why should the Bush judges<they work for him> as Bush said,be forced to talk under oath?

Answer 1

I don't really see what difference it makes whether their under oath or not.........they can still lie. What really matters is that the interviews can't be recorded or transcribed to prove what they said. Sounds like watergate all over again.

Answer 2

Simple. There is some indication that the Attorney General made these firing decisions based on political and not performance related issues. There is no way to be sure Gonzales as not been acting as an extension of Bush's political aims even as he moved from WH counsel to the Ag's post. This raises Constitutional and legal questions.
In testimony to Congress, the WH has been less than honest and candid. Maybe a subpoena is the best way to get at the truth.

Answer 3

I largely agree with plank about the Shrub's lack of veracity. I think he can be and often is almost pathogenic in the way he interprets information supplied to him and directives he has issued. This is a very unfortunate condition for a president and augers badly for the USA. Our country is in for several rough years because of his lack of judgment on many major appointments and issues, his general poor performance as President and his personal idiosyncrasies that make him believe he has achieved 'victory' in so many areas in which he has failed utterly.
One of the main ways he failed us is in how he selected his appointees. He curried political favor and awarded lackeys with key positions they weren't qualified to fill. They were grateful and too willing to conduct his political business without regard for the constitutionality or the outcome. Thus, we have Gonzales, at least for a few more days or weeks.
Subpoena all his lackeys and air the truth out!

Answer 4

They're not judges...