Monday, March 26, 2007

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