Clinton and Gore testified, separately, behind closed doors last week, at the 9/11 hearings.

Condoleezza Rice was severly criticized by Democrats and liberals for doing the very same thing. She was accused of lying and hiding information. She finally testified in public and under oath to the commission.

But I have yet to hear the same outrage from the Democrats or liberals as to the secret testimony given by Clinton and Gore. I have yet to hear them calling for Clinton and Gore to testify in public, under oath.

So, tell me, my Democrat and liberal debaters: should Clinton and Gore be made to testify in public and under oath before the 9/11 commission?



______________

i agree. This is a case of hypocrisy. If rice has too testify in public so should al gore. In 8 years all they did was stand by and watch. This issue should be on Hannity and colmes.

All of the people who have testified before the partisan 9/11 "Witch Hunt"...errr, I mean the Commission, should have their testimonies made public and open to access.



seekerof

Im sure Clinton and Gore would testify in public,what have they got to lose and Clinton would get to be on the T.V.
The problem is , i'll bet a condition put down by the Bush administration, is that they cant testify publicly. That would make the only people testifying privately Bush and Cheney.
That wouldn't look too good for them and they have enough to worry about,you know lying and everything.

Originally posted by ashley
Im sure Clinton and Gore would testify in public,what have they got to lose and Clinton would get to be on the T.V.
The problem is , i'll bet a condition put down by the Bush administration, is that they cant testify publicly. That would make the only people testifying privately Bush and Cheney.
That wouldn't look too good for them and they have enough to worry about,you know lying and everything.

____________________________________________

I think that a sitting president/vp should be immune in this case. Rice certainly had precedent for not publicly testifying, including Clarke having done the same thing back in the '90's. But she bowed to political/public opinion.

As far as Clinton, well we know what his word is worth under oath, anyway.



_________________________

No. Clinton is the former pres and Gore the VP. as such, I think thye do have some level of privilege. Their testimononies were heard by elected representatives.

Originally posted by Seekerof
All of the people who have testified before the partisan 9/11 "Witch Hunt"...errr, I mean the Commission, should have their testimonies made public and open to access.

I'm for that.

More importantly, there is no legitimacy in letting Bush & Cheney testify together.
The only thing that will prove is what everyone already knows: Bush is a figurehead while Cheney is the Black Pope ( the unelected power ).

So, BT, are you likening Dick to Hillary?

....while GW is a gelding!

Seriously though: As a dyed in the wool Republican, do you have issue with their co-testimony?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No. Clinton is the former pres and Gore the VP. as such, I think thye do have some level of privilege. Their testimononies were heard by elected representatives.

TC, I think I know where you are coming from on this, and I respect that, as I respect BT's views and others.
But IMHO, this partisan commission has a number of purposes, but first and foremost is the determination of 'why' and 'how' and then 'how' to minimalize and prevent another such occurance from happening in the future. Though I argue to the contrary, I say screw the finger-pointing, screw "executive privileges", etc. Clinton and Gore, who have already held their unpublizied hearings with the partisan Commission, Bush , Cheney, and anybody else that had a unpublicized hearing, should have been public. The argument of National security issues was utilized with Dr. Rice and was over-ruled. As such, the testimony of Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Cheney, among others, should also be or should have been held in the eye of public scrutiny. I can't see what they would or could say that hasn't already been revealed by both administrations 'mouth-pieces' already.

What exactly is there to hide?


seekerof

BT, having gall is not the same as having brass ones. Bless your heart, you're a bit confused.

Co-testimony? Seems a bit perverted to me, to be honest.

Seeker, to shoot straight and true regarding this entire fiasco, you know as well as I that this has nothing to do with fact-finding. The panel has already proven itself to be predominately a political machine, bent on trying to make the current administration look bad in front of the entire world. Louis Freeh, a man I have never thought was the shining spot in FBI history, made it perfectly clear that these freaks should be looking exactly where they refuse to look; at the last administration. If even that goon can figure out what I've been yelling at some of these dimwits around here, well, what can I say? Louis Freeh is smarter than the rankl and file liberals around this joint!

Therefore, Seeker, it makes no difference what was asked of Clinton and Gore. Besides, do you think it makes a difference? They have both proven to be unconcerned about lying, and Clinton has no problem lying under oath. That is what is so funny about the liberal hypocrits trying their best to paint Shrub as a liar!

I think so, but then again I believe that every thing should be made public, regardless of the thread it may pose to "national security", or anything else for that matter.