Quote:

the G-man said:
Also not under oath:



Like President Bush, former President Clinton "refuse[s] to testify before the commission publicly."

There are a lot of reasons, due to National Security and Constitutional Separation of Powers issues, why Presidents--or ex-Presidents--wouldn't testify before a Congressional committee.

You can choose to accept those or not. However, if you don't accept them for the sitting President you can't excuse the ex-President.



The keyword, again, is "UNDER OATH".

Bush just wants to shoot the shit for an hour NOT UNDER OATH, of course, and with only a couple of people rather than before the full panel. If he's not UNDER OATH and refuses to speak UNDER OATH, what reason is there to beleive a word he says? Why does he fear talking UNDER OATH? Prosecution for perjury?

Clinton (and Gore)has given the panel unlimited access to them UNDER OATH.

Condaleeza Rice is content to send in Fred Mertz to testify in her behalf. Although NATIONAL SECURITY IS HER JOB.

As was said dring the questioning today, Rice certainly had time on Monday to appear on every single news show known to man to slander Richard Clarke. Funny how she has no time for the panel investigating the greatest act of terrorism in our history. Something that happened under her watch and after she was warned.

Last edited by whomod; 2004-03-24 8:32 PM.