Clinton must testify in public under oath, to the 9/11 commission.

[jahawkin]

Clinton already met with the commission in private. He did so alone, without Al Gore beside him.
How did the commission feel about Clinton's time with them??
link

"But a lot of what we talked to him about was actually the inner workings of presidency as well as many of the classified briefings we've been able to read," Mr. Kean said in an appearance on Thursday evening on "Newshour" with Jim Lehrer. "We asked him some pretty detailed questions on those. And he was just totally frank ? totally frank, totally honest, and forthcoming."

How about Gov. Thompson, what did he make of Clinton's testimony?
link

COOPER: We just received a statement saying that former President Clinton testified today in front of the commission, they met in closed -- he met in closed, private session. How was that testimony?

THOMPSON: President Clinton was as impressive as he has been through his entire political career. He is a master. He's the best natural politician and one of the best original thinkers I've ever met in my entire life.

We had an extraordinary time with former President Clinton today. We were with him for almost four hours this afternoon in a secure facility. He was enormously helpful to the commission, and I think we all very much appreciated his being with us.

I don't think Clinton would mind doing a public session. But its more useful that they do it in private so they can talk of classified info, as the Bush and Cheney duo will be doing. I wonder if the commission will find them as helpful and honest...

 

[SuperTool]

Clinton and Bush should both testify publicly and under oath with no time limitations, and no VP handholding.
I know the insane right wingers have their gotchas set, but they are foolish to underestimate Clinton.
He is about 3 levels above them.

 

[DoubleL]

Why even have Clinton testify, From watching I get the ideal that they are not looking for the truth or how to make the US safer, Might just be me but looks like the commission is just trying to replace a president

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
GWB could set a helluva example, himself, by leaving his vice-pres in the foyer, insisting on taking the oath, himself, then answering any and all questions posed for as long as the commission chooses to do so...

Nah, that would require actual leadership qualities, rather than a willingness to serve as a sock-puppet...

He could also insist that his entire staff sign the FBI's non-confidentiality agreements in the Plame affair, or hit the door running- it's a matter of National Security, after all...

Nah...

It's funny, but I made similar comments to a conservative friend just yesterday. I asked him how he could support the Bush admin's ongoing obstruction of the 9/11 Commission. He acknowledged it didn't look good, but suggested they might be looking at it from a different perspective and not realize how bad it looked to the public. He then asked what I thought Bush should have done. I said:

1. Announced the formation of the Commission within a few weeks of 9/11
   
2. Tasked an independent party with selecting Commission members
   
3. Given the Commission full subpoena powers and the authority to set its own scope and timeline
   
4. Publicly, emphatically stated he was insisting on full cooperation by everyone within his adminstration and would give the Commission full and unfettered access to all records, memos, PDBs, raw intel, etc.
   
5. Gone before America to say getting to the bottom of 9/11 was more important than any personal or political considerations, that America's welfare was his first and utmost concern. Then, to emphasize this and set the tone, state that he, personally, would testify under oath and would give the Commission as much time as they wanted, and so would everyone else in his administration.

In short, I told him, Bush should have acted like a leader instead of a politician. Bush did not respond as a leader.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Why even have Clinton testify, From watching I get the ideal that they are not looking for the truth or how to make the US safer, Might just be me but looks like the commission is just trying to replace a president

No doubt. I'm sure you also thought America's very foundation rested on the Starr witch hunt getting to the truth about Monica. This is because you are a fawning, empty-headed, Bush fanboy. (Yes, that is an ad hom. Sue me.)

 

[heartsurgeon]

gee..here's another quote:

"Former President Bill Clinton defended his counterterrorism policies in a private meeting with the Sept. 11 commission and said intelligence wasn't strong enough to justify a retaliation against al-Qaida for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship."

to wit:

Bob Kerrey, a former Democrat senator from Nebraska and now a member of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he believed Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after al-Qaida after the attack on the ship.
"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said. "That's a difference of opinion."

"During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey."

to wit:

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.
A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.
After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."
"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

link to audio recording of clinton discussing Sudan offer of Bin Laden

we record....you decide.

he needs to be under oath (as if you don't already know that much)

besides, all you Bush-Haters were braying for Dr. Rice to testify in public, under oath...gee Whit, didn't she already testify in private to the commission...but that wasn't good enough..gotta be public, gotta be under oath..

well geez, you know i agree with that (for different reasons than libs)...but i also believe Clinton OWES the public and the 9/11 families public testimony under oath...

 

[DoubleL]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DoubleL
Why even have Clinton testify, From watching I get the ideal that they are not looking for the truth or how to make the US safer, Might just be me but looks like the commission is just trying to replace a president
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No doubt. I'm sure you also thought America's very foundation rested on the Starr witch hunt getting to the truth about Monica. This is because you are a fawning, empty-headed, Bush fanboy. (Yes, that is an ad hom. Sue me.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No didn't have to most knew the truth about Monica, Also I am not a Bush fanboy, You are showing you are a true lib, They always call people names even real men like me. Have a nice day

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
gee..here's another quote:

"Former President Bill Clinton defended his counterterrorism policies in a private meeting with the Sept. 11 commission and said intelligence wasn't strong enough to justify a retaliation against al-Qaida for the 2000 bombing of a Navy ship."

to wit:

Bob Kerrey, a former Democrat senator from Nebraska and now a member of the commission, said Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America" he believed Clinton should have been more aggressive in going after al-Qaida after the attack on the ship.
"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Kerrey said. "That's a difference of opinion."

"During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey."

to wit:

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.
A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.
After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."
"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

link to audio recording of clinton discussing Sudan offer of Bin Laden

we record....you decide.

he needs to be under oath (as if you don't already know that much)

besides, all you Bush-Haters were braying for Dr. Rice to testify in public, under oath...gee Whit, didn't she already testify in private to the commission...but that wasn't good enough..gotta be public, gotta be under oath..

well geez, you know i agree with that (for different reasons than libs)...but i also believe Clinton OWES the public and the 9/11 families public testimony under oath...

Ok, public testimony under oath and no keeper. Bush does the same. Exactly the same. That work?

 

[SuperTool]

OMG Bill Clinton will never get elected president after this

 

[Perknose]

Ok, public testimony under oath and no keeper. Bush does the same. Exactly the same. That work?

Well?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DoubleL
Why even have Clinton testify, From watching I get the ideal that they are not looking for the truth or how to make the US safer, Might just be me but looks like the commission is just trying to replace a president
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No doubt. I'm sure you also thought America's very foundation rested on the Starr witch hunt getting to the truth about Monica. This is because you are a fawning, empty-headed, Bush fanboy. (Yes, that is an ad hom. Sue me.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No didn't have to most knew the truth about Monica, Also I am not a Bush fanboy, You are showing you are a true lib, They always call people names even real men like me. Have a nice day

If you believe that this bi-partisan Commission, appointed by Bush, is "trying to replace a president" then you are a Bush fanboy whether you can admit it to yourself or not. It was a stupid and pointless comment. As far as me calling you a name, it is merely a sign of my frustration at the endless supply of right-wing trollettes who continually plop their little dollops of bleating idiocy throughout every thread.


PS. no real man calls himself a real man.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Ok, public testimony under oath and no keeper. Bush does the same. Exactly the same. That work?

Well?

I think it's a great idea. How about it? HS?

 

[Gaard]

Well, "effective" is subjective not objective so one could speculate either way on that. But in atleast one sense it would be more "effective" because the panel could ask the question once and get both answers if they wanted to ask the same question to both of them. Now do I think it is "legitimate"? Well again "effective" is subjective but then again so is "legitimate". IMO I don't think it is NOT legitimate but that doesn't mean it is legitimate either.(yes I learned well from 8 years of Willy)

LOL
I was debating whether to reply with a derogatory comment on your inability to call a duck a duck...or simply with the rolling eyes emoticon. Then I realized I expected nothing less from you. :beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Well, "effective" is subjective not objective so one could speculate either way on that. But in atleast one sense it would be more "effective" because the panel could ask the question once and get both answers if they wanted to ask the same question to both of them. Now do I think it is "legitimate"? Well again "effective" is subjective but then again so is "legitimate". IMO I don't think it is NOT legitimate but that doesn't mean it is legitimate either.(yes I learned well from 8 years of Willy)

LOL
I was debating whether to reply with a derogatory comment on your inability to call a duck a duck...or simply with the rolling eyes emoticon. Then I realized I expected nothing less from you. :beer:

If you asked if I would do the same thing I would answer with a "no". I wouldn't do things like Bush is. Happy?

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

Ok, public testimony under oath and no keeper. Bush does the same. Exactly the same. That work?

sounds fair to me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Ok, public testimony under oath and no keeper. Bush does the same. Exactly the same. That work?

sounds fair to me.

Okey doke.

 

[DoubleL]

If you believe that this bi-partisan Commission, appointed by Bush, is "trying to replace a president" then you are a Bush fanboy whether you can admit it to yourself or not. It was a stupid and pointless comment. As far as me calling you a name, it is merely a sign of my frustration at the endless supply of right-wing trollettes who continually plop their little dollops of bleating idiocy throughout every thread.


PS. no real man calls himself a real man.

Well that is the way I see it and I have problems with Bush so I should know if I am a fanboy, I trust very few men in office if any, I don't make stupid and pointless comments, I just said what it sounded like to me, I don't give a dam who appointed them, Now I would never call a man not a real man without doing it to his face, But then again I am not a lib, As the real man goes I think I put my time in on that, In Nam, Hines rehab, and 37 years in the US Army, 2-14 Golden Dragons so I don't need to go over that

 

[Gaard]

I don't make stupid and pointless comments

Now I would never call a man not a real man without doing it to his face, But then again I am not a lib

Why are you still here again?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
If you believe that this bi-partisan Commission, appointed by Bush, is "trying to replace a president" then you are a Bush fanboy whether you can admit it to yourself or not. It was a stupid and pointless comment. As far as me calling you a name, it is merely a sign of my frustration at the endless supply of right-wing trollettes who continually plop their little dollops of bleating idiocy throughout every thread.


PS. no real man calls himself a real man.

Well that is the way I see it and I have problems with Bush so I should know if I am a fanboy, I trust very few men in office if any, I don't make stupid and pointless comments, I just said what it sounded like to me, I don't give a dam who appointed them, Now I would never call a man not a real man without doing it to his face, But then again I am not a lib, As the real man goes I think I put my time in on that, In Nam, Hines rehab, and 37 years in the US Army, 2-14 Golden Dragons so I don't need to go over that

Looks like we found an E-badass.

 

[XZeroII]

Can you imaging what it would be like having Clinton testify under oath about 9/11???

Q = Question Asking Guy
BC = Bill Clinton

Q: Can you think of anything that might have happened during your presidency that could have eventually lead to 9/11?
BC: That depends on what your definition of 9 is.
Q: The number nine.
BC: ...
BC: I don't understand the question
Q: Can you think of anything that might have happened during your presidency that could have eventually lead to the WTC disaster?
BC: ... W...T...C?
Q: ...
BC: ...
Q: Mr Clinton, have you recently experienced a strong blow to the head?
BC: *grin* Well, I wouldn't say that that, but there was some blowing, and head was involved... *grin*
Q: ... You may leave now
BC: Thank you. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to serve my country yet again. You've been a great question asking guy. I'm really proud of you. Take a bow. That's it. Thank you again. *waves goodbye*

 

[Shuxclams]

The panel said it didn't plan to release details of the meeting, saying much of it involved classified information.

Commissioners said that Clinton addressed big-picture policy issues.

"He was adamant about trying to work in a bipartisan way to fix the problems," said Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former U.S. representative from Indiana. "He was quite honest and frank."

John Lehman, a former Navy secretary under President Reagan, agreed.

"He did very well," Lehman told CNN. "He gave us a lot of very helpful insights into things that happened, policy approaches."

A spokesman for Clinton, Jim Kennedy, said the former president was pleased to talk to the commission "and believed it was a very constructive meeting."

Clinton and Gore consented in February to separate private interviews.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also will meet privately with the full panel in a joint session in coming weeks. They initially restricted the interview to one hour with two panel members, but under mounting public pressure agreed last week to a joint session without time constraints

Clinton was forth-right and open... even apologetic for having not been able to do anything more...


Bush/Cheney are reluctant and secrative..... If anyone should be put in front of the panel I would want the ones who seem to have something to hide.









SHUX

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Can you imaging what it would be like having Clinton testify under oath about 9/11???

Q = Question Asking Guy
BC = Bill Clinton

Q: Can you think of anything that might have happened during your presidency that could have eventually lead to 9/11?
BC: That depends on what your definition of 9 is.
Q: The number nine.
BC: ...
BC: I don't understand the question
Q: Can you think of anything that might have happened during your presidency that could have eventually lead to the WTC disaster?
BC: ... W...T...C?
Q: ...
BC: ...
Q: Mr Clinton, have you recently experienced a strong blow to the head?
BC: *grin* Well, I wouldn't say that that, but there was some blowing, and head was involved... *grin*
Q: ... You may leave now
BC: Thank you. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to serve my country yet again. You've been a great question asking guy. I'm really proud of you. Take a bow. That's it. Thank you again. *waves goodbye*

gah, that was so close to sounding realistic, you forgot the saxaphone though.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Clinton was forth-right and open... even apologetic for having not been able to do anything more...

two things come to mind...
1) Clinton lies under oath...why do you believe he was "forth-right" when he's not under oath.
2) Dr. Rice testified in private to the committee and was forth-right and cooperative. Why wasn't THAT good enough for you.

just trying to point out the continuing hypocrisy of the liberals, and how the "under oath" "public" testimony is really about trying to create a "media" moment for partisan political purposes.

if Clinton has nothing to hide...under oath, in public I say!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Clinton was forth-right and open... even apologetic for having not been able to do anything more...

two things come to mind...
1) Clinton lies under oath...why do you believe he was "forth-right" when he's not under oath.
2) Dr. Rice testified in private to the committee and was forth-right and cooperative. Why wasn't THAT good enough for you.

just trying to point out the continuing hypocrisy of the liberals, and how the "under oath" "public" testimony is really about trying to create a "media" moment for partisan political purposes.

if Clinton has nothing to hide...under oath, in public I say!!

So Bush lied to a whole nation to induce their support for an ill conceived war!

 

[nutxo]

[/quote]
So Bush lied to a whole nation to induce their support for an ill conceived war![/quote]

but it wasnt under oath!

gah

:beer: