US Pres. an Vice Pres Dont go under OATH!

recently heard over at CNN headline news about bush an vice president cheney not having to go under OATH during 9/11 Commisions? this is insane! why are they above the law? add comments, an links if you can find em.

are we suprised? no, i don't think must people will be suprised by this.

Well it's been said time and time again that politicians and people above em have the option of going through different laws then common folks do.


It just goes to show that all their yappin hold no validity, just a bunch of bull #.
I hope he gets impeached or recalled, and I hope John Kerry get his ass handed to him, he's another flat out liar. Whatever happened to the populists party or libertarian??
What is wrong with people???!!!!

Oh wait, I got a clue... Too many people believe in the kool aid they've drank, whether it be lib or repub...
Thye just can't seem to get off their high horses and see these # sticks for who they really are.

Question:
Was Klinton and Gore under oath?


seekerof

And to think, if the 13th amendment is still in existence (just hidden from us "common" folk by the "elite"), then almost all the politicians we have now would not be in office.

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
And to think, if the 13th amendment is still in existence (just hidden from us "common" folk by the "elite"), then almost all the politicians we have now would not be in office.

What?

Explain this.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question:
Was Klinton and Gore under oath?


seekerof

As far as I know...isn't that why impeachment proceedings were held against Clinton? For purgury (sp) under OATH? If I am wrong in this, please correct me. By the way....how do you check the spelling on here...or can you?

edit: DUH!!!! I feel like a real idiot now...cowers head. I didn't realize you ment in these proceedings. I'm just going to go stick my head in the oven now thank you. Peace.

[Edited on 21-4-2004 by MacMerdin]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Question:
Was Klinton and Gore under oath?


seekerof

Even if they weren't, which I don't know, would that make Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's actions right? That's the lame assed, mele mouthed type answer that I was expecting to see whenever I came in this thread.

Why is it that people cannot deal with somebody doing something potentially dubious without dodging the issue at hand? Why must you point out what other people did wrong? Is it because you cannot defend their actions? Is it because you are trying to pull attention away from what is going on? It all seems like you are trying to justify one wrong with another. If none of these are correct, I apologize...however I hardly see the point of bringing up Clinton and Gore unless you are going to either defend or attack both sides.

Everyone should be testifying under oath in these hearings. It is wrong that anyone testifies without taking the Oath. With that being said...Seekerof, how do you feel about these two people, Bush and Cheney, not being under oath during these proceedings?

OXmanK.....
two words:
executive priviledges.

Thats why I asked, and yes, there is a difference.


MacMerdin
No sweat dude....everything is cool....we are, after all, in the Mud Pit....as such, I'm used to it. BT usually lays a few good ones on me also.


seekerof

Then why bother testifying at all. After all, these men have no accountability to anything they are saying to the commission. And why would anyone care to exercise these privledges? Isn't that just a way to undermine a committee?

only thing i could come up with was that they are the president an vice president an they have already sworn an OATH to the Country an so froth an they have promised to tell the truth an be honest alwasy from the getgo, maybe thats why they dont have to do it cuz they are already supposed to do it, witch if that is the case then they are still messin up cuz they are supposed to be role models for the country an they should follow the country;s laws an regulations as well as everyother tax payin citizen cow.