Why Bush Won't Let Advisers Testify Under Oath

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the Washington Post article covering Bush's statements that he won't let Rove, Meirs, and apparently Gonzales, testify about the firing of the U.S. Attorneys under oath and in public. He is spinning this as a stand on principle, claiming that he is defending "executive privilege." He's not. There is a one word reason why he doesn't want his advisers under oath and it is spelled L-I-B-B-Y.

Libby was brought down because he lied to a Federal Grand Jury under oath. Republicans are stressing that a person can be charged with a crime for misleading Congress even if not under oath. That is technically true, but given that Bush controls the Justice Department, that is not likely to happen unless there is a public push for a special prosecutor. That won't happen unless the testimony is seen by the public and it can be fact-checked by websites such as www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

The Bush Administration just got a vivid lesson in the power of a special prosecutor. The Bushies don't want to go through that again. Hence, Bush will not agree to his advisers being under oath and testifying in public. Before that happens old Alberto will realize that he needs to return to Texas to gaze at the cattle grazing and the oil wells pumping.