Subject:
|
Re: wise counsel?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:54:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
269 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Bush: “I was never advised by my counsel to not answer anything. I answered
every question they asked”
That’s kind of a given; not something to brag about. Was it his counsel who
suggested he should not answer questions under oath, or that the
Vice-“President” should hold his hand while he “answered every question they
asked”?
|
Hey, give credit where it’s due! At his last press conference, Dubya didn’t
answer a single question. To go from zero to “every question” is quite a shift.
It’s just a pity he’s not under oath.
Of course, Scott McClellan harumphed that Bush has “already taken an oath,” when
he became President. Whoop-de-doo. I don’t recall any mention of
the-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth in his oath of office...
Now that I think of it, why aren’t Presidents legally considered to be “under
oath” during the entirety of their term?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | wise counsel?
|
| (URL): "I was never advised by my counsel to not answer anything. I answered every question they asked" That's kind of a given; not something to brag about. Was it his counsel who suggested he should not answer questions under oath, or that the (...) (20 years ago, 29-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
