New CNN.com poll: Putting WH advisors would damage their ability to 'advise' prez?

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.cnn.com/

Do you agree with President Bush that requiring White House advisers to testify under oath would damage their ability to give the president 'candid advice' ?


Yes 27% 2740 votes

No 73% 7525 votes

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Ah, that reliable 27%. They'd love Mussolini. nt

[rucky]

9. It used to be 35-40%

Sanity is making headway.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. What ever happened to the old Republican talking point ...

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about"?
:shrug:

[Bandit]

10. Or the one "No one is above the Law"?

:shrug: very short and selected memories those on the wing nut side of the aisle have.

[longship]

3. Done!

:kick:

[Kadie]

4. done n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. 73% NO 27% yes

Do you agree with President Bush that requiring White House advisers to testify under oath would damage their ability to give the president 'candid advice'?

Yes 27% 3425 votes

No 73% 9287 votes
Total: 12712 votes

[wicket]

6. Latest numbers:

Do you agree with President Bush that requiring White House advisers to testify under oath would damage their ability to give the president 'candid advice'?
Yes

27%

3425 votes

No

73%

9287 votes

Total: 12712 votes

[ccpup]

7. I wonder what CNN

had to say about Presidential Advisers testifying under oath during Clinton's Presidency? I get the sense that the media didn't bend over backward to "protect" the President like they seem to be doing now.

[pacalo]

8. If their "candid advice" means breaking the law, it's only right that it should cause them damage.

Duh.