Why is GWB going to talk to the 9/11 panel with his VP present?

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I hear the finale will be Bush answering questions while Cheney drinks a glass of water.

LMAO!!!!

?

will the far-fetched conspiracy theories ever end?

What's your thought on why they will be appearing at the same time?

BTW, I don't think Bowfinger was being serious.

Was josphII?

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth I really want to hear what people who support GWB think about this.

They will be appearing "together" to present a target to terror groups so as to get attacked and avoid testifying and get the commission killed along with their selves just to prove to all the libbies that they are right, because they really care what all the "little" libies say...

They should, for they will have to get the "little" libies votes to stay in office. Wait, vote........hmmmm.... nvm, you're right, they wouldn't care.

 

[Gaard]

Here's what McClellan had to say...link

Q Can I stay on that subject -- we need to stay on that subject, briefly. Could you explain to us why the White House requested that the President and Vice President jointly answer questions, as opposed to separately?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, we've said from the very beginning that it's important for the 9/11 Commission to have all the information they need to do their job. And we've worked very closely and cooperatively with the 9/11 Commission to make sure they have all that information. We have provided, as the Chairman and Vice Chairman have pointed out, unprecedented access to information from the administration to the 9/11 Commission, including our most sensitive national security documents. And that's the spirit in which we have worked.

Now, keep in mind that the 9/11 Commission already has more than 2.3 million pages of documents, there have been more than a hundred briefings, and that includes at the head-of-agency level, there have been more than 800 interviews and meetings with administration officials, some 900 audio cassette tapes of meetings and other materials that have been provided to them, and more than 60 compact discs of radar, flight and other information. So they already have a lot of information. And we want to work in a way that helps make sure that they have the information they need.

The commission very much welcomed the decision of the President and the Vice President to sit down together and meet with the entire commission and answer whatever questions they want to raise with the President and Vice President. This is a good way to make sure that they're getting the information that they need to do their job.

Q Why the specific insistence that they be together? I mean, they could --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is a good way to help them get the information they need and do so in a timely manner. Remember, they've already got a lot of the information, they've already conducted a lot of the interviews. And what they're trying to --


Timely manner. Riiiight.

Oh, and I hope that when everyone watches the morning news shows tomorrow, they remember the statement that I bolded.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I hear the finale will be Bush answering questions while Cheney drinks a glass of water.

LMAO!!!!

?

will the far-fetched conspiracy theories ever end?

What's your thought on why they will be appearing at the same time?

BTW, I don't think Bowfinger was being serious.

Was josphII?

Crap, I bit again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What I find interesting is that this is not under oath.

They don't want to make Clinton's mistake of telling a lie under oath.

Accountability is foolish

 

[chess9]

Bowfinger:

That may be the funniest thing posted in this forum in the last 4 years. Great line.

-Robert

 

[Czar]

what why wont they do this under oath?

would be nice to ge an answer or an idea for an answer from some of their supporters here

 

[0roo0roo]

you know how police interrogators seperate suspects during questioning so they can't parrot each others stories to make sure they both tell the same lies? thats why bush and cheney are together, to make sure they can tell their lies without any embarrasing discrepencies. they are so worried about this that they insisted..even while not under oath

 

[NumbersGuy]

------------------------------------------------------
Why is GWB going to talk to the 9/11 panel with his VP
------------------------------------------------------

Cheney is the responsible adult?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bowfinger:

That may be the funniest thing posted in this forum in the last 4 years. Great line.

-Robert

 

[Harvey]

Everyone knows a dummy needs a ventriloquist to pull the strings and provide the words.

Which one do you think is the dummy, and which one is pulling the strings?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I hear the finale will be Bush answering questions while Cheney drinks a glass of water.

:beer::music:

The Charlie McCarthy hearings! And you thought Gore was wooden!!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bowfinger: That may be the funniest thing posted in this forum in the last 4 years. Great line. -Robert

 

[Gaard]

here's a visual


Maybe I'm just not getting it, it just doesn't seem like our president is practicing what he's preaching...."full cooperation" / "cooperate completely".

[*]First he's against having a 9/11 commission at all.
[*]Then he agrees to it.
[*]Then he absolutely denies giving an asked-for extension, giving us some excuse about the results of the commission are needed, and needed now, to find out what went wrong and to help prevent another attack.
[*]Then he agrees to an extension (*shrug* I guess the reasons he originally gave for not granting an extension weren't that important.
[*]Then the president says he'll meet with the commission but only with the Chairman and Vice-chairman...I'm not clear what his reasoning was.
[*]Then he says he'll meet with the whole commission.
[*]Then we get this big hoopla because it's been decided that Rice won't be allowed to testify under oath.
[*]Then Rice is allowed to testify under oath - for a price.
[*]That price...written assurances that Rice testifying won't set a precedent.
[*]And...Bush will only testify if Cheney accompanies him.


I'm just not seeing "full cooperation" here.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I hear the finale will be Bush answering questions while Cheney drinks a glass of water.

give the man a comedy award

 

[Gaard]

Oh, and I think I read somewhere where the commission has been informed that one person will be allowed to take notes of the testimony. No recordings. I'll have to see what McClellan says as to why this is...I haven't a clue.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'll have to see what McClellan says as to why this is...I haven't a clue.

Either does Bush.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I hear the finale will be Bush answering questions while Cheney drinks a glass of water.

:beer::music:

The Charlie McCarthy hearings! And you thought Gore was wooden!!

ROFL!!! Now that's funny!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Oh, and I think I read somewhere where the commission has been informed that one person will be allowed to take notes of the testimony. No recordings. I'll have to see what McClellan says as to why this is...I haven't a clue.

Gaard, Gaard, Gaard, these hearings are so solemn and important and central to understanding our government's response to the most crucial threat of our time straight from out commander-in-chief and the President who serves under him that we simply must do everything humanly possible to ensure that there isn't a faultlessly verifiable transcript thereof.

 

[Insane3D]

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

Well, that was my point. Any official giving testimony on an important issue as a matter of course ought to be under oath. Clinton should have been, and Bush too. Exemptions are bad policy IMO

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

Well, that was my point. Any official giving testimony on an important issue as a matter of course ought to be under oath. Clinton should have been, and Bush too. Exemptions are bad policy IMO

Clinton testified in front of the panel?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

Well, that was my point. Any official giving testimony on an important issue as a matter of course ought to be under oath. Clinton should have been, and Bush too. Exemptions are bad policy IMO

Clinton testified in front of the panel?

I was referring to the testimony for which he was impeached. He lied under oath. There was a certain accountability built into the testimony. I like that idea. One can argue surrounding the circumstances of impeachment, and giving an oath does not mean any testimony is true, however the weight of possible adverse consequences is a good thing for any politician.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

Well, that was my point. Any official giving testimony on an important issue as a matter of course ought to be under oath. Clinton should have been, and Bush too. Exemptions are bad policy IMO

Clinton testified in front of the panel?

I was referring to the testimony for which he was impeached. He lied under oath. There was a certain accountability built into the testimony. I like that idea. One can argue surrounding the circumstances of impeachment, and giving an oath does not mean any testimony is true, however the weight of possible adverse consequences is a good thing for any politician.

I thought Clinton testified under oath. Your post implies that he did not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Can someone please explain to me what the hell is the point of testifying about anything while not under oath? I mean, what's the point? You could testify that elephants flew into D.C and just gave a us bad luck.

It seems to me they should just let him not testify as if it's not under oath, it's totally meaningless. Any testimony can only be taken with a grain of salt anyhow.

Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he testified under oath, and it came back to haunt him when he lied doing so. It looks like Bush should'nt have any problems like this. If he get's caught in a lie, he can just say..."I wasn't under oath was I?".

:|

Well, that was my point. Any official giving testimony on an important issue as a matter of course ought to be under oath. Clinton should have been, and Bush too. Exemptions are bad policy IMO

Clinton testified in front of the panel?

I was referring to the testimony for which he was impeached. He lied under oath. There was a certain accountability built into the testimony. I like that idea. One can argue surrounding the circumstances of impeachment, and giving an oath does not mean any testimony is true, however the weight of possible adverse consequences is a good thing for any politician.

I thought Clinton testified under oath. You post implies that he did not.

Perhaps I badly worded it. No, I meant Clinton should have been under oath (which he was) and likewise Bush too.

Edit- Gah! formatting