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.