Tuesday, March 20, 2007

OATH? YOU SAID OATH? WE THOUGHT YOU SAID "OAF"

Rove will not testify under oath. The Senate Can have the Oaf without the Oath. Be Still my heart! I'm so shocked the Rovie doesn't want to do the oath thing. No more Scooters to take the bullet.

Labels:

7 Comments:

At 11:29 AM, March 21, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rove thought they wanted OLAF the Sweede Ambassador to speak . Give Rove a break the guy is trying to take over the world and all.

 
At 5:53 PM, March 24, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why in the hell SHOULD Rove testify under oath in front of Congress? What if Cheney decided he wanted Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama to come into the White House and testify under oath? Or, more appropriately, any of their staffers? Would you be equally distressed when they refused?

 
At 7:45 PM, March 24, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I'm very happy with the way the thing plays out with Rovie not testifying. I'd much rather the administration twist in the wind under the vague, unrefined allegations the way they are now.

Keep up the good work, Boys!

 
At 8:24 AM, March 25, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vague, unrefined, probably just a fuzz unfounded. You enjoy a congress and a media that will give the general impression that the administration has done something wrong. Then demand that someone testify just to find out if something may have happened. I mean, can the President fire these attorneys at will or not? If he can, who cares why, it would appear he doesn't have to say why. But you don't care about right or wrong, you would "much rather the administration twist in the wind under vague, unrefined allegations". This is how you want to be remembered?

Because, in Adams County, that is how you are and will be remembered. So let the others write dumbass on the walls and you can criticize them, but you have shown yourself to be an axman for the democrat party for decades, and I hope you reap what you have sown some day.

 
At 7:33 PM, March 25, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Another time for an analysis of the congressional authority and "underlying offense (or lack thereof)" I was speaking tactically and you were speaking, as nearly as I can determine, from some point of absolute morality.

My heritage/reputation on one day's blog traffic? I think not. It is what it is but I doubt this thread is some kind of thunderbolt.

 
At 7:58 PM, March 26, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know what the hell any of what you said meant... but, can we call Senator Webb to testify under oath before Karl Rove? Something really wrong actually happened there.

 
At 8:24 AM, March 27, 2007, Blogger UMRBlog said...

I am sure that's true. That's one of the net, long term, deliterious effects of working of the talking talking points. The ability to perceive and discriminate for one's self abate.

TYFCB

 

Post a Comment

<< Home