My Letter In Chicago Suntimes

[Wink]

Priorities off base

Can anyone explain why Major League Baseball players were forced to testify under oath, in public, about the use of steroids?

When it came to investigating something of real importance like the president's actions surrounding the 9/11 attacks, Congress allowed George W. Bush to testify without taking an oath, without public scrutiny, without records being taken, and with Dick Cheney by his side to help him with the answers.

This country certainly has a strange set of priorities.

Paul Winkelmann, Romeoville

http://www.suntimes.com/output/letters/cst-edt-vox28a.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wink]

2. Really.....?

Perhaps you've heard of William Jefferson Clinton?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wink]

6. Didn't Bush take an oath of office?

Wouldn't violating that oath be a crime? Wouldn't this violation resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans warrant testimony that was at least on par with Clinton's blow job testimony? It ain't like Congress didn't have "evidence" that Bush was neglectful of his duties as the protector of this nation.

[GiovanniC]

7. Ha ha ha...

So which is it...

- No president would be put under oath without evidence of a crime being committed...

OR

- The evidence that Clinton had committed a crime was that he lied under oath?

[Wink]

8. Who said president shouldn't be under oath?

If a president commits a "real crime", certainly they should be forced to testify under oath. I personally don't believe that hiding adultery when testifying for a GOP witch hunt is a crime. I do believe however that testimony as to why you allowed thousands of people to die and then sat there on your ass reading about a goat should have some decorum of a real congressional investigation. I mean come on, congress forces testimony about adultery but doesn't about our nation's worst terrorist attack?

[GiovanniC]

9. Munsterlander Made the Claim

That the president wouldn't be put under oath without evidence of a crime, and the evidence of Clinton's crime was that he lied under oath.

Some paradoxical Catch-22 action going on there.

[Wink]

11. Yep, sorry didn't read author before I ranted N/T

[carnie_sf]

4. I thought

the house hearings on steroids were little more than a farce to begin with. Does anyone seriously believe that with thousands of americans (not to mention countless non-americans) dying overseas, the social security system allegedly in crisis, and the nation setting new debt records on a daily basis that congress has nothing more important to do than investigate steroids in baseball? Please.

[carnie_sf]

5. Oh, and Munsterlander

welcome to DU you freeper.

[GOPFighter]

10. Nice letter, Wink

It's a nice contrast. They didn't want public scrutiny or a written record because they knew some of Bush's answers would be lies and after the Clinton they knew the Dems would love to return the favor.