is offering pork for votes.
Oh and the fact that Democrats don’t give a rats about the two things I spoke of shows that all of their talk about changing things when took over was a complete load of horseshit, and you clowns are eating it up as if it were bowl of ice cream.
Enjoy yourselves chumps because there’s going to be a LOT more of this.
Shorter Jay and Frank: look over there!
Gosh, Jay02c, to hear you talk, I thought the Dems were doing things like keeping the vote open while lobbyists and Tom DeLay chased and tracked down congressman and browbeat or bribed (with actual cash)them into changing votes.
wilbur translated: It’s good to be King!
Its funny that Bush (and Jay02C and Frank) still believe that the Bush administration has any kind of credibility. As usual, they hit the ground lying on this scandal. The only hope we have for the truth is to put them under penalty of perjury.
midderpidge: Yes, I know you had so much faith in President Bush back in 2000, and now you’re disappointed.
What’s the difference between a troll and a scratched record???
If WH operatives are innocent they have nothing to fear in testifying under oath. To paraphrase Peggy Noonan, it would be irresponsible not to investigate Abu G’s actions.
Frank in brief: I despise democracy. Vive le roi Bushe!
Wilbur: Don’t turn my comment against me. I was referring the power hungry Democrats. My alternative comment was going to be, “It’s fun being in charge.”
I thought you’d enjoy the “History of the World - Mel Brooks”, but I guess liberals really don’t have a sense of humor.
If WH operatives are innocent they have nothing to fear in testifying under oath.
Tell that to “Scooter” Libby.
mikefromtexas asked:
“What’s the difference between a troll and a scratched record???”
You can move the tone arm, or just take the scratched record off of the damn turntable if you’re tired of the same old song.
I know! I know! Trolls are people that don’t believe what you believe.
Did I get it right?
“If WH operatives are innocent they have nothing to fear in testifying under oath”
Of course the liberals have proven that to be untrue eh? Libby was convicted of “lying” to a grand jury cause he couldn’t remember which journalist he spoke to first. He wasn’t convicted of the crime that the prosector set out to prove. Bush is absolutely right: The lefties want a show trial, and figure the best way to trip someone up is to put them on the witness stand and start peppering them with questions.
Fine, now you get nothing, and bush can rightfully say he offered up all the questions you wanted on a silver platter but the democrat party wasn’t reallyi interested in the answers, they wanted a show trial.
Libby was found to be guilty. He got a trial. His defense team tried to game the jury… what do you want?
At any time, Libby could have said “I don’t remember who I spoke to.” He didn’t. He made up whatever answers he thought would get him off the hook. He did this to a grand jury, he did this to the FBI. He did this to Scott McClellan, who ended up speaking falsehoods to the press and having to go back on them later. Lies, lies, lies.
The only reason to refuse to be under oath is that you intend to lie. If you can’t recall, you say “I can’t recall.” This is not rocket science.
uh jay, there’s nothing even close to illegal activity in the links you provided.
The White House is in denial. They LOST the Congress; Arlen Specter is no longer in charge of the Judiciary Committee.
In fact, according to reports, it was SPECTER who got the call from the President’s lawyer, Fielding, on the terms of the deal, not Leahy.
A subtle insult? Or just plain denial, stupidity, and arrogance? One guess, LOL!