Tuesday, March 20, 2007

"...but not under oath"?

This is amusing, in a nauseating kind of way. From MSNBC:

"WASHINGTON - The White House offered Tuesday to make political strategist Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers available for interviews — but not testimony under oath — before congressional committees investigating the firing of eight federal prosecutors." (emphasis mine)

Un-sworn testimony? If someone is telling the truth, what would be the problem with testifying under oath?

Like mobsters convicted of tax evasion rather than their multitude of real crimes, the downfall of the bush administration thugs may not be lying to the world to start a war, but lying to congress under oath. No wonder they loathe and fear the concept of sworn testimony so much. It's hard work, such hard, hard work to tell the truth.

Subpoena-writers, start your engines. VRROOM!