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

[Ldir]

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

LOL

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Make sure you tune in to the news shows in the morning. It should be an interesting morning.


FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Sept. 11 commission members Bob Kerrey and John F. Lehman.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Sept. 11 commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, former White House counselor Karen Hughes.

THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 11:30 a.m.: Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig.

LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D), Sept. 11 commission member Timothy J. Roemer, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Well, as I expected, Karen Hughes is sticking hard to the "we need to figure out what went wrong and fix it" and using that for almost every answer. She diverted Russert's question about should an apology be issued and used that abovementioned answer.

She's also said the Bush Administration has offered unprecedented cooperation with the commission...brushing aside the fact the administration has withheld many documents of the Clinton administration. Brushed aside the fact Bush and Cheney both opposed a national commission on 9/11...saying they didn't, they just wanted a "thoughtful process" to determine the best way to handle it.

And...paraphrasing:

"RUSSERT: President Bush has been in office for 1000 days. What do you think is the biggest mistake the President has made during his Presidency?

HUGHES: You know, Tim, I don't think that way." Then she goes into praising Bush for his leadership post-9/11.

 

[Gaard]

I tuned in late (damn time change ), but Russert asked Hughes, "You just heard the Chairman and Vice-Chairman say that they'd prefer President Bush and VP Cheney testify seperately,..."

Now, I didn't actually hear them say this (because I tuned in late), but if they did, how does that fit with the bolded statement by McClellan that I linked to above?


I also heard Hughes dodge Russert's question, Cunjur. My eyes were rolling, as I'm sure yours were.

Russert also asked Hughes if she knew why Bush and Cheney have insisted to testify together. She said she didn't know why, but...and hold your breath for this part...they were occassionally together leading up to 9/11 so it's totally appropiate to have them testify together.

 

[Red Dawn]

I wonder if Bush is going to insist that Cheney be by his side during the presidential debates with Kerry?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder if Bush is going to insist that Cheney be by his side during the presidential debates with Kerry?

 

[conjur]

Following is the text of a letter sent yesterday to Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton of the Sept. 11 commission from Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush:

While we continue to hold to the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers, that the appropriate and patriotic action for the Commission is to shut down and stop pestering us, the President is prepared, in the interest of comity and popularity, to testify, subject to the conditions set forth below.

The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President.

The Commission must agree in writing that it will not pose any questions directly to the President. Mr. Bush's statements will be restricted to asides on Dick Cheney's brushoffs, as in "Just like he said," "Roger that" and "Ditto" ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/opinion/01DOWD.html
Charlie McCarthy Hearings

 

[GrGr]

Yeah, this is so gay that the happy couple should get married already.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Gaard
they were occassionally together leading up to 9/11 so it's totally appropiate to have them testify together.

And yet they want to ban gay marriage?

 

[conjur]

"As an additional accommodation, the President and Vice President have now agreed to take a "pinkie oath," looping little fingers with each other, while reserving the right to cross the index and middle fingers of their remaining hands and hide them behind their backs.

We must deny your request that Mr. Cheney bring along a PowerPoint presentation depicting who was in and out of the loop, in accordance with separation-of-PowerPoint principles. The Vice President has decreed that the loop of influence is under the cone of silence....'

 

[Gaard]

This is just my opinion...

Apparently they've decided that the damage that would occur if they testified seperately is too great a risk. Now, the question I ask myself is "What damage are they deflecting? Disclosures on lax attitudes, lies or fabrications by other cabinet/admin members, or inconsistancies between the P and VP?"

I just can't bring myself to believe that the reason for having them testify together is because it will be more timely. Especially when apparently the commission wants them to go in seperately.

And I still have no idea, absolutely no idea, why they refuse to be under oath.

"cooperate fully"

 

[Bowfinger]

Gaard: "cooperate fully"

In the same sense that wrong is right, down is up, and war is peace.

 

[conjur]

THIS WEEK on ABC is excellent.

Hope you all are watching.

 

[Tripleshot]

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.

Bush and Cheney will not testify in public OR under oath and no recordings of the testimony will be taken? I see a conspiracy to defraud the American public and create plausabile deniability. If this is the way republicans think our countries leaders should behave, then support them, by all means. You deserve them. They are at minimum thumbing there noses at the American public and the widows and widowers of 9/11. This administration makes me want to hurl! :|

 

[Gaard]

Has the reason for B & C not testifying under oath been explained?

 

[chess9]

Gaard:

Executive Privilege and that was part of the agreement with the Commission for Rice's testimony. She gets to try to NOT be eviscerated while they will get pitty pat from the Commission.

-Robert

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Has the reason for B & C not testifying under oath been explained?

Suitable string extensions have not been found that would allow the Bush puppet to be operated by Cheney outside the same room.

Where's all the Bush supporters on this one? Isn't there some one to character assassinate here? Maybe its the 9/11 panels fault.

 

[Gaard]

But, unless I just haven't seen it, the WH hasn't even issued an official reason for this.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: chess9
Gaard:

Executive Privilege and that was part of the agreement with the Commission for Rice's testimony. She gets to try to NOT be eviscerated while they will get pitty pat from the Commission.

-Robert

I haven't heard (nor read ) that executive priviledge has been stated. But, even if it were, doesn't it seem logical that the WH would say something like "President Bush will not be giving sworn testimony, as is his right as to Executive Priviledge, because ___________."

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Gaard
Has the reason for B & C not testifying under oath been explained?

Suitable string extensions have not been found that would allow the Bush puppet to be operated by Cheney outside the same room.

Where's all the Bush supporters on this one? Isn't there some one to character assassinate here? Maybe its the 9/11 panels fault.

They do not know what they are supposed to think yet. They are waiting for new talking points from Mother Dub.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Can someone please explain this to me?
????

TIA

Can I get some thoughts from the forum's Bush supporter on thiss?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

well no bush supporter is going to say what we all know to be the truth, so don't expect them to.