Why was Bush and Cheney agree to testify at the 9/11 commisons inquiry only if:
1. They would be allowed to testify jointly
2. They would not be required to take an oath before testifying
3. The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers:
4. These notes would not be made pulic.
What did they have to hide?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terrorist_Attacks_Upon_the_United_States
2006-10-01 09:04:53 · 9 answers · asked by Gettin_by 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The bottom line is Bill did answer the question and since he was sandbagged into the question he scared Chris Wallace. Did you see Wallace try to squim away from the answer ruth?? I liked it best when Bill called him on his smirk and said he thinks he is so smart. That was just the beginning for the Dems to finally speak out against the hypocritical Reps.
More to come!!
2006-10-01 09:15:54 · update #1
I know the old conspiracy theory about the petro-military-industrial complex being behind 9/11. I've seen nothing to prove it.
But I've seen a lot of creepy stuff to suggest it. I hope that wasn't the case!
2006-10-01 09:08:38 · answer #1 · answered by A Box of Signs 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did testify. So what is the question?
If they had something to hide, then you cite your facts.
It's water under the bridge. The commission agreed to the request made by the administration. Question the commission as to why they agreed. It seems like the commission was made up of some very intelligent people.
Just what good did the commission do? THey made some recommendations. That's it. Any classified materials that they may have looked at and had in their report, was edited out, for security purposes. The only thing the commision report existed for was to give the conspiracy people something to do for a few years.
2006-10-01 16:16:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. They would be allowed to testify jointly
Because they work togeather and one may be able to offer a more detailed answer then the other.
2. They would not be required to take an oath before testifying
Some things are better left unknown, i.e. battle plans
3. The testimony would not be recorded electronically or transcribed, and that the only record would be notes taken by one of the commission staffers:
See Answer 3.
4. These notes would not be made pulic.
see answer 3.
2006-10-01 16:10:29 · answer #3 · answered by richardmocha 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Did you perhaps miss the reaction of Bill Clinton recently on Fox news?
He was defended by liberals because he had not pre-approved the questions...
How's that for a cite?
2006-10-01 16:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nothing, but some level of information has to be keep secret and it is obvoious that leaks within Congress is wide spread.]]
And one of course does not go to a lynching and provides thier own rope.
2006-10-01 16:14:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
gee, do you think theyre trying to cover up the fact that they allowed 9/11 to happen?
2006-10-01 16:12:13 · answer #6 · answered by The Frontrunner 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They didn't and do not have anything to hide.
Hey libs - stop being so paranoid!
2006-10-01 16:23:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This deserves no answer.
2006-10-01 16:18:16 · answer #8 · answered by Ah Ha 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
love your liberal propaganda "facts" LMAO you suck meat flutes
2006-10-01 16:11:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋