and why would they not testify under oath? If Clinton was obligated to testify under oath about his sex life, shouldn't Bush have been required to do the same about 9/11?
2006-09-03 17:13:23 · 13 answers · asked by rob 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's hard to coordinate your lies when you are in different rooms. The police know this principle very well.
Another reason why Bush is so bad for America is Bush started the practice of refusing to testify under oath in front of the American people. So much for democracy in the US of A. If it's just fine to lie to the congress or to the people, our democracy is no more.
2006-09-03 17:27:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The one called "Common Sense" in here has nothing better than to smear like a typical republican. President George Walker Bush does not articulate well under pressure the way President Clinton did and this is why "Common Sense" wrote what he did. Bush and Cheney are not being truthful about Tue/9/11/2001,otherwise they would had been taped. Why did Dubya cut and run from New Orlan's devastation from Hurricane Katrina? The Repugnicans are always doing their best in avoiding responsibility. The true reason is Dubya show the results of being an alcoholic and possibly doing drugs the way Clinton allegedly did not do marijuana. Clinton:'...I did not inhale..."
Only Washington D.C. insiders will know the Truth.
2006-09-03 17:29:20 · answer #2 · answered by San Fernando Valley Rose 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was the president with a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of the United States
Bush is just a Corporate Mogul that was part of the 1999 Coup d'état
Go big Red Go
2006-09-03 17:20:16 · answer #3 · answered by 43 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Clinton lied about a BJ that is more important than lying about 9/11 where thousands of lives wear lost.
2006-09-03 17:24:23 · answer #4 · answered by Mojo Seeker Of Knowlege 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because Bush isn't an fool. once he testifies before Congress, he should be on the hook for all sorts of impeachable offenses. With a antagonistic Congress, the basically right ingredient each person can do is plead the fifth.
2016-12-06 08:34:22 · answer #5 · answered by busbee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the game was to submit them to hours of testimony, then compare sentences and partial sentences, then highlight differences in parts of sentences to make them look like they were contradicting each other even though the meaning of what they were saying may have been the same.
It's an old trick lawyers pull.
One of the people running the Commission, Jamie Gorelick, was directly responsible for the 'wall' preventing the CIA from informing the FBI of their suspicions about Mohammed Atta. She should have been testifying rather than running the show.
2006-09-03 17:16:19 · answer #6 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because Bush had done nothing wrong and was not under subpoena or authority of the 9/11 commission...
Clinton was / is a sleazy crook & liar and was impeached & was called by subpoena in a futile effort to get the truth out of him..
2006-09-03 17:18:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
They wanted to be sure that the both told the exact same lies and if they got caught doing it that they could not be prosecuted. They made damn sure they covered each others asses
2006-09-03 17:20:12 · answer #8 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
my God has anyone actually read the 9-11 commission report?
2006-09-03 17:27:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe if they was under oath that they would fill guilty latter about the lies they told
2006-09-03 17:17:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋