A Question of Oath
February 6th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |Fireworks or frustration surfaced at the Judicial Committee hearings this morning. Before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even had a chance to speak Republican Arlen Specter refused to issue an Oath for the Attorney General. This basically says that the Republicans already know that what the Attorney General is going to say will come quite close to lying. The Republicans don’t want to a challenge to the deceptive words that he plans to use, so they decided not to swear him in. It is interesting that when Attorney General Janet Reno testified under similar circumstances the committee demanded that she be sworn in. But, in this case where the Republicans know that the Attorney General will perhaps comes very close to the line between truth and lies he may cross it inadvertently and these loyalists would rather save embarrassment than protect the American people.
The Democrats certainly challenged the Republicans who had a 10 to 8 advantage in the vote. So, it is quite clear that the Republicans remain to be the party of lies and deception when not even one Republican will say, lets just get him to say this under oath. What other reason could there be that the Republicans so ardently oppose the Attorney General from taking the Oath?
Without being under oath the Attorney General is basically free to lie to the American people as he deems safe for the administration. So, based on this we are not likely to get any truth from him at all. I guess that this is just another dark day for American. How many more can America take?
Cross Posted @ Blogspot, tblog, and BlogSpirit
2 Responses to “A Question of Oath”
By ken grandlund on Feb 6, 2006 | Reply
Without putting him under oath, nothing he says will be of any value, only spin. And as you say, surely the Republicans know this. They just want to get him on record as saying things that refute the claims being made, but said refutations will be worthless without the power of truth behind them.
Do they really think they are fooling anyone? Well, they’re not fooling anyone who hears the real situation, but sadly, that won’t be as many who hear that he defended the positions to “the Senate.”
Curiously, how our highest attorney in the land can so blithely subvert the truth is a sad indication of the levels our democracy has fallen to.
By Ditto on Feb 7, 2006 | Reply
Did anyone see the Colbert Report/Daily Show last night? There was a great piece on the AG’s “testimony”. He says right that if the president would have followed the requirements of FISA he would have had to get a sign-off from a whole slew of NSA attorneys and from the AG himself. This is the guy that’s supposed to be the guardian of our laws and he admits that the president circumvented the law for the sake of convenience.
Why didn’t the GOP-lead Congress just change the law? They were able to come back to town and pass laws just to ’Save Terry Schiavo’. FISA wasn’t important enough? It didn’t speak to The Base? Was Karl was taking a nap or consulting an attorney?
The GOP has crashed and burned and I am afraid it will take us all down. I registered as a Republican in the early 80’s - a youthful fan of Reagan. I am seriously considering switching teams. I cannot wait for the party to correct itself - it’s too far gone. I cannot take the likes of Dick and Bush and Karl and Frist and Delay and Lott and company. And these ‘major league assholes’ (a Bush term) like OTTMAN badmouthing everyone who disagrees with his Rush O’Hannity programmed Neanderthal mentality I cannot take the Right anymore. Soon I’m gonna tell these Republican fundraisers that call my house four or five times a week looking for money to ‘go fuck themselves’ (a Dick term). Conservative my ass. Fiscally responsible my ass. Personal responsibility my ass. What has happened to the party of Lincoln? Bought and sold to the Enterprise system for a simple price; the name of Jesus. Sad. GOP you got your thirty silver pieces.