This comes from a former fan who supported McCain in 2000 against Dubya, and while holding my nose, actually registered for the first time as a Republican so I could vote for him in the Ohio primary that year -- it cannot BE any more transparent. I have NO confusion at all after this little incident.

It isn't even debatable that a minimally coherent and competent person would KNOW that he himself has "...consistently voted agaist taxpayer funded contraception programs." If Sen. McCain needs his staff to "research" this point, then he's absolutely forfeited any right to run for President again. He's lost his memory and/or mind, and shouldn't be casting votes in the Senate due to mental infirmity, let alone go out in public to campaign for higher office!

"Because I don't think or say anything that's off-script and isn't part of today's talking points. Besides, my memory gets a bit hazy too -- hard to recall clearly what I told you all yesterday. I mean, they hand me a new script EVERY SINGLE DAY, and shred the old one -- do you think it's easy keeping up? You guys should trade places with me and see how tough it is!"

Interesting, this mention of a "magic bullet" -- it refers Dr. Paul Ehrlich's famous quest for an agent that would kill only the syphilis bacterium (and other infectious agents) in the human body, without harming anything else. Before the discovery of penicillin, the treatments of choice for syphilis were inhaling or applying mercury -- pleasant, huh?

Dr. Ehrlich did perfect an arsenic-based drug, Arsphenamine, that was the first really effective treatment for syphilis. Long after his death, a real "magic bullet" finally appeared -- penicillin.

How much difference is there, really, between condom use as a means to avoid AIDS infection (which so-called conservatives disdain), and the use of penicillin to cure syphilis? Another more contemporary example would be the HPV vaccine proposed for young girls -- does removing the fear of infection or cancer from sexual encounters lead to MORE sexual encounters?

If the answer is believed to be "yes", then those so-called conservatives oppose it. No condoms. No HPV vaccine. And I guess, to be consistent, they ought to say, no penicillin for syphilis sufferers.

Don't treat genital herpes either. Let those who suffer from any sexually transmitted disease "lie in the bed they made", so to speak. Let their body parts rot off, let them never be with another human sexually, let them go insane or DIE. That's the moral thing to do, for sure. It's what God tells us is right and proper -- any other course is IMMORAL.

Right.

I posed this question days ago, also in regards to the US Attorney purge, and it was intended as rhetorical then -- but now it's a serious question. When sworn in, what is the exact wording of the oath of office taken by each US Attorney? My earlier assumption is unchanged -- that it's similar to the oath all federal officials take. Something along the lines of "promising to preserve, protect and defend the laws and Constitution of the United States to the best of his/her ability", thereby swearing first allegiance to the country itself.

This oath is wholly unsuitable if the REAL expectation is political loyalty to the President FIRST, with every other loyalty relegated to secondary status. I don't argue with the fact that certain jobs are essentially patronage appointments, but why not be candid about this reality? If these USAs aren't primarily expected to prosecute according to the law, without regard for political considerations, then by God why not be honest about it right from the get-go?

I propose, therefore, that the creative people who contribute to War Room should develop a "new and improved" (or at least more realistic) oath of office for all political appointees who are expected to exhibit their primary allegiance to the President, with their allegiance to the country itself or anything else no better than secondary.

This is directed to any lawyers who can answer my question with authority -- does it matter whether a person is under oath when testifying/appearing before/talking to a Congressional committee, if that person willfully lies?

I know that lying to Congress can be a felony, with a stiff penalty under the U.S. Code (Title 18, Section 1001) -- but my naive question is, does it make any difference if an oath is administered or not? My admittedly cursory Google search indicates an oath may not be necessary -- it's the making of false statements to an official body of Congress that is the issue.

What do our legal experts say? If Rove and/or Miers lie, as could reasonably be expected, aren't they still at risk of being hauled up on charges? Or are they insulated by the lack of a legally admissable transcript of said interviews?

DUH!!!

...actually follows the quote itself.

It's the word "former" -- if this guy weren't the FORMER No. 2 man at the Interior Dept., no way would he have the freedom to be honest about ANY of his official actions. He stays "on message" as long as he is "on payroll" -- hush money in a very literal sense.

And Tony Snow wonders why Congressional Democrats are insisting on placing White House officials under oath, claiming not to understand what is gained over private, unsworn and untranscribed talks with committee members! My God.