Shanon (giltedge) wrote in thequestionclub,
Shanon
giltedge
thequestionclub

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but while meeting with the 9/11 Commission, the President agree to meet only on the grounds that he would not be under oath, would appear with the Vice President, and the session would not be transcribed or filmed. Is this correct?

My father and I were discussing this, and he thinks this is a security issue, and that it's how our government does business. That even city commissioners meet behind closed doors. That sometimes the government needs to do things privately. I'm not saying that everything our government and intelligence agencies do needs to be made public for everyone in every country to know, but I don't understand why it was this way for meeting with the 9/11 Commission, and talking about something that happened a few years ago.

I especially wonder about the not being under oath part. What is the purpose of having them not be under oath?

Have there been other times where this situation (as I mentioned in the first paragraph -- not being under oath being the big part of this) has been used during the Bush administration? What other times in our more recent history (say, Vietnam to present, particularly with Bush Sr. and Clinton) has this occurred? Was meeting with 9/11 Commission grounds for being so hush-hush? Would this have been dangerous to our country, and revealed information that can't be known by "terrorists"?

I'm sorry if I appear ignorant here, but I'm just curious. Correct any mis-statements, and I will edit this entry. Thanks so much!

edited to add: does anyone know of any websites or anything that shows how factual Fahrenheit 9/11 is?
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 12 comments