Don't Overrate Chait

As long as I'm attacking political bloggers, I might as well share my disdain for this post by Jonathan Chait, which for some reason Yglesias seems to like.

The basic issue is that Democrats want to question Karl Rove and Harriet Miers about the whole US Attorney scandal. The Washington Post opposes the Democrats' desire to make Rove and Miers answer under oath, arguing that lying to Congress is a crime with or without the oath.

Chait seems to be willfully ignoring the thrust of this argument:

"Furthermore, maybe, just maybe, the possibility that they could be prosecuted if they do lie--i.e., perjury--would help ensure that they don't lie. Perhaps this would work even better than the honor system."

The Post's whole point, though, is that it's not the honor system. Lying to Congress is a crime and Rove and Miers would face punishment if they did it. There's no value-added to making them testify under oath (or so the Post seems to be arguing).

Now admittedly the Post isn't on the strongest ground here. This kind of thing typically devolves into this:

Democrats: We're going to question Rove and Miers under oath to get some answers here.
Washington Post: Don't make them testify under oath, just ask them whatever you want. They can't lie because that would be a crime.
Democrats: If being under oath doesn't make any difference, why are you opposed to it?
Post: If being under oath doesn't make any difference, why are you insisting on it?

Also, I'm not sure the Post is right about the law. Still, whatever the weaknesses of the Post's argument, Chait hasn't "disposed" of it. He's simply mischaracterized it and then ignored it. Although I'm inclined to agree that Miers and Rove should be made to testify under oath, Chait has given me no answer to the Post's claim that it will make no difference.

[UPDATE: the commenters make basically the same points that I do, so maybe I'm the one who's got no value-added here]