Cindy Points Out Flaw
In this video that the 9-11 Deniers are highlighting. She notes that Bush and Cheney were not under oath when they testified before the 9-11 Commission, but then recognizes that it would not make any difference, "Because they're liars." I disagree with her on that point, but it does seem to be a silly argument that somehow if Bush and Cheney had been forced to testify under oath, they would have spilled the beans.
Labels: Cindy Sheehan
posted by Pat @ 8:50 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
I tend to agree, in this sense. If BUSH and CHENEY, are as Cindy and the truth movement have stated - The Evil NeoCon Cabal Leaders, than testifying under oath or not, would make no difference at all.
How many mass murderers do you see pleading not guilty until they have to put their hand on the bible, and then suddenly shout out..."I confess, I did it."
TAM:)
Testifying together and not under oath was just a stupid PR move on B&C's part, IMO. I think it showed disrespect for the Commission.
TAM said: "How many mass murderers do you see pleading not guilty until they have to put their hand on the bible, and then suddenly shout out...'I confess, I did it.'"
Hehe. I was browsing through America (The Book) at Borders today, and that reminded me of this one sidebar I happened upon.
It was a picture of a Bible, and the caption read, "Putting your left hand on this book and raising your right hand in the air makes you physically incapable of lying."
Clinton and Gore were not under oath either. It may have more to do with protocol than anything. Not necessarily good world PR to seem to have reason to put your Presidents under oath -- even calling them to testify is far from a routine occurrence.
Anyhow, by all the accounts I've seen, the commission was very satisfied with the testimony of both sets of officials.
They did not TESTIFY ... they "met" with the commission after opposing it's creation!
No testifying, means no OATH which means -NO TRANSCRIPT-, which the 9/11 families pleaded for.
So very typical of this blogs faithful to spin this into some idiotic scenario with them admitting to planning 9/11 if they were actually under oath.
Especially ones like "TAM" here who in the (long) past have used the term "negligent homicide" in reference to this administration. Mock the families and all who want the WHOLE TRUTH in regards to 911. I guess you think the stonewalling and games our leaders played regarding the murder of 3000 people calls for tired sarcasm. Shameful.
Mock the families and all who want the WHOLE TRUTH in regards to 911.
Will do!
where did I use the words negligent homicide in reference to BUSH or CHENEY?
I have called the USG and the BUSH Admin Incompitent, and I may have said there might, for certain parts of the admin, be a possible case to prove negligence. I do not recall using the words "Negligent Homicide" with reference to the Pres or VP. Please either show me a source, or retract please.
TAM:)
I think you have me confused with "The American Muslim" (TAM). My "TAM" is a shortened version of my user name, "The Artistic Macrophage".
go to google and in the search bar, type "tam negligent homicide"...
TAM:)
Geez, can't be held accountable if your not under oath, eh.
Doesn't quite help the pursuit of facts if there is nothing to examine say as in transcripts, records, etc.
What is the penalty of law for lying under oath in this case? Is there a penalty?
Does anyone know what the information those liars gave to the Commission and where it is in the report?
Thanks for all of you wonderful efforts.
How many times do I have to ask you to SPEAK ENGLISH???
Post a Comment
<< Home