Wednesday, March 21, 2007


In the face of a looming scandal about whether the Department of Justice acted properly or improperly" in firing the eight U.S. attorneys who were forced to resign last year, White House counsel Fred Fielding said Karl Rove and Harriet Miers could testify, but only in private, not under oath, and without a transcript.

Um...what would be the point of that?

If they can pretty much say what they want without threat of perjury, then the whole point of testifying is moot.

Wasn't this the administration that was supposed to restore integrity to office? My question would be why would these bastions of moral turpitude and good character not WANT to be sworn in? Do they have something to hide?

Although a liar before congress who is not sworn in, and I understand it's up to the individual committee, can be prosecuted for "making false statements" (is that really a charge?) we in the public know that you go to JAIL for perjury. I mean technically in the eyes of the law, Karl Rove and Lil Kim should be the same person. The concept that some people would not have to be sworn in harkens back to the Animal Farm Orwellian thought that "some animals are more equal than others."

I wish I could say I was neutral in this, that I approached it from neutrality and merely want a fair and honest hearing on the matter, but I am biased because it appears to me that this whole administration believes itself above the law, rules or even in some cases reality.

Closed door meetings on the Energy Policy.
Falsified data to justify war.
Improper use of goverment powers with the Patriot Act.
The VP shooting a man and reporting it days later.
Outing undercover agents for political purposes.
and now this...

The last guy, all he did was get a blowjob. Um...integrity?

Bartender....water. I need to stay sober for this.