Executive Privilege

As some of you may know, President Bush and VP Cheney testified before the 9/11 commission yesterday. However, they asked for and were granted, the right to not be recorded, or have a transcript written of their testimony. This, I believe would fall under the right of power a President has known as "Executive Privilege", where the President can decide not to disclose certain information for whatever reason.

Do you think he was right to use this power for this commission?

Do you think leader's in general should be able to hold back information from the public because they just choose to?

Take care all.

Whether it's true or not, people are going to think that he had something to hide.

No and no.

We as Americans (and people, in general, around the world) have a right to know what exactly is going down and went down after September 11. I'm not entirely sure what they asked him about, but I don't believe that really matters, anyway.

Executive privilege, as a refresher, is never explicitly stated as a perk of the executive branch, but has rather been implied by nearly every president dating all the way back to the beginning with George Washington.

No. Itr gives the sensation he has something to hide and fears it may influence in the elections. Hiding information about such an important tragedy for his benefit?

If there was a way our government/officials could tell the people about everything they were doing i would be all for it.

But its not possible.

Some secrets need to be kept for our protection.

Of course, as a people, we won't agree with it. That's not the issue. The issue to see if it is better for the people - or the state of America; same difference - to keep it disclosed. And personally, I'm not sure of that. However, seeing that my opinion of Bush is not at its highest, I can't help but be a bit queasy at the idea that he has so much control in our society.

The whole issue here is whether or not he provided anything that would help prevent another 911 occurring. I mean look at his record as far as rationale behind some of the militaristic moves he has made.

If one reason doesn't work lets use another, after all the public is in a gullible state, and they buy it as long as it reeks of attacking the roots of terrorism.

The fact that nothing they said is on the record just lends creedence to the belief that a liar is liar. After all what would happen if they incriminated themselves..... :confused: