Poll: Clinton and Bush testifying under oath.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Something a little different

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You aren't a moderate But I am a Conservative

CkG

 

[Gaard]

I'm not sure why anyone would say no.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You aren't a moderate But I am a Conservative

CkG

All depends on the issue son.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm not sure why anyone would say no.

I see you haven't voted (edit2 - well maybe you have now - it'll be increasingly difficult to tell)

CkG

edit to Winston - sure Gramps -whatever you say

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm not sure why anyone would say no.

Call it an experiment

 

[sandorski]

of course, Magna Carta!

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm not sure why anyone would say no.

A bush fan boy would vote no because the fear the truth.

 

[fjord]

No secrets in a true democracy.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Does being under oath mean anything to Clinton?

Why not just grant them immunity and force them to testify. (There's probably something preventing this from happening to a sitting President but everyone else should be fair game).

I've been saying for months that all the finger pointers should be forced to testify under oath. It might help us sort out the rhetoric and sound bites and get to the truth.

 

[UltraQuiet]

dp

 

[Linflas]

No. I blame the terrorists, not Clinton or Bush, for the September 11 attacks. I see no reason to subject the current and former Presidents to what has obviously become a partisan political show trial.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Linflas
No. I blame the terrorists, not Clinton or Bush, for the September 11 attacks. I see no reason to subject the current and former Presidents to what has obviously become a partisan political show trial.

So informing the voters about the actions or lack there of, isn't a valid reason to have the president testify?

 

[XZeroII]

Testify about what?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Testify about what?

Just wake up from a long winter's nap?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Testify about what?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Testify about what?

Just wake up from a long winter's nap?

Yes. I don't follow politics much

 

[thraxes]

Moderate and I would think such testimonials would be very interesting indeed.

 

[wkabel23]

I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying. However it would be nice if both testified in public under oath.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

Clinton requesting 1 billion for antiterrorist activities
Lott and Hatch limit Clintions Antiterrorists requests
Money put towards antiterrorism
more rumors debunked

Ok why did Lott and Hatch try to limit Clintons antiterrorism then you complain about him?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

If you didn't know bush is running for reelection and clition is not so it isn't really important how badly clinton might have screwed up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

If you didn't know bush is running for reelection and clition is not so it isn't really important how badly clinton might have screwed up.

Oh, so this isn't really about finding out what went wrong pre-9/11 and trying to fix it for the future then right? It's about the election...figures.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

If you didn't know bush is running for reelection and clition is not so it isn't really important how badly clinton might have screwed up.

What would it hurt to have him testify, it is obvious that he had policies toward terrorism.IF we are looking to find out where our goverment failed, I think it is safe to involve all parties when it comes to investigiation.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think Bush should testifying by himself under oath ALONE is more important than Clinton testifying.

how so, Bush was in office for less than a year and when we got attacked. Clinton 'balanced the budget' by slashing defense budgets. he weakened the CIA, FBI, and the military, and then we got slammed for our weaknesses.

besides, the way i understand it is that we had all the clues and intelligence to prevent it, but do to it being spread out among several intelligence orginizations, and an inherent lack of communicatin between them, none of the intelligence got pieced together. this would no fault of the current president [or the past] but something that needs to be worked out between the CIA, FBS, and whomever else is in the intelligence business.

Clinton requesting 1 billion for antiterrorist activities
Lott and Hatch limit Clintions Antiterrorists requests
Money put towards antiterrorism
more rumors debunked

Ok why did Lott and Hatch try to limit Clintons antiterrorism then you complain about him?

dude, your snopes article is obviously written by a Clinton apologist. your link to cnn only provides a story that says Clinton asked for money to fund counterterror measures. I didnt read the Lott and Hatch link. However, I did read the epic article, and while it says approved next to most of the points in Clintons proposal, his proposal didnt do us much good, now did it? Shouldnt we be looking there, since it seems as though a rudimentary counterterror plan was put into effect, but nothing was really done to exercise its power/responsibilty? Someone wasnt doing their job, and even though it was Clinton who got this proposal pushed through, it fell flat on its face, so it doesnt get Clinton off the hook.