2007-06-15 15:47:28 · 24 answers · asked by Fluffy Wisdom 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I found it very odd that he wouldn't testify under oath and also wouldn't testify without Cheney to the 9/11 commission. What does he have to hide?
2007-06-15 15:54:50 · answer #1 · answered by s 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
as a results of fact they're mendacity. This develop into all performed below the guise of 'national secure practices'. Bulls#it. they might very even have responded all questions with out giving freely secure practices secrets and techniques. they're liars and it style of feels like they're hiding something as a results of fact they're.
2016-10-09 07:36:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
is it a question? no really. the scariest part is the fact it is a question. why shouldnt the leader of the free world be put to oath on everything? hes willing to fight wars for its causes and spend billions to find out the causes. why is the word of the president hidden? no one would contest to swearing under oath if they had nothing to hide. the fact we have to fight and demand such a thing as oath. and seriously. this man has sent thousands of human beings to a deathly battlefield. i think a white lie on some pages and a cover is a lot easier to do with a straight face as opposed to facing crimes against humanity and treason
do these so called terrorist even care about america. i mean look. they have a hard enough time fightin themselves to the death and double crossing each other. why would they even try to touch a world super power like america. and the better question...how the hell would they even be able to stand up to a power like america? with hijacked planes you say?...ever heard of operation northwoods you arrogant patriot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
and dam straight patriot is derogatory
2007-06-15 15:55:58 · answer #3 · answered by beandip510 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You don't think he would lie under oath? The man hold only his father's approval sacred, and his father holds only money and power sacred.
2007-06-15 18:23:36 · answer #4 · answered by The real Ed-Mike 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The conspiracy was years and years in the making, but no doubt Bush knew a lot. I think Bush is really a small fish in the greater scheme though.
You might be interested in this article:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mg1.htm
2007-06-15 15:53:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
UnderOath implies, swearing to God Almighty. Since President Bush devotely believes in God, then he's been doing that since he took the Oath of Office!
2007-06-15 15:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Why should he? He hasn't been officially accused of any wrongdoing. Only the left-wing, Rosie O'Donnell BIGMOUTH, conspiracy-theory lunatics thinks he has done something wrong. This makes up about .02% of the population.
2007-06-15 16:23:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
He could be hooked up to a lie detector and still lie because he has no heart, and that about being interviewed about anything.
Hes is a murderer thanks to this war he started.
2007-06-15 16:46:19 · answer #8 · answered by shouting is better 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course, it is a matter of extreme importance. I don;t think it was a government conspiracy, but I do think Bush should have handled it better and ignored some evidence.
However, what he should really go to court for is his decision to go to war for crimes against humanity.
2007-06-15 15:51:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
It wouldn't matter if he was.He doesn't know much he is just the puppet. Even if he was forced to testify under oath what makes you think he would tell the truth? Laws don't seem to apply to good ole G.W
2007-06-15 15:50:48 · answer #10 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋