Is it really "testimony" if the speaker is not under oath?

[short-timer]

Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8349437.htm?1c)

Bush and Cheney have agreed to spend one hour before the 9-11 investigation committee. Their agreement included the restriction that they not be placed under oath. WTF? If they are not under oath, why question them at all.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by short-timer
Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/8349437.htm?1c)

Bush and Cheney have agreed to spend one hour before the 9-11 investigation committee. Their agreement included the restriction that they not be placed under oath. WTF? If they are not under oath, why question them at all.

It's because if they lie under oath, they won't be able to keep pretending that their lies that that led the U.S. to war and ended American lives are better than Clinton's lies about getting a blowjob.

Edited to add: Personally, I'd like to see an amendment specifying that the President and members of Congress should be considered under oath at all times.

Jeremy

[American]

Originally posted by short-timer
WTF? If they are not under oath, why question them at all.


At least they won't argue the meaning of "IS". And they weren't getting blowjobs at the exact moment of deciding troop numbers with Congressmen on the phone.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by short-timer
Bush and Cheney have agreed to spend one hour before the 9-11 investigation committee. Their agreement included the restriction that they not be placed under oath.I hope they have a good explanation. I mean, other than 'you see, I might not be totally honest, and it's simply too serious to lie under oath'? Anyone? :(

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by American
At least they won't argue the meaning of "IS". And they weren't getting blowjobs at the exact moment of deciding troop numbers with Congressmen on the phone. 1, How do you know they didn't?
2. How do you know if anyone else did?

[hgc]

You don't have to be under oath to face criminal charges for lying to the federal government. Just ask Martha Stewart.

This oath business is not the real scandal. Why in the Hell did the 9/11 commission agree, just to get Rice's public prevarications, to let Bush and Cheney testify together???!!!??? Is our president such a pathetic, diaper-pooping imbecile that he can't go before the commission to speak all by his lonesome?

Next question: If Cheney's ticker gives out, who's the new power behind the throne? I bet they bring that vote-count-stopping rat-bastard James Baker out of revilement, er, retirement to take Bushie by the hand and wipe the snot off his nose.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I hope they have a good explanation. I mean, other than 'you see, I might not be totally honest, and it's simply too serious to lie under oath'? Anyone? :(

The only vaguely reasonable explanation I can come up with is the "the whole truth" bit. Maybe they feel like they should reserve the right not to answer certain questions in the interests of national security. Why they didn't just come out and say so is beyond me, though.

Jeremy