Should Bush testify before a 9/11 commission about prior warnings he may have had?

The Desert Sun ^ | February 17, 2004 | The Desert Sun

[BJungNan]

Should President Bush testify before an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks about intelligence agency warnings he may have received before the attacks?

[BJungNan]

What I have read on this issue is that Clinton and Bush are being asked to testify. I wonder why the Desert Sun only has included Bush's name in its poll question.

[Puppage]

Testify...NO

Cooperate with YES

He's not on trial, for Gods sake.

This is another RAT attempt to politisize the whole thing because they have NOTHING.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Testify is the operative word. This is a definite no. Interview by the committee is a definite yes, assuming the committee can be trusted not to stab the President in the back.

[BJungNan]

This is another RAT attempt to politisize the whole thing because they have NOTHING.

You should see the rants of this paper about how objective they are. The editor puts out these long winded editorials every now and then explaining their editorial process, written like he is writing to a class of elementary school children.

[newgeezer]

We all know what Clinton's testimony is worth.

[PISANO]

Presidents DO NOT have to testify! Separation of Powers you know. But EX-PRESIDENTS, if given a summons, must. He is the ONE that should be questioned. His 8 years of fun and games deserve relentless investigation. While he was getting BJ's in the oval office our enemies were planning and carrying out attacks against our country.

[newgeezer]

Come again? (I don't think your post is going to last very long in its current form.)

[JimSEA]

He's not on trial, for Gods sake

Sorry, but he is on trial. As long as public discourse is governed by today's media, the agenda is controlled by the Democratic Party. Even Fox News spends its time responding to the Left's agenda. This is true from the gay marriages in SFO, to the National Guard idiocy, Dr. Kay's WMD testimony, and the 9/11 inquiry. While you see the facts, I fear most do not. Overreaching is the main liability of the left.

[pipecorp]

Touche'
(Additionally I believe that Hillary's 'Happy Ramadan' speech was code to begin the attacks) How's that for a right wing conspiracy?

[ExposeDem]

America, once the land of opportunity, has become a magnet for "foreign" (non-Patriots) opportunists who benefit greatly at seeing our country divided. These opportunists are enjoying pitting one against the other and causing a great division in our country. Political parties need to set aside their differences and focus on removing this evil as this is America's greatest threat! We can all go back to political bickering once the snake's head is cut off. A good place to start is by voicing your concerns to your elected representatives and the FCC regarding the media monopoly.

Excerpts from George Washington's farewell speech:

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.

The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.

A passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/farewell/transcript.html

[WhiteGuy]

Absolutely!

Testify under oath!

He certainly has nothing to hide.

[ForOurFuture]

I would. Were I President I'd never miss an oppurtunity to confront my leftist detractors and give them a piece of my mind.

[MEGoody]

I find it very telling that the very people who complain because Bush didn't act to stop 9/11 are the same ones who whine that he acted too rashly going into Iraq. But then, no one ever said lefties were logical.

[BJungNan]

I find it very telling that the very people who complain because Bush didn't act to stop 9/11 are the same ones who whine that he acted too rashly going into Iraq. But then, no one ever said lefties were logical.

I find it very telling that the very people who complain becuase Bush didn't act to stop 9/11 are the same ones that undermined the CIA and our ability to detect such plans in the first place - like Kerry!

[longfellow]

Read Dereliction of Duty.