A couple of folks have written to me to say they don't think I made it clear that even though Attorney General Gonzales wasn't put under oath, he can still be prosecuted for lying to Congress if it's determined that he did. Frankly, I think Gonzales could get up there and insist he's Captain Marvel and can fly around the room and there's zero chance of the Republican majority doubting him, let alone allowing a prosecution. But what I don't get is the argument for not treating him (or those oil company execs a few months ago when another committee leader waived the swearing-in) like anyone else. Why are some people put under oath and not others? Aren't they all supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why are there two classes of witnesses?
Here's another thing I don't understand. Gonzales kept talking about how Franklin Roosevelt and other past presidents had conducted very extensive electronic surveillance. Okay, that might be a good argument for why a president of the U.S. needs to do that. But the question before this committee and this country is whether Bush's actions violated the FISA law established in 1978. So I don't get how anything before that is particularly relevant. It's like they passed a law banning smoking in restaurants, and then someone got caught smoking in a restaurant and his defense was, "Yeah, but look how many people smoked in restaurants before that law."
It seems to me that the Bush administration position is that they think the '78 law was unwise and maybe, by their definition of the responsibility of the Chief Exec, even contrary to the Constitution. I don't know that I'd agree with that but it would be a more coherent, and perhaps more honest stance. But for some reason, they don't want to suggest the law is wrong; only that they can ignore it if they so choose. I don't think that's how this kind of thing is supposed to work.