Thursday, March 25, 2004
WhiteWash House mouthpiece Gonzales explains why Condi doesn't have to testify in public
I love it when they try to set the record straight.
Well, shoot.
If the wingers can get Clinton to testify on video about a blowjob, and spend $70 million doing it, then we can probably think of soome form of "criminal wrongdoing" to get Condi to do the same thing when 3,000 citizens die because she and her boss spent eight months setting up a meeting that might "possibly" (Clarke) have saved all those lives. Eh?
Gonzales also sought to set the record straight about the obligation of a presidential aide to testify publicly. He said that statements that other national security advisers have testified before Congress in open sessions were wrong.
Previous testimony from national security advisers have either been in closed session or involved potential criminal wrongdoing, making those situations markedly different from the current one, Gonzales said.
(via AP)
Well, shoot.
If the wingers can get Clinton to testify on video about a blowjob, and spend $70 million doing it, then we can probably think of soome form of "criminal wrongdoing" to get Condi to do the same thing when 3,000 citizens die because she and her boss spent eight months setting up a meeting that might "possibly" (Clarke) have saved all those lives. Eh?
