Defiant? That's one word for it.
Why would someone refuse to talk under oath? Because, if they want to hide something, they have two options - commit perjury, or admit to something you don't want to admit to. That's the only reason Bush doesn't want Rove or Miers to talk under oath. This isn't a reasonable solution, it's one that works for Bush and Cheney.
An analogy: Like many people who were fans of his in the late 1970's, I refused to believe O.J. Simpson was guilty...until he got in his Bronco and went on the lam. Only a guilty man does that. Only a guilty person does everything possible to avoid testifying in court.
The most suprising thing - wait, the ONLY suprising thing here - is that Democrats are actually saying they are going to show some backbone and issue subpoenas tomorrow.
It's a whole new world.
clipped from www.sfgate.com
A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.
Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.
"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
