What Guarantees Truth?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The March 22 editorial "Political Spectacle" made a curious assertion. It said that presidential aides "don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime."
If this is true, then why does any witness before Congress ever have to testify under oath? If swearing an oath to tell the truth is meaningful, then former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers and White House adviser Karl Rove should have to swear such an oath. If it isn't, then we should abandon the procedure in all cases.
To insist on their not needing to take an oath is disingenuous at best.
RICHARD H. SMITH II
Alexandria
