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

[heartsurgeon]

Tell me exactly why he shouldn't.
he's a principle i this entire situation.
he owes it to the 9/11 families, the families of those killed on the Cole, in the World Trade Center after the first bombing.....

get him under oath,
get it on tv (i'll cancel surgery that day to watch)
get him talking.

 

[Witling]

Heart, don't you sometimes scare yourself?

 

[Witling]

And by the way, when he did talk in private, he didn't have to have his vice president along.

 

[Strk]

I think the current President should do it first, but that's just my opinion.

Until then, however, at least there is this.

Make sure you notice this part "Clinton and Gore consented in February to separate private interviews."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Tell me exactly why he shouldn't.
he's a principle i this entire situation.
he owes it to the 9/11 families, the families of those killed on the Cole, in the World Trade Center after the first bombing.....

get him under oath,
get it on tv (i'll cancel sirgery that day to watch)
get him talking.

Yeah, well we all know that won't happen because he has a "legacy" to protect. And I'm sure the left here will just say that Bush won't so Clinton shouldn't - which is fine by me but it sort of undercuts their whining about not testifying in public and such.

CkG

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, well we all know that won't happen because he has a "legacy" to protect. And I'm sure the left here will just say that Bush won't so Clinton shouldn't - which is fine by me but it sort of undercuts their whining about not testifying in public and such.

CkG

While it would be nice to see both of them do it, however, I personally think there is a bigger reason why Bush should. Remember, Bush was President when it occured, he is President now, and he is running an election to be President again. Call me crazy, but I think Bush is a little more important to the commission. In addition, after Bush does it -- without Dick Cheney holding his hand -- the commission could ascertain and relay the importance of Clinton, which could be a way to give reason for him to testify in public because of public pressure for it.(Let us not forget, a nagging public sometimes gets politicians to do something )

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Witling
And by the way, when he did talk in private, he didn't have to have his vice president along.

:beer:



Hughes on MtP...

""I'm not sure what the rationale specifically was, but I think the White House believes that it is an effective use of their time," she said. "Many times, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were in the room together during much of the events, much of the briefings, much of the lead-up that the commission is looking at. And so I think it's appropriate that they appear together and discuss how they saw the events leading up to September 11."


For the life of me, I can't seem to recall an opinion or statement given by any of the many Bush-supporters regarding this decision that Bush and Cheney have to testify together. CAD, heartsurgeon, bo, anyone? Have I just not seen your posts on this?


Oh, and for the record. Concerning Clinton testifying in public...I've gone on record (more than once) stating that I don't care if anyone testifies in public or not, as long as they are under oath. Was Clinton required to be under oath? If not, he should have been. Bush/Cheney, on the other hand, have stated that they won't be. (read that again...the commission didn't decide that they wouldn't have to be under oath, THEY decided). Of course, in the words of Bush (who has promised "full cooperation"), "I'd call it more of a meeting".

 

[Witling]

Gaard, thank you for a well reasoned answer. I really do appreciate a discussion on some of these subjects, unlike the responses of . . . . uh . . . others. I am dismayed at the "Well, what about . . . [ fill in the name of your favorite moron] ... Look at Heart and Cad and see how many times their response is, Well what about . . . .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, well we all know that won't happen because he has a "legacy" to protect. And I'm sure the left here will just say that Bush won't so Clinton shouldn't - which is fine by me but it sort of undercuts their whining about not testifying in public and such.

CkG

While it would be nice to see both of them do it, however, I personally think there is a bigger reason why Bush should. Remember, Bush was President when it occured, he is President now, and he is running an election to be President again. Call me crazy, but I think Bush is a little more important to the commission. In addition, after Bush does it -- without Dick Cheney holding his hand -- the commission could ascertain and relay the importance of Clinton, which could be a way to give reason for him to testify in public because of public pressure for it.(Let us not forget, a nagging public sometimes gets politicians to do something )

Right - so you think it's a political event then? Fine - there are many that wish to use this as a political tool. However, Clinton's testimony is every bit as important as Bush's because remember - some of these guys were here before Bush took office and were doing much of the planning and training under Clinton's admin. Also the security policies of Clinton need to be looked at also - just as much as the same things need to be asked of Bush. Both are very important to the commission.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I did a quick scan of the news of Clinton's testimony. The commission has been quoted as saying his testimony was totally frank, helpful, and forthcoming". I'm probably going to come off as cynical, but I just don't see them saying the same for Bush/Cheney.

Clinton still should have been under oath though. He was, afterall, president for 8 years leading up to 9/11.

 

[datalink7]

When will people stop bringing Clinton up... it's not like he matters anymore.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Yeah, well we all know that won't happen because he has a "legacy" to protect. And I'm sure the left here will just say that Bush won't so Clinton shouldn't - which is fine by me but it sort of undercuts their whining about not testifying in public and such.

CkG

While it would be nice to see both of them do it, however, I personally think there is a bigger reason why Bush should. Remember, Bush was President when it occured, he is President now, and he is running an election to be President again. Call me crazy, but I think Bush is a little more important to the commission. In addition, after Bush does it -- without Dick Cheney holding his hand -- the commission could ascertain and relay the importance of Clinton, which could be a way to give reason for him to testify in public because of public pressure for it.(Let us not forget, a nagging public sometimes gets politicians to do something )

Right - so you think it's a political event then? Fine - there are many that wish to use this as a political tool. However, Clinton's testimony is every bit as important as Bush's because remember - some of these guys were here before Bush took office and were doing much of the planning and training under Clinton's admin. Also the security policies of Clinton need to be looked at also - just as much as the same things need to be asked of Bush. Both are very important to the commission.

CkG

If by political event you mean voters needed to be informed then yes. It is pointless to vote when the actions of the person you are voting for are hidden behind closed door.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Right - so you think it's a political event then? Fine - there are many that wish to use this as a political tool. However, Clinton's testimony is every bit as important as Bush's because remember - some of these guys were here before Bush took office and were doing much of the planning and training under Clinton's admin. Also the security policies of Clinton need to be looked at also - just as much as the same things need to be asked of Bush. Both are very important to the commission.

CkG

I didn't say it is a political event, I said Bush's testimony is more important because we aren't about to have Bill Clinton as President again. However, both are very important, which we both agree on, and should be required to be under oath.(I'd like to know if Clinton's was or not, if anyone happens to know)

Should both be required to testify in public? Well, again, I'd like to see it, but the possibilty is slim. Sure, it will be made public once the commission is done, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know it now. The likelihood of Clinton testifying in public is really more dependent Bush doing the same, because, in my opinion, their testimonies are more driven by public opinion than their personal wants and desires. Anyways, like I said earlier, I believe a Bush testimony is probably the only thing that would get Clinton to testify in public.

 

[sandorski]

Sure, why not? Everyone testifying should be under oath.

 

[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...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

I think many people are losing sight of what this commission was created to do so here is what the commission's summary is. It is located on the main page of their website.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

I think many people are losing sight of what this commission was created to do so here is what the commission's summary is. It is located on the main page of their website.

CkG

And an effective use of time is so much more important than that.

Seriously CAD, what's your take on this whole'Bush and Cheney must testify together' thing?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Seriously CAD, what's your take on this whole'Bush and Cheney must testify together' thing?

I'm not sure why exactly that was the agreement the commission agreed to but I'm sure it'll be continued to be used for political leverage by the left.
I'm glad Bush backed off of his 1hr thing and allowed for unlimited time as I really do hope this commission is allowed to ask all of their questions and address their concerns. It will also give them plenty of time to address what has already been done post 9/11 so we can try to prevent the failures before 9/11 to happen again.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Seriously CAD, what's your take on this whole'Bush and Cheney must testify together' thing?

I'm not sure why exactly that was the agreement the commission agreed to but I'm sure it'll be continued to be used for political leverage by the left.
I'm glad Bush backed off of his 1hr thing and allowed for unlimited time as I really do hope this commission is allowed to ask all of their questions and address their concerns. It will also give them plenty of time to address what has already been done post 9/11 so we can try to prevent the failures before 9/11 to happen again.

CkG

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you're not sure why Bush insists on having Cheney at his side...there isn't any good reason for it. Can you at least tell me if you think effective use of time is any kind of legitimate reason...especially if you keep in mind the paragraph you quoted from the commission's web site (and, of course, the "full cooperation" statement ).

 

[Tripleshot]

Has something changed besides more time to "chat" for Bush and Cheney butt buddies? Isn't it still a scripted question and answer scenerio by only two members of the commision picked by Bush/Cheney behinf closed doors and without any recording devices or record keeping?

Isn't this the guy that only captulated to having a commision at all by being pressured by the widows of 9/11 that dug up the incriminating evedince that raised he questions the commision is trying to get answers for...... all from a stonewalling adminstration?

We will see how well this plays out on Nov 2, 2004.

 

[Czar]

he should

and so should bush

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Seriously CAD, what's your take on this whole'Bush and Cheney must testify together' thing?

I'm not sure why exactly that was the agreement the commission agreed to but I'm sure it'll be continued to be used for political leverage by the left.
I'm glad Bush backed off of his 1hr thing and allowed for unlimited time as I really do hope this commission is allowed to ask all of their questions and address their concerns. It will also give them plenty of time to address what has already been done post 9/11 so we can try to prevent the failures before 9/11 to happen again.

CkG

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you're not sure why Bush insists on having Cheney at his side...there isn't any good reason for it. Can you at least tell me if you think effective use of time is any kind of legitimate reason...especially if you keep in mind the paragraph you quoted from the commission's web site (and, of course, the "full cooperation" statement ).

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)

Now I'd like to address 3-shot's comments. Does anyone wish to contest my earlier claims of "there are many that wish to use this as a political tool" ?

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Since when does "under oath" mean anything to slick willie?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Czar
he should

and so should bush separately...not wired to Cheney

There.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Let's face it we all know the reason why Bush can't testify alone, both Democrats and Republicans know it. He is too dumb and stupid to answer on his own, and his administration is afraid he might say something that might conflict with their stories and totally muck everything up. You take away Bush's advisor's and cabinet members, and you have a man that is incapable of running our country. He is a mere figure head, the real power lies within his cabinet and administration. He has no power, he is a puppet. And to those who are going to say that he went to Yale or Harvard, guess how he got in? And guess how he graduated? The man can't speak proper English, it's absolutely pathetic. I understand he's a southerner, but it is downright embarassing when the PRESIDENT of your country is making up and mispronouncing words.