Why did George W. Bush refuse to testify under oath before the 9/11 commission?

Question

Intelligent responses please.

That the White House balked at any inquiry into the events of 9/11, then starved it of funds and stonewalled it, was unfortunate, but since the commission didn't find for conspiracy it's all a non issue anyway.

That the 9/11 commission's executive director and "gatekeeper," Philip Zelikow, was so closely involved in the events under investigation that he testified before the the commission as part of the inquiry, shows only an apparent conflict of interest.

That commission chair Thomas Kean is, like George Bush, a Texas oil executive who had business dealings with reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mafouz, suggests Texas is smaller than they say it is.

That co-chair Lee Hamilton has a history as a Bush family "fixer," including clearing Bush Sr of the claims arising from the 1980 "October Surprise", is of no concern, since only conspiracists believe there was such a thing as an October Surprise.

That FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds accuses the agency of intentionally fudging specific pre-9/11 warnings and harboring a foreign espionage ring in its translation department, and claims she witnessed evidence of the semi-official infrastructure of money-laundering and narcotics trade behind the attacks, is of no account, since John Ashcroft has gagged her with the rare invocation of "State Secrets Privilege," and retroactively classified her public testimony. For the sake of national security, let us speak no more of her.

captainob...
Presidents have testified under oath in the past as recent as Clinton...what are you talking about?

ruth
Yes the commission wanted to question him but he refused invoking His States Rights...and only agreed to a i"nformal" interview with guess who? Cheney

Answer 1

Too arrogant.

What would he SAY?

Answer 2

even although he has many flaws, he nicely-knownshows it perplexing to be an outright liar. it particularly is why, whilst asked in 2000 if he had ever executed cocaine, he huffily refused to respond to the query. If the respond grew to become into no, he ought to, might, and could have responded no. yet he could no longer. So he refrained from. comparable reason he would not testify below oath. He'd could lie or circumvent, and the two might seem undesirable.

Answer 3

you cant set the precedent that an elected official has to go to congress and testify on everything he has done. Once you open that door you are setting your self up for the legislative branch to have more power than the executive branch. Most liberals say there has to be checks and balances but you only want checks on the rep. Dems have already given too much power to judiciary branch what next? oh yea, you want a socialism. I forgot. tell you what lets just bog down the entire govt by asking everyone that makes any decision to spend 3 weeks explaining why they decided what they did. Thats going to progress this country isnt it. once again you cant ever take anything through to the conclusion. Lets worry about now and let the chips fall where they may. Great way to make decisions on a country

yea, in an impeachment trial when there is proof something was done against the rules set forth for the president. they had no proof so they asked him to talk. They couldnt require him too. big difference

Answer 4

The truth simply put protecting the office of the presidency and the concept of Executive privilege. you comments are slanted in the extreme. Clinton also invoked executive privilege during his presidency your comment that he testified under oath refers to Civil proceedings arising from misconduct outside the office and he was forced to do that after the courts ruled executive privilege did not apply.

You want intelligence and Honesty then tell the truth yourself. You know and I know that Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to LBJ to George w have very much guarded the powers of the executive against encroachment. so stop asking misleading questions filled with innuendo and maybe you'll get some truth and honesty

Stephanie Careful in your statements. Was it not the democrats who said that Perjury one of the charges Clinton was impeached by the House fore and sent to the senate was not an impeachable offense?

Answer 5

Was this meant to be a rhetorical question?

There can only be one logical reason why Bush refused to testify. And anyone with even the IQ of a tsetse fly would know this.

Answer 6

Bill Clinton didn't testify under oath before the 9-11 commission either. But in his case, being under oath really doesn't make much of a difference, does it.

Answer 7

Bush and his followers claim he is a straight shooter. In my book, straight shooters that won't testify under oath, have something to hide.

Answer 8

Because if he testified under oath the democrats would then have grounds for impeachment. He would of course be lying under oath since that is all he does.

Answer 9

Because he didn't want to expose himself to the possibility of a perjury charge.


PS Why don't you just ask the question and leave out all the ramblling comments?

Answer 10

Was he under subpoena? Was he called to testify?

I have never seen a person voluntarily testify under oath. Maybe you can point someone out to me that proves me wrong.

If you people who automatically assume a person refusing to testify means they are guilty, you might want to take a con-law class, or pray no one like you is ever on your jury.

Answer 11

Bush would have had to testify against Bill Clinton, which would have led Clinton to be charged with Treason.
Presidents stick together no matter what party.