What Is This Talking Point - 'Generous Offer'.....

[global1]

what are they trying to do with using the term - generous?

Do they think because they gave a dump of 3000 documents, or that they will let Rove & Meiers be interviewed with no transcripts, no oath and behind closed doors that this is a generous offer?

Why doesn't somebody challenge them on that?

Deal or No Deal

Well - in my mind it is NO DEAL.

[WCGreen]

1. sounds like a fuckin' crime boss....

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. It has all along

From the day Bush got into the campaign in 1999.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. It's now the "EGO" - Extremely Generous Offer

Seems they're saying that Congress can have select redacted documents from DOJ but they're going to have to accept the "word" of the WH.

[mike6640]

4. E.G.O.,

Got a laugh from the briefing room pres corp. Seems a few are asking 'tougher' questions.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Ed Henry's "if the Pres has no recollection how can he claim Exec Priv"

hits to the heart of the whole thing.

Issue the subpoenas!!!

[Labors of Hercules]

6. The weasels are trying to mask the fact they're scared shitless.

Even Shrub himself could barely read the shit off the fucking page... Trying to fake being tough in the vain hope that somebody won't notice the trickle of piss running down his trouser leg.

[DemGa]

7. Just the latest from the Repuke message "framers"

[LiberalFighter]

8. Because the reporters in the Press Room are a bunch of idiots.

They are slow minded.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Too bad the Press can't hold their own Press Conference

and ask the hard questions on all the major networks. Maybe a panel type of press conference.

[texpatriot2004]

10. What "offer" are they referring to? "Generous" it was not and I

don't think it was an "offer" either.

[Jai4WKC08]

11. I don't think the public is gonna buy it

To the extent they know anything at all about what's been going on, I think they'll see pretty quick through the "we don't need to be sworn, or speak publicly, or provide a transcript" bullshit. Americans generally don't like secrecy, and I doubt most of them trust the Bushies enough anymore to accept their word on anything whether they're sworn or not.

If anything, most people will probably say, why should they care about testifying if they have nothing to hide?

Isn't that what the Bushies told everybody about warrantless wire-tapping and other violations of OUR rights? Are they now going to the say the president's rights are more important than the people's? Are we going to let them?