Instead of all this waffling which just makes them look bad? You have nothing to fear if all you have to offer is the truth!
2007-03-21 09:34:27 · 9 answers · asked by trer 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Oh, they would have a lot to fear if they told the truth because the truth would prove everything they're being accused of, which is very bad. And it wouldn't be just them who got in trouble. It would be every elected official connected to them up, down, or sideways, including the president. Admitting all of this would be as big a deal as Watergate.
2007-03-21 09:38:52 · answer #1 · answered by Venice Girl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the same old scenario Bush passionately use to defend FEMA's dirty Michael D. Brown and that stink, Donald Rumsfeld. Bush is becoming more and more arrogant in defending the worst types.
Remember how they let Cheney testify at the 9/11 Commission without being under oath? If he hadbeen questioned under oath, there might be indications then that even the war in Iraq is full of suspicious intent.... like for instance how the war in Iraq come to be associated under conspiracy moves to deceive he american Public. Who knows???
For a White House hat has the largest record of telling lies, it's disgraceful that Rove and Miers are not forced to go under oath. After all, Rove is full of filth and hogwash and has been dragging this nation through hell. And by majority of Americans' opinion, he's the dirt that can't be believed - even under Oath!
This controversy is an interesting study. Why? It's the time for us to smell out which Senator really want to clean the White Hiouse and the Congress from sinking into more corruption, dirty manipulation and keep true Justice and Integrity within our government.
2007-03-21 16:58:20 · answer #2 · answered by United_Peace 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just part of the Democrat scandal machine. Rove and Miers have done nothing wrong, but the rogue Democrats and their cronies are hoping they can catch them on some bogus charge like they did with Libby (Armatage was the leaker and Plame wasn't even covert.)
They shouldn't have to testify when there is no wrong doing and no crime committed. Bush sees through this scam and doesn't want the liberal circus to continue harassing people they don't like.
If you think they should testify then you are a product of the left wing media that continues to lie hoping more idiots will believe them. You should try harder to get informed on the truth and not listen to the propaganda. I feel sorry for you for being so ignorant, but you can rectify it by reading more.
2007-03-21 16:48:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush said that Rove and Miers would testify, just not under oath.
I agree, if they are telling the truth, being under oath shouldn't be an issue.
But then again, look at Scooter Libby. I am not saying the charges of purgery against him where right or wrong, but they wanted to find who leaked the name of a CIA agent and this is the best charge they could get.
Also, look at Clinton, whom they tried to Impeach for lying under oath, when they where initially looking to charge him on the White Water Scandal.
2007-03-21 16:41:26 · answer #4 · answered by Lucas A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was thinkin the same thing myself.
Why would Bush fight them having to testify if everything they did was on the up and up?
President have fired the Attorney Generals at regular intervals for quite a while now.
I don't exactly understand the big deal the Dems are making about all this, but I'm also curious as to why Repubs don't want them taking the stand.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
2007-03-21 16:39:20 · answer #5 · answered by Josh 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They don't want to testify under oath because that would allow the public to see exactly what was stated and who did what. They want to give interviews in the hearing so what they say is open to interpretation and will have to be given to the public on a secondhand basis.
If they lie and are caught, whether they are sworn in or not is illegal. Of course if they are sworn in, they can be charged with purjury in addition to contempt of Congress.
Bill Clinton was impeached on perjury charges and rightly so since he lied under oath. Scooter Libby was also charged and convicted of perjury because he lied under oath. The hub-bub about he should have been questioned is irrelevant, he should never have broken the law and lied while under oath.
2007-03-21 16:46:43 · answer #6 · answered by Christopher L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush claims they did nothing illegal. The operative word being illegal. If Rove and Myers testified under oath, though it may not turn up anything illegal, it would show how immoral, sleazy, and underhanded they are.
2007-03-21 16:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As long as they keep on lying, there will always be idiots that believe them. Rove is king of cheap tricks.
2007-03-21 16:43:43 · answer #8 · answered by x2000 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they are proud of their behavior.....and care little what anyone thinks of them. doncha just love our govt?
2007-03-21 16:37:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋