An understanding of the concept of past, present, and future tense is not a requirement for the position of GSA Administrator in this administration. The only requirement for any senior position in the Bush administration is a professed disdain for the rule of law.

How useless is this testimony?

Well, Ms. Doan fits every definition of liar in the books, and her excuses are so far beyond the pale that, even for a bush appointee, I'm surprised she's able to them with a straight face.

But it will not make a damned bit of difference.

She's obviously not going to step down, and it'll be a cold day in hell before Mr. Bush tosses her.

So the answer: Totally and utterly useless, particularly since this time around she appears to realize that she's untouchable, and that she can get away with giggling at and arguing with the committee to her heart's content.

So, her grammatical defense is that, rather than directly ordering retaliation on whistleblowers, she strongly urged that the whole team undertake such retaliation?

It's tough to dilute one's responsibility for a crime by saying, "I was powerless to insist, I was only the boss, and so I begged instead."

This woman is clearly useless. she should be taken to Baghdad and left on a street corner somewhere in Tikrit and left to ask for directions. oh excuse me, the above is not what i meant to say, I mean to say 'she should be fired'.

Just a nitpick - it's the General Services Administration, not the Government Services Administration.

I retired from GSA in 1999, and while we had our share of goofy Administrators, this one is on another plane, entirely!

Just an FYI, the subjunctive is a "mood" and not a "tense," for anyone that cares...

Just another little mis-speak on Doan's part. She actually meant to say she was engaging in "whore-oratory" when she was testifying. Which I find to be perfectly believable.

At about :43 into the video, check out the smirk on the face of the woman in the background. It's priceless.

Son of a Latin teacher, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) disagreed. He called her statement the common "future" tense.

Talk about letting Republicans frame the issue.

I don't know how much more of this I can take...

gcs writes:

"I've become convinced that it's only a matter of days before one of these "loyal Bushies" shows his or her utter contempt for Congress by speaking in a fake a foreign language and pretending to be unable to understand english."

Hey, it worked for Sammy Sosa, and he used to work for George W. Bush, too.

When in hell are the Democrats going to show some cajones. I am sick and tired of the cowards who were to set back Bush and retake the government.

I would suggest that the majority leaders of Congress book one hour of national TV time for the purpose of making a national statement concerning a dangerous challenge to the constitution of this country. They should announce upcoming actions against the President.

1. The best attorney and speaker should be chosen to lay out a simple case for impeachment for on the three most compelling and clear grounds.

2. They should announce a refusal to fund any administrative department that fails to adhere to supoenas. This would include cutting off funds for the White House.

3. They should announce immediate institution of resolutions to impeach Doan, Gonzo and any other such official where the case is sufficient.

If the Democrats fail to take control of the situation, then it may very well be time for the people to rise up and spill the blood of dictators in the street.

What attorney planted the "hortatory subjunctive" defense with her? I think she used such esoteric language simply to befuddle the MSM and ensure they won't cover her testimony on tonight's broadcasts.

On the other hand, I guarantee either the Daily Show or Colbert will cover this. The fact that her appearance before Congress devolved into a debate on the meaning of "hortatory subjective" is priceless.

Perhaps she was referring to the Whoretory Sujective, the process of prostituting oneself as a loyal Bushie

I guess it really does depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is....

Security word "degree"

You don't need a degree in Latin to know a bald face liar when you see her.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" would be...

lampwick is "the son of the mother of a latin teacher"? Is lampwick the latin teacher? Or is it your sibling?

Sorry for being insufficiently clear; I should have added that I have no siblings who are Latin teachers.

I knew a guy from Romania who always used to refer to himself as his mother's son, as in "My mother's son could use a bite to eat." I never was able to figure out whether this was some Romanian idiom or a logician's circumlocution (he was a philosopher).

Anyway, Lorna Doone is a liar, whatever her mood.

Is she is or is she ain't indictable?

Perhaps a proper use of the hortatory subjunctive mood would help Ms. Doan (and the rest of us) in the future: "O good people, let us rise up and throw down the evil ones who have hijacked our great country!"

From the sublime to the ridiculous comes to mind.

Are Repub's trying to piss off Latin teachers now? Did they think Latin teachers and Latino's are somewhat related?

That testimony brought back the memories of Latin class.

these folks have no shame, I propose we the people subject them to the horatory Objective of putting our foot between their rears. LOL !

I loathe Lurita Doan and all she stands for.

fire her already or and impeach these bums. I won't want my taxes spent under these conditions. Boycott work ONe day in protest, to send a message quick style in a hurry.

The Whore Tory Sub Junk Shiv.

.

Sorry, Egypt Steve, but "Let's..." is the right English version.

The real problem is, how does a boss "exhort" her subordinates exactly? That isn't really a possibility. As I teach my Latin students (which makes me a son of a mother of a Latin professor), one can use a number of constructions that don't sound like commands, but clearly - semantically - are.

For example, "Why don't you close that door?" isn't really a question, is it?

Actually, they update is still wrong. English really doesn't use the subjuntive mood very much. It's sort of vestigial. One example is in a counter-factual, such as "I wish I were at home right now." "I were" is not a normal indicative mood. It would be "I am" in the present or "I was" in the past. (Because the subjunctive is so unusual in English that you'll often hear the sentence as "I wish I was at home right now", but that is wrong.)

At any rate, "Let us do what Rove says" is not a subjunctive either. "Let us" or "let's" is just the usual way that English forms the imperative tense. "Let's go to the beach" is just the first person plural way to form what

Also, WRT what Dorothy wrote above - "If I ever got fired, I would go postal" isn't subjunctive either. The "would go" in an "if" is the conditional.

As others have noted, this is all clearer in other languages than English.

Is there something wrong with me that I love it when Sarbanes gets all hot and Latin grammarian?

Yeah, I thought so.

I liked Rep. Shays's challenge to the bumbling, mumbling Democrats: "Give me the names of those that were retaliated against." Waxman: "Uh, er, uh . . .well, we will get those names to you later."

Speaking of professional journalism:

“... a statement Doan made about GSA employees that had cooperated with the Office of Special Council ....”

One supposes that the author, Laura McGann, meant, “... a statement Doan made about GSA employees *who* had cooperated with the Office of Special Council ....”

“Son of a Latin teacher, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) disagreed.”

One supposes that the author, Laura McGann, meant, “... the son of the mother of a Latin teacher ....”

Huh. Guess I'm still not clear on how "hortatory subjunctive" is supposed to help Doan. If you're the head of GSA, saying "until they shape up, let us make them suffer" is the same as or *worse than* "until they shape up, they will suffer."

(a) Strictly, it's *more* damning anyway: it's not a mere prediction of suffering, it's saying Doan et al will be the cause of it.
(b) If this is about "hortatory" vs. imperative, Doan's position makes her point about what she intended her words to mean moot anyway. She's the boss. "Hortatory" *is* imperative when it's from the boss.

Who cares whether it's a mood or a tense? Just follow one rule of thumb:

If their lips are moving, then they're telling a lie.

Posted by: Long Memory
Date: June 13, 2007 06:05 PM

That's a half truth. There are two forms of lying:

1. Commission: telling a known falsehood.

2. Omission: withholding a known truth.

_Ergo_, as Gonzales abundantly demonstrated, they are lying:

1. When there lips are moving;

2. When their lips are moving and they are saying nothing, as in, "I don't recall," or "I don't recall if I remember"; and

3. When their lips aren't moving.

I'm sick and tired of concern trolls writing posts complaining about "spineless" Democrats. Drip, drip, drip. Generate embarrassing headlines for Republicans, day in, day out, that's politics.

Indictment and conviction, that's the job of a prosecutor. However, we've got a little problem currently with the independence of prosecutors.

So instead, drip, drip, drip. Let 'em look stupid. Hell, even if they think they are getting away with it, it just makes them look worse.

Posted by: Doctor Jay
Date: June 13, 2007 07:45 PM

Well said. Except that I'm to the point of calling them the assholes they are.

As long as Gonzales stays where he is, he keeps the issues alive and front-and-center, and continues to damage Bushit, et al., and the Republicans. That's ammunition for our side.

They would rathr Gonzales be impeached -- they ignore the fact that the Democrats don't yet have sufficient votes to do that; and bash the Democrats because the reason for that fact is that the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging.

As long as Bushit twits such as Doan offer nonsense as excuses -- show themselves to be lying fools -- that's ammunition for our side.

They would rather Doan be gone so that embarrassment ceases. Pro-Bushit assholes.

The trolls -- assholes -- of which you speak are peanut gallery voyeurs who don't vote; and their excuse is always the same: politics don't provide instant results in response to their infantile demands for instant gratification.

The Watergate break-in occurred in June, 1972. The first effort to investigate that occurred during Winter, 1972-73 -- but didn't go anywhere because the Republican members of the investigating committee didn't show in deliberate effort to prevent a quorum.

Even when the investigations did get underway seriously, it still took time for the process to work.

Bushit, et al., have been implementing their agenda for 56 1/2 years. Democrats have had control of Congress -- barely -- for 6 months.

Nixon only finally resigned in August, 1974.

Yet Democrats are required to rush to judgment the way Republicans would, else the are "spineless".

I'm fed up with such jerks who refuse to learn the actual facts even though they are right there in front of their faces.

In addition to the Doan testimony, and the subpoenas of Taylor and Miers, the Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed documents re. the NSA's warrantless wiretapping. That is a direct confrontation which the peanut gallery assholes would want -- but also one of the more risky re. prematurity and Executive Privilege claims.

Doctor Jay
Date: June 13, 2007 07:45 PM

You are not a concern troll if you notice that Congress's approval rating is now 23%, which is 5 or 6 points lower than Bush's approval rating. The reason is it so low is the Democratic leadership has signalled it lacks the courage to face Bush down. The public sees Reid, Pelosi et al as a bunch of wimps. Until Democrats start acting, they will be saddled with that image. Unless they start acting, Democrats will look bad. I don't care how many liars they uncover.

A good place for Congress to start would be for Congress to start the process to have people like Doan and Schlozman charged with and tried for their obvious perjury.

Posted by: Ron Byers
Date: June 13, 2007 10:43 PM

And in other contexts you'd insist the those polled are Americans who haven't a clue. And you'd be correct.

Bisht, et al., has had 6 years to implement their agenda. You expect the Democrats to roll all that baxk in _six months_.

Shove the poll: those polled are as clueless as you. As long as Gonzales is where he is, he keeps the issues alive and front-and-center, and continues to damage Bushit, et al., and the Republicans.

You want him gone so the Republicans are out of the spotlight and off the hook.

By contrast. REPUBLICAN Specter says that this investigation "is not going to stop". That is a warning to the White House.

You want it over with as soon as possible so you can rejoin those polled by going back to watching "American Idol".

Secret word: Stretch

As in this is being stretched way beyond the absurd. For F*c%s sake, when will this game end. This is amateur hour. This lady is clearly borderline retarded. She should be trying to figure out which hole the square peg goes into, not running the GSA.

ooof

Additionally, hortatory subjunctive is really only an appropriate mood when it's used in a self-reflexive manner, which means that the "us" is analogous to the 'royal we'.

That doesn't correspond with Doan's locution in the least, to put it mildly.

Hagop writes: "As a former practicing litigator, I know this technique well and worked with my witnesses long hours to get them to understand the way it works. Thus, if you pay particular attention to what the witnesses are saying, it is technically true. However, the natural meaning and understanding of the words spoken convey a message that is either an obfuscation of the truth or a "near truth" or a misrepresentation. In no way can the witness be charged with perjury because what the witness says is technically true."

Just out of curiosity, if the witness is sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", how is "an obfuscation of the truth or a 'near truth' or a misrepresentation" not perjury? (Or is that "whole truth" thing just a Hollywoodization of the courtroom oath?)

Notice how Waxman had to call a recess after Sarbanes took Goan to task. Sarbanes was direct and refused to let her ofuscate the issues. Goan just lost it.

I think she is lying
No Bonuses For You