do you trust this man?

[planetx]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

[B. Max]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

It is a witch hunt, just as the Plame case was. Cheney is smart to tell them to shove it.

Edited August 1, 2007 by B. Max

[Guest American Woman]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

The "not in public" I could go along with, and they don't have to be worried about transcripts if they've got nothing to hide, but since they want it to be "not under oath," evidently they do have something to hide. That pretty much says they are planning on not telling the truth.

[kuzadd]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

NO!

He is not above the law.

[planetx]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

The "not in public" I could go along with, and they don't have to be worried about transcripts if they've got nothing to hide, but since they want it to be "not under oath," evidently they do have something to hide. That pretty much says they are planning on not telling the truth.

very good point... what he is saying is "if one of us lies then i don't want there to be anyway that we can be punished for that"

[Guest American Woman]

It's crazy, but a lot of people seem to think it doesn't matter if someone lies when theyre not under oath. You'd think the principal of honesty would stand on it's own, but apparently it doesn't.

Edited August 1, 2007 by American Woman

[guyser]

It's crazy, but a lot of people seem to think it doesn't matter if someone lies when theyre not under oath. You'd think the principal of honesty would stand on it's own, but apparently it doesn't.

Maybe the Cons realize that it is better when no oath is sworn , as they wrote the manual on what to do if one does lie.

See: Clinton , W.J.

There own tactics turned around are scarey?

[SkyhookJackson]

should any elected official expect the trust of his constituents if his attitude is “not under oath, not in public, no transcript”?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html

If Cheney told me the sky is blue, I'd have to look outside. Not only is this guy NOT above the law, he works for the American people. We're sick to freaking death of being kept in the dark like a bunch of mushrooms, being fed what mushrooms are fed (it comes out of the back end of a horse). By the way, did you know that during the Clinton years the Republicans investigated the "Socks the Cat Fan Club?" Uh huh. And now they obstruct and whine about investigations relating to wars and corruption. It boggles the mind.

[B. Max]

It's crazy, but a lot of people seem to think it doesn't matter if someone lies when theyre not under oath. You'd think the principal of honesty would stand on it's own, but apparently it doesn't.

Yeah the dems are proof of that, and Clinton didn't think it mattered when he was under oath.

[planetx]

It's crazy, but a lot of people seem to think it doesn't matter if someone lies when theyre not under oath. You'd think the principal of honesty would stand on it's own, but apparently it doesn't.

Yeah the dems are proof of that, and Clinton didn't think it mattered when he was under oath.

hey, at least he took the oath... i guess this situation is what chenney is thinking about. "gee clinton lied under oath and got fried, i'm not doing that, i just won't take the oath"! :-)

[B. Max]

It's crazy, but a lot of people seem to think it doesn't matter if someone lies when theyre not under oath. You'd think the principal of honesty would stand on it's own, but apparently it doesn't.

Yeah the dems are proof of that, and Clinton didn't think it mattered when he was under oath.

hey, at least he took the oath... i guess this situation is what chenney is thinking about. "gee clinton lied under oath and got fried, i'm not doing that, i just won't take the oath"! :-)

No he's thinking about Libby.

[kuzadd]

He's thinking about Libby?

what?

He got a 'get out of jail free' card.

[B. Max]

He's thinking about Libby?

what?

He got a 'get out of jail free' card.

He never should have been there in the forst place because there was no case. They manufactured a case most likely hoping to get Cheney or Bush. When they realized they were going nowhere they manufactured a side show case to get Libby.

[planetx]

this is an extremely interesting article about the man and his actions in 'the house'. every american should read it...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/

"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."