9 comments February 6th, 2006at 12:29pm Posted by Eli

This sounds kinda familiar…

Monday’s hearing into the NSA program got off to a rocky start when Democrats protested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be given a sworn oath before testifying.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel’s senior Democrat, argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.

“It’s not up to him,” said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.

Is there an innocent explanation for this? The last time I remember Republicans opposing an oath was just before the oil executives lied their asses off about participating in Cheney’s super-duper secret energy task force (and before that, of course, there was our brave preznit’s 9/11 testimony with Cheney holding his widdle hand). I know the Republicans are anti-truth, but do they have to be so obvious about it?

Gonzales, who was not sworn in, told the committee he would voluntarily take the oath if the committee so desired. Either way, “my answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,” he said.

Wow, he admits that he would lie under oath? Pretty ballsy.

Entry Filed under: Constitution,Politics,Republicans,Specter,Wankers


  • 1. flory  |  February 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Jeebus. The precedents these guys are setting.

    But will the Dems have the stones to follow the precedents when they’re back in charge? That is the question.

  • 2. Eli  |  February 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    Do we really *want* them to follow those kinds of precedents? Or presidents?

  • 3. ina  |  February 6th, 2006 at 11:38 pm

    Hey Eli–I posted this in the other barroom, but, I think the reason is that lying to congress is just fine with these folks, but if you lie to god, well, that wouldn’t sit well with the constituency…

  • 4. Eli  |  February 6th, 2006 at 11:51 pm

    That could work. What’s disturbing is that it looks like they assume lying is a given, and they want to make sure it doesn’t have major criminal implications.

    Dems should be calling them on it every time they do this: “What do the Republicans have to hide?”

  • 5. flory  |  February 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am

    We absolutely should be following their precedents. After all, it was lying under oath that finally got the Clenis. So no Dem ever takes an oath again.

  • 6. four legs good  |  February 7th, 2006 at 1:37 am

    I’m baffled by the tactic.

    I understand that they wouldn’t want him under oath, but jeez, it fucking looks terrible.

    I don’t get it.

    And the idea that a sitting attorney general would appear before congress and not be sworn in is just flabbergasting.

  • 7. Eli  |  February 7th, 2006 at 1:42 am

    Doesn’t matter if it looks bad… if no-one’s looking.

  • 8. flory  |  February 7th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    Doesn’t matter if it looks bad… if no-one’s looking.

    And if our stalwart defenders of free speech don’t bother telling anybody about it.

  • 9. Blue Gal  |  February 8th, 2006 at 10:37 am

    I love this photo from the hearings (taken by a Christian Science Monitor reporter) Leahy looks physically ill!


Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




February 2006
« Jan   Mar »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *