A Question to Republicans
 

Why is it that a Whitehouse that says it stands for honesty and integrity, will never testify under oath.

2 times now, the pres and vice pres have decided to testify, just not under oath. First with the 9-11 commission, and now with the cia leak probe.

Now I wonder why?

Lets hear the spin on this one.

Lying under oath = perjury

:upsidedow

exactly right. since they stand for integrity and honesty, they surely must be speaking the truth at all times, so testifying under oath wouldnt make any difference, would it?

the spin, if i had to guess, would be that for national security purposes they need the leeway not to answer sensitive questions, which would undoubtedly be asked by the america hating democrats.

Why would John Kerry not fully release his military records? If you think one side is more honest than the other you are sadly mistaken. Both sides lie, the republicans are no better than the democrats when it comes to that. Clinton committed purgery as well.

[QUOTE=spanky part 2]2 times now, the pres and vice pres have decided to testify, just not under oath. First with the 9-11 commission, and now with the cia leak probe.

Now I wonder why?
QUOTE]

Come on. Are you serious? They got into office through voting fraud and you expect them to be Boy Scouts now? Ha

Too true, politicians = liars in ever sense of the word... doesn't matter who they cater to.

The thing is, it's Bush and his cronies that spout God this and God that.... going on about religion.

If anyone was to put their hand on a bible and speak under oath, I figured it would be him. But then I look at what he's done lately and remember why it is that he'd never do that.

Perhaps if he didn't have such a belief in God, he'd be better able to take the oath and still lie.

Seems like all the loud mouth republicans are a little quiet in this one.

hmmmmm

Please say it ain't so... :Oh crap

they are bad americans

2 Words:

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

Regarding the Rove thing,,Where are you getting the info that they are testifying but not under oath. I'd like to see this.

Well, pretty much everybody in politics lies. Not just the republicans.

Alright, that's it, I'm gonna go commit suicide. :Oh crap

all politicians are crooks and liars, this is why they are politicians.
if they had balls they would rob a bank, go to prison and do the time like a man.

I'd like to hear that one also. I've been busy, but I havn't heard anything about the President officially being asked to testify.

Keep in mind, a former ambassador who worked on the kerry campaign demading justice does not consitute official.

I read it last thursday, and am trying to find the article. It was buried at the bottom of the article. Both Cheney and Bush were questioned by the special prosecutor, not under oath of course.

It amazes me that none of the media question this.

Here's one on Cheney

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in620810.shtml

Spanky, you have been spun.

There is a big difference between being interviewed and testifying.

The vice president has been interviewed. You can not be interviewed "under oath".

They use phrases like "Cheney hasn't been interviewed under oath" to make him look bad, but it really doesn't make sense. Its just a gramatical media tactic to skew you opinion in a certain direction.

Clintons perjury didnt involve national security. Nor did Clintons lie cost 150,000 lives and $182,000,000,000 and counting.

A lie is a lie! I don't care how much it cost. The other thing is that this woman was not in the mix anymore, she had been out from being undercover for over 5 years (since 1998 and the statement was made in 2003), so this really did not affect national security either imho, but then again, none of us know what she was doing with the CIA.

We also don't know if Clinton was giving Monica secrets during his blowjobs, maybe he squeeled like a stuck pig, we will never know.

Tru true, just two sides of the same coin. The problem withour political system is that every 4 years they give us two people to choose from. They prop 'em up there for us to choose from.

We need 3 or 4 parties to choose from.

The best thing to do is to reform the whole political system.
Those in power now are clearly money hungry and are no better than the tyrants we wanted to gain Independance from back in 1775.

For a long time, the Democrats wanted larger involvement at the federal level and Republicans wanted less. That's why I switched to Republican. However, that "premise" seems to have evaporated. While currently registered as a Republican, I'm not real happy with the way the party has turned out. Then, I look at the Democrats and a big "No Thanks" pops into my head.

You're question isn't about "party" as much as it's about "individual."

I agree I am the same way, while I usually take a stance in the Republican threads, I am hardly a "conservative". There are many things I am liberal about and many things I am conservative about. I am not a bible thumper, I am pro-choice, but when it comes to crime and taxes I am conservative.

It depends on the issue, and no one side is perfect, all we need to do is show our strength in the polls and vote for what is right and get some of these guys out of office, after all we put them there in a direct or indirect way. If you vote for the person you put them there, if you don't vote at all, you are responsible for their being elected as well.

To me I think this is just a witch hunt, but thats just my 2 cents.

If we all lived by the standards thats the democrat pundits expect the whitehouse to live by, we would all be married to supermodels with MBAs.


The guy joe wilson got discredited long ago. The democrats even now admit that rove didn't break any laws, how and why is this still a story?

Thats a pretty good post. I was "pro choice" or at least indifferent about the issue when I was younger, but I cant imagine the act now.

But your point is correct, no one person should agree with any candidate on all issues, you just have to pick the candidate that you agree with on your most imporant issue or a majority of issues.

Also, I imagine that alot of people that just voted democrat in the last election got their eyes opened wide when the realized that the SC decision to have larger government control over their private property was a liberal agenda. The Michael Moore movie forgot to mention what socialism and liberalism stood for.

That's not the story that I saw it in. I just found that by googling. Even if what you say is true, then why wouldn't they testify under oath at the 9-11 hearings? Everyone else did. Why should they have anything to hide.

Just because the right wing propaganda machine attempts to discredit someone does not make it go away. Its funny how Rove and company constantly go after peoples wives in order to discredit. They did it with McCain in the 2000 primary, they did it with Wilson, now today they are spreading crap about Matt Coopers wife. Unbelievable what these people stoop to, even more unbelievable that people like you support it.

BTW, no dems are admitting Rove didnt break any laws, I don't know where you are coming up with this line of crap.

Sorry, but there are different degrees of lying. If your wife lies about how much something cost compared to lying about fucking someone its the same to you? Its obvious as hell Rove was doing nothing more than trying smear someone that found evidence that went against Bush's war chant, thats really what this is all about. And if you think this investigation is simply to find out who leaked something to a reporter you're dead wrong. This country was lead into war under false pretenses, I dream of the day Bush and his lackeys are brought to justice over this and hopefully the day is coming.

Wow! Please show me a link where they say lying to a grand jury is not breaking a law. If Republicans would have taken that attitude during the Clinton administration we could have saved a LOT of time :winkwink:

You must have just gone to see the new Wonka movie, because you are dreaming Pure Imagination :upsidedow

Karl Rove lied until those emails surfaced. How much should that cost?
We'll probably never know what else Karl Rove was blabbing about either, but I can pretty well guarantee you his lie won't be prosecuted as vigorously as Clinton's. :)

Discussing politics on this board is boring. 90% of you live in whacky-Hollywood-SoCal area and you all think this country is horrible. The rest are Canadians who are bloodthirsty for your Anti-American rubbish you feed off daily. Anything this country does is evil, corrupt, blah blah blah. It's old chilidish and tired arguments, why would sheep care to argue with other sheep in here when you all think the same?

Truth is all you people in here who can't stand the U.S., you know you and your company would be nowhere, you wouldn't be enjoying the success you're enjoying now, without the U.S. and its economy. We're still kicking butt, and you all know it, so deal with it, continue your hate/jealousy, it makes the citizens of the U.S. laugh at you :-)

So tell me Bush is a babykiller, and I'll just keep ROFL'n!

Are you really this stupid?

Anyone Wilson's wife(notice I didn't call her by name) had ever worked with or talked to or worked for is now out the window. The lives of agents and assets worldwide are potentially in danger. Shell companies and fronts the CIA took years to set up are now useless. This doesn't affect national security and the lives of our men and women still under the cover Wilson's wife once enjoyed?

Comparing a lie about Monica Lewinsky to try to save his family some embarrassment and the white house LEAKING sensitive information about an undercover CIA agent purposefully in an attempt to harm the credibility of a family member is nowhere near analagous.

You're right... We should all just shut up and do our patriotic duty and accept everything presented to us by our government. They have never lied to us, and never will. :upsidedow

Take a look at the president's current approval ratings... the dems can't do that all by themselves :1orglaugh

Now Uno, you know sex outside marriage is the ultimate horror that cannot be tolerated. Blood and guts is fine, we can blame anything that happens to CIA agents on terrorists. :winkwink:

I have three educational words for you Stewie - Madalyn Murray O'Hair

I like you, no really I really really like you. :thumbsup

Historically Presidents do net testify under oath. This is not a Bush "problem" - this is taken from the NY Times:

Over the years, the rule of thumb for presidential testimony is that the president is placed under oath when he testifies in a criminal proceeding or a lawsuit, as was the case, for instance, when Bill Clinton gave testimony to Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel, and in a deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

But presidents have generally not taken an oath when they were testifying before a fact-finding body. No oath was given, for instance, when Ronald Reagan answered questions from members of the commission investigating the Iran-contra affair or when Gerald R. Ford testified before a House subcommittee about his pardon of Richard M. Nixon.

Hope that helps you out! :thumbsup

You and your mullet please go back to shootin' rabbits and driven ur 4x4.
Let the rest of us adults talk.

BTW I'm from NYC, so that blows your theory.

http://www.daps.dla.mil/Images/capabilities/Target.jpg