Disgraceful - Gonzales' dithering about taking the oath.

[quiet.american]

The chief law enforcement official (admittedly not the way I usually refer to the torture czar) in our country dithers about taking an oath, and sits by while a third-party debate is waged as to whether he will take one or not -- disgraceful.

I hope against hope Dem talking heads will create an echo chamber around the fact that Gonzales' testimony without accountability has no credibility.

Gonzales' comments that his responses would be the same with an oath or without one falls into the "talk is cheap" category. If that's the case, why not take an oath?

Can you imagine Patrick Fitzgerald walking into a hearing room and dithering about whether to take an oath?

[calmblueocean]

1. Every day I wonder if they can go any lower...

... and every day, somehow, they do.

[quiet.american]

7. And every day, it seems "our" tolerance for low grows bigger....

I work for an extremely liberal organization (not politics-related) and I doubt ANYONE here even knows Gonzales was testifying today. When I tell my co-workers about things like Gonzales not testifying under oath, they give me one of two looks -- "do you really care?" -- "oh, is that important?" Aaaargh.

[BOSSHOG]

8. YO AG, if you have nothing to hide - that's what your base would say

Make them proud, raise that right hand. And you know, even when you do lie to the committee the bush base will continue to love you and rationalize your anti-american unconstitutional actions because they are "conservatives."

[quiet.american]

11. Hello! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

2. You are correct. This goes right to the heart of the arrogance and the

lawlessness of this administration.

[quiet.american]

13. Really shows up our "democracy" as an illusion, doesn't it?

That's the most stunning thing about the past five years with these criminals in charge.
Never have I been so cynical about politics in this country.

[donkeyotay]

27. Yes, it does seem like the whole "democracy" thing was just a lie

I am completely disgusted. No republican has been held accountable for anything, yet ordinary working folks have to pee in a cup just to get a job. Ordinary people get audited, investigated, wiretapped, patted down, pulled over... and those republicans shits sit there and say that Gonzales, the torture and spy genius, is too honorable to need to be sworn in. I have never felt such utter disgust and hopelessness for my country as I do now. Most citizens have checked out, and most congressmen act like they've gotten phone calls in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the nightmare progresses with more war plans and more plans for destorying our economy and our rights. Unbelievable.

[quiet.american]

34. "...gotten phone calls in the middle of the night...."

First, you've read my mind.

And your comment, "...and most congressmen act like they've gotten phone calls in the middle of the night...." strikes a definite chord.

I read a very chilling passage this evening from something linked to in another DU post -- an article written by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of the National Review - in other words, a strange bedfellow to be sure!

He wrote:

.... Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why president Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif....

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the oppostition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

[hlthe2b]

3. Every day countless thousands of common citizens--John and

Jane Q Public are required to race their hand and take the oath before presenting even the most inocuous testimony in legal proceedings. Yet, the chief law enforcement officer would be offended by being asked to do the same? This just pisses me no end.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I had to take an oath when I got my will.

[Critters2]

29. During my divorce hearing...

I had to swear under oath that my soon-to-be-ex was sleeping around and driving me into debt. Not that I minded, but still...

If I had to, why not these "people"?

[quiet.american]

15. Excellent point. We have to take oaths, why not the AG?

Especially while "testifying" in a matter of national import!

[baby_bear]

5. Did he in fact take it? n/t

[quiet.american]

10. No, he didn't. Links --

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5597854,00.html

Monday's hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn't necessary.

He wasn't. ``My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,'' Gonzales told the panel.

Video - ThinkProgress:
Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/gonzales-under-oath/

[Katherine Brengle]

6. since when is it a matter of choice? these people have no limit. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Sounds like he feels political considerations prevent his

pleading the Fifth. He considers it jist ain't fair!

Go on, Gonzo! Instead of saying, "... in case I incriminate himself", why not use the weasel words favoured by Oliver "Hardy" North: "On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully and regretfully decline to answer the question based on my constitutional rights".

What with the same chorus from the Anderson and Enron people, "I plead the Fifth" is beginning to sound like some kind of new Republican Party motto, that they want to replace their elephant emblem with a big high 5. They'll surely be congratulating each other.

Maybe Defendants in major criminal trials will, in future, simply intone, "I plead Republican".

How do you refer to a Republican in an $10,000 suit? The Accused.

[quiet.american]

16. "....based on my constitutional rights...."

Well, maybe even Gonzales realizes that would be the height of irony coming from him!

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Good point!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. So did the guy NOT take the oath to testify there?

[quiet.american]

14. Check out post #10 ---. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. Are you serious? That would make it all the easier for an

innocent party to take the oath.

Oh... I get it. He's suddenly become a Quaker...although not of the Nixonian ilk, of course.... remembering Christ's command not to swear by any oath, letting our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no". Such piety in a law chief is most moving. Let's hope it spreads... but not necessarily hold our breaths.

[quiet.american]

23. You know, times are such that might be put forward as his defense. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

26. Certainly,you couldn't put any skullduggery past them!

[Critters2]

30. Quakers are Pacifists

making it hard to support the war. But then, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"...like mine!

[stickdog]

32. In that case, he'll have to start spying on himself, won't he?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. Dude says his answers would be the same... the difference is, under oath,

they could land him in prison.

[malaise]

19. That simple

They are all criminals hoping not to end up in their own prison camps.

[Marie26]

21. He won't take an oath?

Then what's the point of having these hearings? I'm not watching it - did he eventually swear or not? I thought witnesses at a Congressional hearing always had to take an oath before testifying.

[quiet.american]

22. Good question -- and no, he didn't take an oath. See my post #10.

The GOP "senators" are taking the fall for it, as in "Republicans Decline to Swear In Gonzales"-type headlines, however, I say an Attorney General with an ounce of integrity would have insisted on being sworn in, because in the real world his "testimony" isn't worth diddly without the standard of legal accountability.

[jazzjunkysue]

24. Like a breathalizer test: Refusal = guilt.

They indict themselves, but then have the votes to pardon themselves.

You just can't trust a repug.

[magellan]

25. I still say the Dems should have walked out

Even the corporate media whores wouldn't have been able to ignore every Dem leaving the room in protest.

[Straight Shooter]

28. bush refused to take an oath when testifying before the 9/11 Commission

These people are all alike. They have rules that apply to them, and then there are rules that apply to us.

No way on God's green earth are these people going to take the oath. They walk into these hearings with the express intention of lying about anything that threatens their position or their power. There's no way they intend to get caught in the same trap which snared Clinton when he lied under oath.

That's what it's all about. You know it, they know it, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to figure it out.

[gkhouston]

31. Um, no.

He would have politely interrupted, told them their arguing back and forth was absurd, and asked to be sworn as a matter of course. It's what he, as a prosecutor, has expected of countless witnesses and defendants. Why should he do any less?

[quiet.american]

35. Damn, I wish Fitz was AG. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

33. It was worse than that.

My understanding is the Specter, as chairman, refused to put Gonzales under oath. Specter opened up the hearing by notifying the committee that no oath would be given and explained that other laws applied and that this was Specter's idea, that Gonzales himself had it seems wanted to be sworn in. What patent horseshit. Democrats objected and forced a vote on the issue. Normally this would be irrelevant as the Republican majority would simply vote with Specter, however there weren't enough Republicans present to win the vote so Specter announced that he had the missing Republican's proxies. Feingold challenged him on that - Specter didn't have the proxies, but then Feingold backed down as Specter would simply have put the session in recess until he did.

The Specter praisers here and the Graham praisers as well should be wary: these guys are playing with a stacked deck. This hearing is bullshit, and that became clear from the opening gavel. They are about to rubber stamp the executive tyranny.

[alarcojon]

36. What a slime

The Dems won't roll over on this one, will they? :sarcasm:

[glitch]

37. Why are these people so afraid to take oaths to tell the truth? Talk about

telegraphing their intent to lie. Nasty little smarmy nazis, so proud to smirk their spew.

[leesa]

38. Fraid to go to jail for his boss? You're going there anyway, honey.

[ThoughtCriminal]

39. Reno - Testimony to 9/11 Commission

<snip>
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

THOMAS KEAN: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
RENO: I do.
KEAN: Please be seated.
.
.
.
<snip>

Boy, that's not so hard is it?


http://ctstudies.com/Document/911_Commission_Reno_Testimony.html

[LibDemAlways]

40. The chief law enforcement officer in the

country weasels out of being sworn in before being asked questions by a Senate committee about unconstitutional activity he is engaging in that is robbing Americans of their civil liberties and the repukes on the committee are all for it while Dems just sit there looking aggravated. Shame on everybody involved.

The Dems should have made a huge huge stink and shamed the fascist freak into being sworn in, or, if that didn't work, simply refused to participate in such a farce. Where the hell was the anger? Leahy was the only one who looked majorly pissed. They all should have been absolutely outraged.