DAS Blog

Feel free to send your own -- mine is heavy on the snark:

Sen. Specter, Chairman Sen. Judiciary Committee:

I am writing to you in support of your and your Republican colleagues' decision not to swear Alberto Gonzales for testimony yesterday. While other liberals may disagree with this decision, I see no point to place Attorney General Gonzales in a position where he may very well perjure himself.

Certainly, given Gonzales' past sworn testimony to your committee in which he declared a program we now know about and about which he knew at the time to be entirely hypothetical, it seems that swearing in Gen. Gonzales would not have in any way ensured that his testimony would be truthful. Indeed, I wonder how many of the "hypothetical" issues raised by Sen. Feinstein will turn out are already occurring: if Gonzales previously said warrant-less wiretapping was "hypothetical" when he knew it was already occurring, could it be that media manipulation, covert ops on US soil, etc., that Gonzales said were hypothetical are now occurring and he knows about them?

I find no fault with you not insisting the Gonzales be sworn in: after all, past experience has shown that he views oaths to be meaningless anyway. The real question is why the administration has continued to allow a demonstrated perjurer, someone who committed a crime for which Clinton was impeached, to remain in a cabinet level position.

Sincerely,
David Snyder