Based on direct testimony by John Bolton, it appears that President Bush’s nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations has lied under oath. Bolton claimed Thomas Hubbard, then ambassador to South Korea, signed off on a provocative speech about North Korea and thanked him afterward.

Hubbard, a Bush appointee, said he had not expressed gratitude for the speech and had disapproved of it. In fact, Hubbard’s request to tone down the speech was ignored by Bolton. Sounds pretty clear-cut to me.

To gain a little perspective, if I remember correctly, during President Clinton’s impeachment, the main argument was that Clinton took an oath before God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then failed to do so. The result: 228 congressional representatives and 45 senators voted for impeachment. To ignore Clinton’s lie under oath was to undermine the rule of law.
Given this fact, can anyone tell me why Bolton’s lie doesn’t automatically disqualify him? If Bolton is willing to lie to get confirmed, what might he do if he is steamrolled through to confirmation? In light of Bolton’s lie, why do Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Bolton’s congressional supporters not do the right thing and withdraw his nomination? Is it possible they think loyalty to Bolton is more important than lying under oath before God?

It appears lying under oath is an impeachable offense for Democrats, but OK for Republicans. Republicans can undermine the rule of law, Democrats can’t. Republicans can lie, Democrats can’t. It almost sounds like the exercising of relative morality on the part of those who claim to have never flinched a nonmoral muscle. You can even call it a moral flip-flop. Just one more reason we need to keep the filibuster intact.

— Alan Alweiss, Camarillo