Bush Rules Out Public Testimony re 9/11

[RedSock]

More backpedaling from the "independent" Whitewash Commission.

***

Bush, Clinton Agree to Testify Privately to Panel Probing 9/11
White House Rules Out Public Questioning of President
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 14, 2004; Page A12

President Bush agreed to meet privately with the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but has ruled out offering any testimony in a public setting, according to a White House statement released last night. ...

In a statement, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said ... "we believe the president can provide all the requested information in the private meeting, and there is no need for any additional testimony."

Bush's decision appears to resolve the latest standoff between the 10-member commission and the White House...

Kristen Breitweiser: "I don't understand why high-ranking officials would not welcome the opportunity to testify openly in a public forum. If you've got nothing to hide, why wouldn't you welcome a chance to talk to the American people openly and tell them that?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40942-2004Feb13.html

[ComerPerro]

1. And more importantly, just like Condi, he won't have to be under oath

Pisses me off. You can force a president to testify under oath in a public hearing about an affair he had. But you can't make a president testify in public and under oath about THE DEATH OF 3,000 INNOCENT CITIZENS?????????????????????

[PaDUer]

2. This BS of * getting a PASS

on everything has to stop! They ALL should testify under OATH..Start screaming louder about this, and ensure that he DOESN'T have the earpiece in the ear so he can repeat what's being told to him to say!

[RedSock]

3. under oath -- Lies of the Times

What is also amazing is this bald-faced LIE in the NY Times:

"The commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, has required all of its witnesses at public hearings to be placed under oath."

WTF????????? NO ONE has been under oath to date.

Also from the NYT: "But it has generally not required witnesses who testify in private sessions to be sworn in, and commission officials have said it was unclear whether Mr. Bush would be asked to testify under oath."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/politics/14BUSH.html

[RedSock]

4. tell the times

I sent an email to the Times alerting them to this falsehood. Others should as well.

[e-mail]

[RedSock]

5. bump (no text)