Bush had this to say yesterday about his aides testifying under oath before Congress:
I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If they truly are interested in information — in other words, if they want to find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department, they need to read all the emails we released. If they’re truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place. My concern is, they would rather be involved with partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.
And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a way for people to get information. We’ll just fine out what’s on their mind.
This is what’s on their mind:
A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
…
“Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That’s the formula for true accountability,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
Not much time for me to comment on this right now, so I’ll defer to today’s New York Times editorial:
Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.
The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.
…
It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?
The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.
And for more good commentary on this topic, go to Dan Froomkin’s “Indications of Obfuscation” at The Washington Post.
0 Responses to “Cranky Bush”