That the lying Bushman and cohorts are not telling the truth?

Transcripts are a what now?

A perjury trap. Really. Well, maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the administration weren't given to LYING every other minute, would it?

How utterly comical that an administration that insists the people should be happy about wiretapping because "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be scared of us listening" would invoke this particular "defense".

I've always found that a good rule of thumb when picking an excuse is "Would my sixth-grade teacher have accepted it?" If Miss Crabtree would have seen right through it, chances are it's a crappy excuse. Maybe the boys in the Bush Club should have this drummed into their heads. It's time for a visit to the woodshed, methinks.

Shame on them for being so utterly, inexcusably, lame.

If you Constitution-hugging founders' boys document what is being said, you will later be able to prove that we are contemptuously lying to you simpering curs. You can either have us lie to you in private with no oversight or recourse or you can go fuck yourselves. Your choice.

There's no intention to mislead, we just want to be completely unaccountable for when we do.

Well, I'm glad to see that the administration has learned an important lesson from Scooter Libby's trial. It's fine to mislead and lie, just avoid formal/legal settings when doing so.

That just made my head hurt. I can't even understand it enough to discuss whether or not I think the paraphrase is correct. Guess I'll just have to trust you, huh?

Is English his first language?

That's just plain embarrassing.

If the president and right wing are for warrantless wiretaps because it's only the bad guys who need to worry, why would the so-called good guys need to avoid a perjury trap? Aren't they the good guys?

...I wouldn't be worried about warrantless wiretaps, now would I?

...because I said so. If you don't receive it, it is your fault and you will have to cover the missing amount. I like that. I'll just tell the IRS that I already paid my taxes and they must have made the deposit and lost the documentation. I'm all there.

st. john

and the Pope's not Catholic...

""As far as the debate goes, often cited is that a transcript is not wanted because otherwise there would be a perjury trap."

This sentence, with the inclusion of "otherwise" does not mean anything at all. It is complete nonsense.

Without "otherwise" its meaning would be accurately described by the headline of Tim's piece.

It only seems to mean that, but look again. I think these guys are so "shadow" they are shadow's shadow.

What the hell does he really mean? I think Tim gets it right, but the actual quote is such that it leaves room for obfuscation.

"And so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth."

Yes, a transcript will be convenient, when congress or the courts need to gather evidence to finally prosecute the Bush cadre for lying repeatedly through their rotten teeth.

Nice word choices, all around.

now he's just an irrelevant sack of shit doing his best to postpone the inevitable.

Give it up, Fred, you worm

That's what testifying under oath means - having to tell the truth or else get convicted of lying a la Scooter. And this administration doesn't dare tell the truth...

life is a perjury trap, isn't it?

...the TRUTH is a perjury trap. Can't argue with that, now can we? To this administration, the truth is like kryptonite to Superman, or sunlight to a vampire -- something to be avoided at all costs.

Ya know, this kind of squirming is the sort of thing I've been waiting for for a long time. I *so* wish Karl Rove had to get in front of a congressional committee... any committee, and answer a lot of very short, pointed questions, with lots of follow-up. Then Harriet Miers.

Now THAT would be fun. I'd pay to watch that.

But what I'd REALLY pay to watch is Dick Cheney and George Bush trying to defend themselves during a trial in the Senate. I'd pay a *lot* to watch that.

Won't happen, I know. But, boy, that'd be some fun.

I'm hoping this obviously prevaricating rubbish from Fielding is just a prelude. I expect we'll be hearing a lot of this kind of gibberish in the next 18 months. And I bet it'll be a lot funnier than that..unless, of course, all the lawyers start telling their swelling client list to shut the fuck up.

so a transcript may be convenient, but there's no intention to try to avoid telling the truth."

So while evidence of WMDs may have been convenient, there was no intention on the White House to try to avoid telling the truth about the WMDS before the invasion.

If someone wrote a novel or screen play that included what this administration does and says, it would be dismissed as to crazy.

Check that. It would have been dismissed before the Bush Administration.

Wouldn't the surest way out of a "perjury trap" be to not commit perjury in the first place? It's like the old joke where the patient says "Doc, it hurts when I do this!" and the doc says "So, don't do that."

Clearly these people's loyalty is to the Leader, the Country be damned. Must be why he relies on them for the advice they didn't give him to begin with.

As you know, President Bush and Mister Cheney met with the 9.11 Commission together, with no transcript made of whatever conversations occurred.

It seemed to me at the time this was, at very minimum, a clear indicator of President Bush's incompetence and his lack of knowledge, as well as Mister Cheney's concern about creating general public awareness of his underling's incompetence and lack of knowledge. Why did the Commission give in to that arrangement to avoid a "perjury trap"? Could it be that the 9.11 Commission was assisting the Whitehouse, and that it was not a bipartisan group focused on discovering the whole truth?