Bush & Cheney testify together for 9/11 hearing?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrBrau1

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
10,436
Location
Verplexed in Vermont
What do you think?

They don't wanna mix up their answers?

Will they hold hands?

Which is Ken? Which is Barbie?

It's a confidence buster that the president of the US can't speak on his own. He's a small man.
 
I thought it was a bad joke when I heard that they'd be testifying together. Bush twists laws to accomodate his agenda- but worse, he's twisted our country into a shape I don't recognize anymore...
 
From the NY Times(Opinion):

The President's Testimony

It would have been a pleasure to be able to congratulate President Bush on his openness in agreeing to sit down today with the independent commission on the 9/11 attacks and answer questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush conditioned his cooperation on stipulations that range from the questionable to the ridiculous.

The strangest of the president's conditions is that he will testify only in concert with Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has given no sensible reason for why Mr. Bush is unwilling to appear alone. (When asked at his recent press conference, the president gave one of his patented nonresponses: "Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.")

Given the White House's concern for portraying Mr. Bush as a strong leader, it's remarkable that this critical appearance is being structured in a way that is certain to provide fodder for late-night comedians, who enjoy depicting him as the docile puppet of his vice president.

Mr. Bush's reluctant and restrictive cooperation with the panel is consistent with the administration's pattern of stonewalling reasonable requests for documents and testimony and then giving up only the minimum necessary ground when the dispute becomes public. Today's testimony will be in private in the White House, away from reporters or television cameras. The session will not be recorded, and there will be no formal transcript. The president's aides have defended this excessive degree of secrecy with the usual arguments about protecting highly classified information and not wanting to establish dangerous precedents.

The idea that the panel may wring from Mr. Bush some comment that may endanger national security is ridiculous. The commission, led by the respected former Republican governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean, has already heard, in public, from the leaders of the nation's top intelligence agencies, the secretary of defense and Mr. Bush's national security adviser. It seems highly unlikely that the president knows secrets more sensitive than they do. If he did, he would certainly be free to go off the record while discussing them.

The president's aides have also been arguing that making the event anything more than a "meeting" or informal discussion would establish a pattern that future chief executives would be forced to follow. That is true, in a way. If Mr. Bush or any of his successors have the tragic misfortune to be in command at a time when terrorists strike the country, killing thousands of innocent civilians, they should be expected to cooperate with the official investigations, and to do so in a way that puts their statements on the record and into history.
 
What's interesting about this is that Dubya's administration have chosen they'd rather take criticism in the press for all these ridiculous conditions, rather than risk allowing him to testify on the same grounds as others who have been called to appear before this commission.

The press are most likely going to criticise him for refusing to testify without Cheney there to help him with any difficult questions, and for refusing to allow the public any access to the information he gives today. This could be fairly damaging criticism: he can be painted as too stupid to testify without Cheney there to help him, and people will no doubt be angry that there is to be no public record of this "meeting" and feel that important information is being withheld from them.

So given that they'll inevitably be criticised for the conditions this "meeting" will take place under, they must be absolutely terrified of the criticism they'd face if the just allowed Dubya to testify alone, openly and on the record, just like every other official has done. It's frightening to think that the so-called leader of the free world is such a liability he can't even be allowed to testify in public. :rolleyes:
 
FizzingWhizzbees:
right the administration is smart, they think it's more important to have a good looking report on July 26. and the masses won't remember how mr. bush and mr. Cheney hold their hands in front of the commision like barbie and ken.

Of course their behaviour isn't helpful at all to find out the truth, but i think governments prefer to stay in power than to tell their people the truth.

Well they do the best they can, they get training lessons in answering likely questions, they come together so it's no danger that they say different things
I guess G.W.B. answer in his genuine "Dubya-Style", interesting answers which had nothing to do with the question and then Cheney can answer the questions.
But we will never find out because no transcipts will be avail. - of course just because of the national security.
 
I think people are forgetting what this commission is about. It is not supposed to be a witch-hunt. It is supposed to be about finding out what went wrong and what steps should be taken so that it does not happen again.

I am in the middle of reading my fourth or fifth book about this administration. I think that on the day of September 11th VP Cheney was heavily involved in running the country.

As a former republican, I am disappointed that the President is not testifying alone but I think I understand why based on my readings of the administration. Especially on the day of September 11th, it is clear that VP Cheney was indeed in charge of the nation. That is the impression that I have for that day.

I think he was in communication with the President, however, the White House command Center in DC, where Cheney was, as where decisions were being made.

I do not believe there is anything corrupt about the situation, but it bothers me that they are going in together.
 
Dreadsox:
I agree with you, but i don't want to close my eyes and trust ANY political leader.
So i'm asking myself
"Why can't they testify alone?"
and
"Why no transcript?"

For me the only answer that makes sense:
"They don't want to tell the truth, if they'd tell the truth it would be no problem to testify alone and there would be no reason to hide from the public"

Remember the article quoted above:
...It seems highly unlikely that the president knows secrets more sensitive than they do. If he did, he would certainly be free to go off the record while discussing them.

I don't want a witchhount but 9/11 was one of the worst things ever that hapened to the US civilians and i don't see any reason why the public dosn't deserve 100% of the truth.
 
Dreadsox said:
I think people are forgetting what this commission is about. It is not supposed to be a witch-hunt. It is supposed to be about finding out what went wrong and what steps should be taken so that it does not happen again.

I am in the middle of reading my fourth or fifth book about this administration. I think that on the day of September 11th VP Cheney was heavily involved in running the country.

As a former republican, I am disappointed that the President is not testifying alone but I think I understand why based on my readings of the administration. Especially on the day of September 11th, it is clear that VP Cheney was indeed in charge of the nation. That is the impression that I have for that day.

I think he was in communication with the President, however, the White House command Center in DC, where Cheney was, as where decisions were being made.

I do not believe there is anything corrupt about the situation, but it bothers me that they are going in together.

I don't want a witchhunt. I believe the two of them should approach and be treated the same way everyone else in the hearings are.

You will never get the full truth when you have two people testifying together. If this hearing really wanted to find out what went wrong and find out what could have been done differently then separate testimonies should be conducted.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
If this hearing really wanted to find out what went wrong and find out what could have been done differently then separate testimonies should be conducted.
since we are talking politics that almost makes too much sense
 
Klaus said:
Dreadsox:
I agree with you, but i don't want to close my eyes and trust ANY political leader.
So i'm asking myself
"Why can't they testify alone?"
and
"Why no transcript?"

For me the only answer that makes sense:
"They don't want to tell the truth, if they'd tell the truth it would be no problem to testify alone and there would be no reason to hide from the public"

Absolutely Klaus.

Bush and Cheney are acting as if they have something to hide, and where there is smoke there is fire. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but it has eluded me.

I sincerely hope there is nothing to hide, that nothing comes from this except better knowledge on how to prevent this from happening again.

Unfortunately, it smells fishy....
 
Interesting...if this were about anything other than politics....why would two members of the commission leave during their testimony?
 
Text of Bush news conference

By The Associated Press | April 29, 2004

Text of President Bush's exchange with reporters at the White House on Thursday, April 29, 2004, after he and Vice President Dick Cheney met with members of the Sept. 11 commission, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:

PRESIDENT BUSH: The vice president and I just finished a good conversation with the 9/11 commission. It was wide-ranging, it was important, it was just a good discussion. And I really -- I appreciated the members.

I want to thank the chairman and vice chairman for bringing the commission here and giving us a chance to share views on different subjects. And they had a lot of good questions, and it was -- I'm glad I did it. I'm glad I took the time.

This is an important commission, and it's important that they ask the questions they asked so that they can help make recommendations necessary to better protect our homeland. And -- but it was -- I enjoyed it.

Let me answer a couple of questions.

QUESTION: Mr. President, what topic did the commissioners want to spend most of the time on? And were there any subjects that you didn't answer or were advised by your counsel not to answer?

BUSH: No. I was never advised by my counsel not to answer anything. I answered every question they asked.

Probably best that I not go into the details of the conversation and let them incorporate it into their report.

There was a lot of interest about how to better protect America. In other words, they're very interested in the recommendations that they're going to lay out and I'm interested in those as well.

And we discussed a lot of things, a lot of subjects. And it was a very cordial conversation. I was impressed by the questions. I think it helped them understand how I think and how I run the White House and how we deal with threats.

QUESTION: Mr. President, as you know, a lot of critics suggested that you wanted to appear jointly with the vice president so that you two could keep your stories straight or something. Could you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics?

BUSH: First of all, look, if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions.

As I say, I came away good about the session, because I wanted them to know, you know, how I set strategy, how we run the White House, how we deal with threats.

The vice president answered a lot of their questions -- answered all their questions. And I think it was important for them to see our body language as well, how we work together.

But it was -- you know, the commissioners will speak for themselves over time. They will let you know whether they thought it was a fruitful series of discussions. I think they did. I think they found it to be useful.

QUESTION: Mr. President ...

BUSH: Yes.

QUESTION: Don't you think that the families deserved to have a transcript or to be able to see ...

BUSH: You asked me that question yesterday. I got the same answer.

QUESTION: Can you say with any confidence there are no al-Qaida operatives active in the country today?

BUSH: No, I can't say that.

QUESTION: Did the commission ask you about that?

BUSH: No, they didn't. But I'm not going to get into any more details about what they asked me. I told you I wasn't going to give any details about what they asked me and then I fell into your trap.

Let me talk about vulnerabilities, then I've got to get back to work. We are still vulnerable to attack.

And the reason why is al-Qaida still exists, al-Qaida's dangerous, al-Qaida hates us, and we have to be correct 100 percent of the time in defending America and they've got to be right once. And therefore we are vulnerable.

But people need to know we're working -- we, the government -- at all levels are working long hours to protect America. We're doing the best we can.

The best way to secure America, however, is to stay on the offensive and bring those people to justice before they harm America again. And that's what we're continuing to do.

But, you know, so long as they're an al-Qaida enemy that is willing to kill, we are vulnerable.

Thank you, all.
 
These quotes do not sound too parisan to me.

Posted on Thu, Apr. 29, 2004





Sept 11 Commission Quotes

Associated Press


Some of the reaction to Thursday's appearance by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before the Sept. 11 commission:

---

"We discussed a lot of things, a lot of subjects. And it was a very cordial conversation. I was impressed by the questions. I think it helped them understand how I think and how I run the White House and how we deal with threats." _President Bush.

---

"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid. The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report." _Statement issued by the Sept. 11 commission.

---

"The president was forthcoming and very animated in describing not only the events of that day but in leading us through his thinking both on that day and in developing policy before 9/11 and after 9/11." _Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey.

---

"We had a marvelous meeting with the president. The president's comments were very candid."_Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman from Indiana.

---

"It was a very good meeting. I do think it'll help - in particular the president's description of what happened during 2001 and most particularly on 9/11. The president's narrative was important to give." _Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey, former Nebraska senator.

---

"There were no tense moments. I thought the president gave a five-star performance. I wish the American people could have seen it." _Republican commissioner Jim Thompson, former Illinois governor.

---

"While the president did most of the answering of the questions, the vice president was able to fill in some things, particularly when they were not at the same place at the same time, which helped us get a fuller picture." _Republican commissioner James Lehman, former Navy secretary.
 
deep said:
PRESIDENT BUSH: The vice president and I just finished a good conversation with the 9/11 commission. It was wide-ranging, it was important, it was just a good discussion. And I really -- I appreciated the members.
almost as good as daytime television :up:
 
How many times do I have to say it...

Please post LINKS and BRIEF EXCERPTS of information that is ORIGINAL TO SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN INTERFERENCE.

Thank you.
 
Dreadsox said:
Interesting...if this were about anything other than politics....why would two members of the commission leave during their testimony?

Prior committments?? Bigger name on another line? I thought this testimony was so important....
 
This is what I saw on Drudge

The Oval Office session began at 9:30 a.m. and ended at 12:40 p.m., but two Democrat commission members -- Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman, and Bob Kerrey -- walked out before it was over!

The stunning walk out -- after Democrats had complained that Bush was not alloting enough time for questions -- has ignited talk throughout official Washington.

In a written statement, Kerrey said he left an hour early to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill.

Kerrey: "My office has received several calls asking why I left the White House prior to the conclusion of the session with the President and the Vice President. The reason is I had a previously scheduled meeting with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill."

Kerrey explained to reporters: "Yeah, it's a little awkward to leave early. But the president certainly understood what we were doing."

Hamilton left Bush/Cheney 70 minutes early to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.
 
Did the meeting start on time?

So what, they left early from a puppet show where they knew that the two men who couldn't testify alone or have a transcript weren't going to say anything but scripted BS.
 
Last edited:
"Bremer Faulted Bush Before Terror Attacks

Thu Apr 29,10:58 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!



WASHINGTON - L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq (news - web sites), said in a speech six months before the Sept. 11 attacks that the Bush administration was "paying no attention" to terrorism.


"What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this,'" Bremer said at a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference on terrorism on Feb. 26, 2001.


Bremer spoke at the conference shortly after he chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan body formed by the Clinton administration to examine U.S. counterterrorism policies.


The remarks drew attention on the same day Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) appeared before the Sept. 11 commission to explain the precautions they took to prevent a terrorist attack after taking office in January 2001. "





http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bremer_bush&printer=1
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Did the meeting start on time?

So what, they left early from a puppet show where they knew that the two men who couldn't testify alone or have a transcript weren't going to say anything but scripted BS.

Then you concur that the whole thing is a political farce. Gee, if I were going to hear the testimony and I wanted to show it was important I think I would stay.
 
Unless you believed the testimony would most likey be BS, or at least partial BS, because it was not being transcribed and it was not under oath and Butch and Sundance refused to testify apart. :up: to both of them for making their dissent to the insult of this "testimony" heard, in MHO.

sd
 
Dreadsox said:


Then you concur that the whole thing is a political farce. Gee, if I were going to hear the testimony and I wanted to show it was important I think I would stay.

Yes it's important but the way these two clowns held each others hand while testifying made it into a joke. I would have felt it was a waste of time and probably attended to prior obligations myself. There's no transcript, how is this testiomony even helpful? It's bullshit.
 
Back
Top Bottom