I can’t believe this - after all of the railing on how important it is for Bush to testify to the 9/11 committee, Kerry and Hamilton left in the middle of the meeting. They both said they had prior committments - one to meet another senator, one to meet with the Canadian Prime Minister.
That’s just incredible.
I find it incredible that Cheney had to hold Bush’s hand.
That’s a mental image I really didn’t need to see …
Blah, forgot about his not wanting it recorded.
This is indeed weird.
Seeing how Bush won’t allow transcripts and isn’t under oath, I think the entire thing’s pointless anyway.
The problem is that the meeting wasn’t recorded.
No transcripts, no recordings, no stenography. They only “took notes.”
Seeing how Bush won’t allow transcripts and isn’t under oath, I think the entire thing’s pointless anyway.[/quote]
You think Bush wouldn’t lie under oath anyway?
Seeing how Bush won’t allow transcripts and isn’t under oath, I think the entire thing’s pointless anyway.[/quote]
You know, somehow I knew that people here would blow off these Democrats behaving this way. There were no TV cameras for them to posture in front of, no speeches they could make, so they had little interest in digging in to get information. And that’s just cool with everyone, in fact, let’s turn it into an anti-Bush issue. Sheesh. I’m not pro-Bush, but c’mon, these guys are supposedly leaders in this committee and they have higher priorities than engaging in discussion with the president on 9/11?
Jeff, Bush refused to talk to the commision under oath, and wouldn’t show up at all until he took a PR hit for like three weeks straight on his refusal. He obviously is more concerned with his personal approval rating than actually participating in the process.
I’m not pro-Bush, but c’mon, these guys are supposedly leaders in this committee and they have higher priorities than engaging in discussion with the president on 9/11?
When he’s probably lying and has already displayed utter contempt for the process? Yes.
Well, Jeff, I find it curious. And I’d very much like to think there’s more to the story that we just don’t know yet. Otherwise it’s a bit incomprehensible.
Wow, that’s pretty one sided even for you. In other words, two of the most vocal folks on the 9/11 commission can walk out in the middle of a session with the President and VP on 9/11 and that’s perfectly acceptable to you. Because he’s “probably lying.” That comes across very much as “Hey, they’re on my side so they can do no wrong.”
Hey Jeff, I saw Bush answer questions at his press conference. How much of that could a person take? And Jeff, besides Drudge, can you show a source for this allegation?
Or is this another - When you are a republican you don’t need sources, you just need white men to tell you what to think?
Chet
Wow, that’s pretty one sided even for you. In other words, two of the most vocal folks on the 9/11 commission can walk out in the middle of a session with the President and VP on 9/11 and that’s perfectly acceptable to you. Because he’s “probably lying.” That comes across very much as “Hey, they’re on my side so they can do no wrong.”[/quote]
Yes, I think he’s lying. He’s lied constantly, throughout his entire administration, about every subject imaginable, no matter how petty or how important. It’d be a shocking change of pace if he didn’t lie about something.
I’m retracting the criticism about the oath thing; apparently institutionally, Presidents and VPs don’t testify under oath in non-criminal investigations.
However, it still remains:
What’s he have to do to show you how little he’s honestly interested in improving the national security process of the United States? Spit in the face of Tom Kean on live television?
Actually he is under Oath. I watched him mumble through it a few years ago.
As for the two guys leaving. Maybe they just got so fed up they split. Prior Engagements…uh yeah, like they didn’t know this meeting was going to happen.
I challenged the feeble-minded Midnight Son to this and he failed miserably, but what has Bush lied about exactly? Especially CONSTANTLY. Let’s hear it. And if you say “that Iraq had WMDs” I will laugh and point at your stupidity.
- Bush fought the creation of a 9/11 commission tooth and nail, backing down only when overwhelming political sentiment in favor of it made him look bad.
Maybe because he realized it would become the laughing stock it is today? Bob “LETS ATTACK IRAQ FOR THE COLE” Kerrey berrating Condi Rice over the mundane, Jamie Gorelick, one of the biggest warts in history, and fellating Richard Clarke, who after just a few weeks has been completely forgotten given the flip-flopping Kerry-like contradictions in his behavior. The list goes on.
- He stonewalled until the last minute on both having Rice testify (giving patently stupid reasons for such) and having her testify under oath (giving reasons that are patently stupid in the light of all the extremely high level cabinet officials, specifically NSAs in the 1990s).
Wow, stupid reasons like a NSA has NEVER testified in such a fashion? Arguable reason, maybe, stupid? Come on. You’re sinking, Jason.
So they pulled a Tom Chick?
Jason: By your logic, it seems like we might as well not have had an investigation at all. Even if you think that Bush’s testimony was pointless, how do you justify the fact that Democrats pushed so long, hard, and vocally for him to come before the commission? If his answers are going to be ignored and his testimony is irrelevant because it’s presumed to be lies, does that mean that the Democrats’ continual call for him to meet with the commission was nothing but empty posturing? Isn’t that trying to cynically use 9/11 for political gain, something that Democrats regularly accuse Bush of doing?
I doubt you actually think that, though. My assumption is that Jeff is right–your position is just a knee-jerk defense of anything done by Democrats, no matter how stupid or assholish it is. Walking out of the president’s 9/11 testimony so you can go meet with the Canadian Prime Minister is just ridiculous, and inexcusable. I will never cease to be amazed at how often Democrats will do something stupid like that. They’re fortunate in this instance that the press and public don’t seem to be making a big deal about it (nice to see them catch that sort of break for a change–it’s usually Bush who benefits from ludicrous public apathy).
Chet: The story was reported in various regional newspapers that are accessible on the Net. A three-second Google News search will turn up a handful of reports, if you’re curious.
Even if you think that Bush’s testimony was pointless, how do you justify the fact that Democrats pushed so long, hard, and vocally for him to come before the commission?
They tried to get something useful out of the process, and they failed? Bush clearly isn’t going to tell them anything useful, Rice went out there and just bullshitted the commision for an hour, etc; etc; it’s like sunlight makes them explode. I don’t understand why the hell they’re reacting like they have some hidden horrible secret, either; if they were fucking adults and just got it all out in the open for an honest discussion they’d certainly take less of a political hit. Paranoia runs deep with these guys, I guess.
BTW, if you expect a witness to lie, is the normal reaction in civil and criminal trials to just not call them? After all, what would be the point? You’re certainly not going to learn anything useful!
Sure, both sides have done a bit of partisanship here and there so far, but which party didn’t want this commission to happen at all? Which one tried to keep the scope from expanding at every point? Which one refused to hand over documents? Which one insisted they didn’t have any time to talk to the commision? Which one insisted on a one hour limit? Which one demanded a joint interview with their VP?
Seriously, I don’t get it. Bush has given a stiff-arm to the entire process, and I don’t understand how could believe the complete opposite, that it’s all Democratic partisanship.
I challenged the feeble-minded Midnight Son to this and he failed miserably, but what has Bush lied about exactly? Especially CONSTANTLY. Let’s hear it. And if you say “that Iraq had WMDs” I will laugh and point at your stupidity.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html
There’s a million other tiny cases where he says what’s in a report isn’t there, or saying his 2000 budget paln didn’t double-count the surplus, but those are all pocket change.
Wow, stupid reasons like a NSA has NEVER testified in such a fashion?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-911-rice-usat_x.htm
Ben-Veniste, who was a Watergate prosecutor, cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress. Among them: Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel under Clinton; Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter; and Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser. Berger is scheduled to testify before the commission today.
Berger testified under oath as NSA in 1997, Brzezinski in 1980 as NSA, as mentioned here:
http://www.watchblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=991
They totally gave the GOP base a line of horseshit on that little point of debate.
Edit: a particularly hilarious one:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/rice.testimony/
The photo, published in The New York Times on November 22, 1945, shows Adm. William D. Leahy – White House chief of staff under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman – appearing before a congressional panel investigating the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, spokesman Al Felzenberg said.
Chet, is it possible for you to reply to something without doing the jr. high insult thing? Yeah, go read the Reuters or AP reports or just about any other report of the meeting and you’ll see, in various level of detail, the two guys walking out. I didn’t think anyone would question that because I assumed anyone in this thread had actually done their own homework and read the details of what went on in the meeting.
Jason, has a Democrat ever done anything that you didn’t find some way to defend? This was simple: there was a several hour discussion with the President and VP and the two guys on the commission who’ve done the most grandstanding during this whole episode simply get up and leave in the middle of the proceedings, to meet with a senator and the Canadian PM. It doesn’t matter if they’re Dems, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarians, etc., that seems completely inappropriate to me.
Also - I’ve searched and cannot find an example of a President testifying in front of a committee such as this. Truman didn’t during the Pearl Harbor meetings, LBJ refused to testify to the Warren Commission. Is there an example of a President doing this? I’m just interested in the precedent.