House Panel Calls Bush’s Bluff

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law voted today to approve subpoenas compelling the testimony of Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, their top aides, and Kyle Sampson, former aide to Alberto Gonzales.

The committee rejected Bush’s offer a day earlier to have his aides talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

…Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

“Absolutely,” Bush declared Tuesday.

Democrats promptly rejected the threat. The Senate Judiciary Committee planned to approve subpoenas for the same officials on Thursday.

So — more “bring it on” from Bush.  Doesn’t he remember how well that worked for him last time?  And of course Tony Snow wants to claim “politics”:

“The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?” Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.

No, Tony, the question is why are Rove and the others so afraid to testify under oath, in public, with a transcript of the questions and answers?

5 Responses to “House Panel Calls Bush’s Bluff”

  1. chris Says:

    “The question they’ve got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?”

    honestly? how about one from column A and one from column B

  2. Kathy Says:

    Yeah, I love Tony’s assumption that Congress is more likely to get the whole truth from someone speaking off the record than from someone speaking publicly, under oath, and with a transcript. Given Bushco’s track record, it would be naive at best to assume the minions will tell the truth.

  3. chris Says:

    if you intend to tell the truth, what’s the problem with being under oath? not that I think a stupid old oath will make them tell the truth.

    didn’t bush take an oath to uphold the constitution?

  4. Kathy Says:

    “didn’t bush take an oath to uphold the constitution?

    Yeah, but I think he immediately issued a signing statement that he didn’t have to abide by it.

  5. chris Says:

    lol!!!!!!

Leave a Reply