Tuesday, October 25, 2005

No Chicken Dancing

There is a lot of discussion around a post over at Firedoglake about whether or not Cheney was under oath or not when interviewed by Fitzgerald. While it may make some legal difference I think the discussion is missing a serious point.
First of all, both Cheney and Bush, as do all elected officials, take an oath of office. This oath deals with their responsibility around the Constitution and all but the fundamental reality is not so much in the words but in the symbology of the act.
The oath as symbol grants the President and Vice President the authority to act as our representatives in the conduct of all affairs. It virtually grants unlimited authority but it also places the massive burden of ultimate responsibility and the weight of ultimate integrity.
This weight of integrity demands that every word uttered by the office holder is the absolute truth. Unvarnished, unspun, whole and complete truth. No weasel words allowed.
Accepting the oath of office means that for the full term and beyond the taker is under the oath and that any lie or half truth is perjury pure and simple.
Discussing whether Cheney was under oath when talking with Mr. Fitzgerald is therefore meaningless in my view. Cheney and Bush are always under oath in my book and should be held to task for every word that comes out of their mouths plain and simple.
No "chicken dancing" ,no mincing, no hemming and hawing.

No comments: