Seeking "compromise" on the truth

So what exactly are we supposed to think when the President says that members of his staff will talk about the firings of federal prosecutors as long as they don’t have to swear to tell the truth and nobody makes a record of what they say?

Gee, that will sure put all doubts to rest.

For those not completely fluent in Washingtonspeak, people involved in hot controversies always want to avoid testifying under oath. They regard swearing to tell the truth as a perjury trap, where a little shading here, a little memory lapse there can come back to bite you with a criminal charge. Just ask Scooter Libby.

This reluctance to swear to tell the truth only sounds strange to the innocent ears of every day citizens. You have to realize that for many of the habitués of the halls of power, obfuscation is the non-partisan standard of communication. That’s why people like Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.., can keep a straight face while floating a “compromise” proposal in which White House aides would be questioned publicly by select lawmakers, but wouldn’t be put under oath. And Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who makes a big deal about wanting to ask the questions, can seem willing to go along with such a proposal.

Explain to us simple folk out here in the boonies senators; how do you strike a “compromise” on telling the truth?