Bill Clinton was giving a deposition in a lawsuit, einstein, so he had to be under oath. He was in the lawsuit.
What difference does that make? Another circular winger argument.
The GOP and Hardon Kenny didn't have to pursue such a suit in the first place. A decisive majority of Americans made it clear that they didn't want their tax dollars to be squandered on such a ridiculous, transparent, partisan witch hunt/charade in the first place.
At any rate, the point is, Clinton is compelled to testify under oath--and on live TV--about a private matter while Smirk and Dick are allowed to testify re: a matter of grave importance to national security behind closed doors and without taking an oath.
Gigglekill, after much foot-dragging, finally sent his NSA to testify--under oath--before the commission--a purely political/CYA move.
In the 9/11 commission, neither Clinton nor Bush were under oath.
What part of "the attacks didn't happen on Clinton's watch" don't you understand?
Let us not forget, if Smirk and Dick had had their way, there would never have been a 9/11 Commission in the first place. BushCo did its best to stonewall the commission for months before finally caving to political pressure.
Clinton, on the other hand, was completely forthcoming in answering to the commisssion. He even provided documents which he wasn't legally required to provide.