Rove Offered for Unsworn Testimony

I'm sorry but I just don't get how testifying when *not* under oath amounts to a hill of beans?!

Imagine, when as a kid, your Dad demanded from you an explanation for how the family cat got crushed under the wheels of your car and you stood before him--your fingers clearly crossed--and you then told him you didn't know?

I mean, is not swearing under oath but somehow hearsay reporting, half-truth telling, vaguely recalling or suggesting off-the-cuff probabilities the new "truth"?

Rove offered for unsworn testimony | Politics | Reuters: "The White House and Congress clashed on Tuesday over President George W. Bush's power to keep close advisers like Karl Rove from testifying under oath about the firing of U.S. prosecutors.

Setting up a possible legal showdown, a testy Bush vowed he would go to court to rebuff congressional orders 'dragging White House members up there to score political points' during what he described as 'show trials.'

'Absolutely, I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. ... We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition,' Bush said at the White House. He also offered fresh confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose resignation has been demanded by Democrats and some Republicans."

And why wouldn't Americans including those annointed appointed by an administration, be as accountable as others? Hmmm...must be the fear of being asked a leading question.