MSNBC Calling for President Clinton to testify in open

[mourningdove92]

hearing, under oath.
Oh, I hope he does! Let America, just once more, get a glimpse of an intelligent, articulate President. I have no doubts that he would do extrememly well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Does MNBC realize that Clinton does

Bush will have to? Three huors of Bush tryng to answer questions will be funny though, he cannot handle the tough questions

[NewHampster]

8. One is sitting pres the other is past

So the same rules will not apply.

[ps1074]

25. Bush can testify next year publicly and under oath

as an ex-president too :)

[NewHampster]

29. yes indeed

eom

[MSgt213]

2. That would be bad for Chimp

[Skittles]

3. people would be reminded of what a f***ing moron Bush is

nt

[Indiana_Dem]

4. Me, too!

I miss the Clinton days!

[LittleApple81]

5. This would be fantastic!!!! It would force Bush to do the same. n/t

[Avalux]

6. What?

It would turn into a media circus, allowing them to rehash the last time he testified under oath. You know what I mean.

I'd say if he agrees to it though, the shrub has to do it too.

[LittleApple81]

7. do you have a link? n/t

[mourningdove92]

18. no, I couldn't find a link, although they are saying that

the current poll shows the majority would like to see him testify under oath,in public. They were announcing this on the program.

[livetohike]

9. Why aren't they at least calling

for Bush and Cheney to testify separately? Also, under oath and in public. This is biased B.S.

[w13rd0]

10. The channel itself is advancing this notion?

Not just an asshat pundit, but it's a consistent theme across shows? Wow, FAUX, MSRNC, CNN...all positively and undeniably biased clowns for the Bushies...welcome to Pravda...

[JuniorPlankton]

11. Would be so very nice!!!!

Show them what a real president looks like!

[Indiana_Dem]

12. Did you hear all the praises of him during the 4 hours

he was questioned yesterday?? Even came from Republicans! They were laughing and said they had to kick him out because he stayed an hour longer than the 3 hour limit they had asked for!!

[Qutzupalotl]

17. Again, more contrast

since they had to twist Bush's arm to appear, and he still won't do it without Cheney there to signal him.

[Love Bug]

13. It'd be almost worth it to hear * try to weasel out of doing the same

Just imagine the contrast -- well thought out, intelligent answers given by someone who is articulate versus fumbling malapropisms from the Embarrassment in Chief.

[fryguy]

14. if he does, so should Bush

and, like Clinton, he should have to testify alone - without Cheney sitting next to him.....who came up with that idea anyway? Have they dropped all pretenses that Bush isn't a pupet? Why does the pResident need to have his hand held while he's testifying......ok - went off track a wee bit.....

[Beetwasher]

15. I Guarantee Clinton Would Do It!

I have a sneaking suspicion he only testified behind closed doors because the Bush admin. made him.

[Vickers]

21. I think yer right, and I think there are two reasons:

1. If he did it in closed session, that gives validity to Georgie doing it closed session, and

2. They can then later clamor for public testimony, AFTER HE ALREADY TESTIFIED.

Neat as a pin, eh?

[TimMooring]

28. True Believers

The dumb-ass wing of the GOP buy their own line of bull shit - or bush shit if you prefer. They really think that most people share their hatred of President Clinton. Such a hearing would be a wonderful opportunity for the public to compare and contrast. Never worry about Clinton being anything other than brilliant. shrub could never face that panel w/o cheney.

[wryter2000]

16. I'm with you

It could only help get rid of Bush if he testified in public and under oath. He'd make Condi's waffle-fest look like the Sunday comics.

[cosmicdot]

19. bring it on, MSGOP

I would like Bill to relate how Perle sabotaged his Mideast effort as he was working on up to the last second of his presidency ...

http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Richard%20Perle

Richard Perle Sabotaged Mideast Peace Talks in July 2000
11-Mar-03

In July 2000, Richard Perle contacted the Israeli government and deliberately tried to sabotage President Clinton's Mideast Peace talks at Camp David, when Clinton worked around the clock with Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat to find a formula for peace. Barak's people reported the matter to Clinton, and Bush was forced to publicly disavow the efforts on his behalf to sabotage negotiations. Bush said he 'disagreed' with what Perle did, as if his campaign had not directed and/or approved of it. At the time, there were demands that Perle be prosecuted for illegally interfering with American foreign policy. Naturally, Bush's new AG John Ashcroft scrubbed the case.

[oldcoot]

20. One condition

I only support allowing Clinton to testify if all of his records are released at the same time to the commission. I do no want the Bush administration or the Republicans to do what they did with Clarke and accuse him of perjury based on selected records.

[powergirl]

23. CLINTON MUST TESTIFY - Please o Please :bounce:

Clinton has an impeccable memory and he is an extraordinary speaker. He would have the world in his back pocket if he would testify in public. Maybe he had to testify initially in private to discuss "classified" issues. Now that the commission got the information they need, he should testify in public. What as dramatic contrast that would be between Bush and Clinton. A Rhodes scholar who is beloved by the world vs. Bush. Please o Please. :bounce:

[LandOLincoln]

30. YESSSSS!! And then they should call that other

Rhodes scholar from Arkansas to testify in public and under oath in support of the other Clark(e) as to BushCo's Iraq obsession immediately post-9/11. :evilgrin:

[supernova]

32. Yes, Lehman

said they did discuss classified info with Clinton, that's why it was a closed session.

I bet secretly Bill is chomping at the bit to testify in public. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Deja Q]

22. What'd Clinton do now?!

Whatever it is, bring 'im on. It'd only make * look far worse.

[cally]

24. I hope he does it

The contrast to * would be astounding. :bounce:

[JI7]

26. Bill Clinton and Al Gore already said they would do it

both clinton and gore already said if asked to testify in public under oath, that they would do it. both have also said that they will testify for as much time as they are asked to. no time limits as bush said.

[AgadorSparticus]

27. YESSSSSSSS!!!

gives me a warm fuzzy feeling and a shit eating grin.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. Much as I would like it

I don't think it is a good idea. Headline according to Franken on Washington post--that said, in effect, Condi is a "Champ".

No doubt the media, not wanting to do any real reporting, drools at the prospect of producting a soap opera. That is easy to do, see.
It takes some intelligence to to real rporting.

They set up Condi as an intriguing, ingenue movie star--who was to make an appearance on the Oscars show. Naturally, then they said that she was fantastic and rescued George from disaster. Now they are playing up the declassyfying and the release of the Aug.6 memo.

As much as I would like to see it, intuition tells me the media and Bush would slime him into the ground on all sorts of intriguing charges, and further, would play up anyh little mistake as 9-11 being Clinton's fault. He would not, not with this Bush appointed panel, be allowed to defend himself and his administration vigorously.

[kskiska]

33. He should only do it it * does. He's a President.

Clinton and Gore agreed to testify in public, but then the Chimp and his uncle said they wouldn't. Clinton is playing by the rules. He shouldn't do anything that * wouldn't do.

[leesa]

34. I think that would be terrific. However that means the Chimpster must as

well and I don't think MSRNC would go for that!

[seabeyond]

35. media hasnt gotten to go after clinton for 3 years

they are missing it