We've got Richard Nixon, Enron, and now Bush and his cronies.
Most of them told you the facts which often time were manipulated, but rarely told you the real truth.
2007-07-12 08:06:28 · 14 answers · asked by Be - J 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.The only thing that will ensure that they tell the truth is to ensure that the legal consequences are substantial jail time and fines comensurate with the nature/impact of the lie.
Bush's move to ensure Libby did not have to spend one second in jail sends a chilling message.
Once again the monumental hypocritical filthy liar Bush tells us that the jury effectively didn't know what it was doing and punished poor old Libby to harshly.This is coming from the same LAW AND ORDER IDIOT who signed so many death warrants in Texas and never thought the jury/judge was to harsh.Remember that Tammy Faye Barker I think her name was?
Remember that famous scene in the 2000 debate when the idiot Bush had this big happy smirk on his face as he defended capital punishment which so many were disgusted with.
2007-07-12 08:29:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are two reasons for examinations under oath.
First, normal people are actually electrified by the whole process. It rearranges their attitudes toward everything and yes, I have seen people whose testimony under oath is dramatically different from what they were saying in interviews until then.
Other people, like Rove and Condeesleezarosa, would not tell the truth even if it made no difference. The value in examining them under oath is that perjury is a crime, and perjurers can end up doing substantial time. If their lawyers help them lie, the lawyers can lose their licenses into the bargain.
2007-07-12 15:14:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
By the way Richard Nixon was never placed under oath. There were no impeachment proceedings against him. George Bush hasnt been placed under oath either. ENRON was apparently thrown in out of left field and is unrelated to your basic premise. Lets see, who was placed under oath and lied? What was his name? Oh Yea! Bill Clinton! Come on if you are going to engage in propaganda and diatribe at least be good at it!
2007-07-12 15:11:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Don't make this about party politics. The Clintons, Sandy Berger, and many other democrats lie under oath too.
Putting people under oath only works if they put more value into keeping the oath than protecting themselves. Which very few politicians do, by the way.
2007-07-12 15:10:33 · answer #4 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Normally, putting someone under oath is a strong inducement for them to tell the truth, since if they get caught committing perjury, they can be put in jail. But, since Bush doesn't believe that perjury is a crime which deserves jail time, I guess that doesn't matter anymore.
2007-07-12 15:15:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tell me something all you conservatives out there: Why do Republicans feel they shouldn’t have to testify under oath? Do you think they should be held accountable if they give false testimony? Why did the president refuse to be under oath when the 9-11 commission questioned him (with out being allowed to take notes, I might add)? Why are Republicans afraid to tell the truth under oath?
2007-07-12 15:11:58 · answer #6 · answered by PRGfUSMC 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Are you kidding? Cops lie in court all the time and they are under oath.
2007-07-12 15:13:07 · answer #7 · answered by Papou 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You forgot to mention Clinton, since he was actually under oath to a grand jury.
2007-07-12 15:12:28 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You cannot *force* someone to tell the truth; they have to choose to tell the truth.
All you can do is punish them after you have proven something they say is a lie.
2007-07-12 15:19:57 · answer #9 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has paved the way for Republicans to commit perjury and escape a jail sentence!
2007-07-12 15:11:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋