Why GWB won't testify to the 9/11 Investigation under penalty of perjury or oath - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mobo · 04-23-2004, 11:40 PM

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

Turn on your speakers. Interesting thoughts.

tecoyah · 04-24-2004, 06:43 PM

Here is a reply for ya' mobo. Don't worry about the lack of activity here.....most of us have seen this before. Still you do bring up a good point, perhaps a little hijacking is in order.

What would happen if GWB ended up having to testify, as his staff has?
Other than the pure entertainment value....perhaps it would reveal much, or he might just be Clintonesque an fail to recollect.

Any thoughts people?

scott2162 · 05-01-2004, 05:07 PM

The whole problem with him having to testify is the precedent that it would be setting. If Bush would have the testify for what he did/did not do on September 11th, where would we draw the line the next time (but hopefully not) something like that happens again? Would Bush or Kerry have to testify if two years from now 500 people died, etc?

CanadianCommie · 05-01-2004, 11:39 PM

the problem with his and Cheney's testimony was that it wa was a closed session, and they were not bound by law to tell the truth.

hence, everything he said in his meeting with the commission could be absolute bullshit

nanofever · 05-02-2004, 12:45 AM

I find it funny that Bush's conditions made his testimony a sham, but the Senators who witness what it devolved into are slammed for leaving early. I'm suprised that all ten senators didn't leave early...

bouray · 05-02-2004, 07:23 AM

What I find funny is how impeachment was the issue when it was determined that Clinton lied under oath....so what does GW and Cheney do, they refuse to take the oath. Therefore, they could not have lied under oath...hey, that's one way out of it, maybe when we are asked to testify on something, we can demand that it be in a closed session with no oath. Hey, wasn't this presidency supposed to put proper moral values of this country back in the white house.

04-23-2004, 11:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mobo Upright	Why GWB won't testify to the 9/11 Investigation under penalty of perjury or oath http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html Turn on your speakers. Interesting thoughts.

04-24-2004, 06:43 PM	#2 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Here is a reply for ya' mobo. Don't worry about the lack of activity here.....most of us have seen this before. Still you do bring up a good point, perhaps a little hijacking is in order. What would happen if GWB ended up having to testify, as his staff has? Other than the pure entertainment value....perhaps it would reveal much, or he might just be Clintonesque an fail to recollect. Any thoughts people? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

05-02-2004, 12:45 AM	#5 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	I find it funny that Bush's conditions made his testimony a sham, but the Senators who witness what it devolved into are slammed for leaving early. I'm suprised that all ten senators didn't leave early... __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

05-01-2004, 05:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
scott2162 Insane Location: USA	The whole problem with him having to testify is the precedent that it would be setting. If Bush would have the testify for what he did/did not do on September 11th, where would we draw the line the next time (but hopefully not) something like that happens again? Would Bush or Kerry have to testify if two years from now 500 people died, etc?

05-01-2004, 11:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
CanadianCommie Upright	the problem with his and Cheney's testimony was that it wa was a closed session, and they were not bound by law to tell the truth. hence, everything he said in his meeting with the commission could be absolute bullshit

05-02-2004, 07:23 AM	#6 (permalink)
bouray Insane Location: Bayou Country	What I find funny is how impeachment was the issue when it was determined that Clinton lied under oath....so what does GW and Cheney do, they refuse to take the oath. Therefore, they could not have lied under oath...hey, that's one way out of it, maybe when we are asked to testify on something, we can demand that it be in a closed session with no oath. Hey, wasn't this presidency supposed to put proper moral values of this country back in the white house.