What in the world did those guys talk about?
 

Yep. At this moment, (12 PM EST) Bush and Cheney have already testified together and privately inside the Oval Office. They were not under oath. There will be no recording of any sort, even transcripts for "history." Only note taking...

Why is this being conducted this way? My logical side says that certain facts that might be revealed are "sensitive" or "confidential."

Another less deductive side of me says both men are testifying together because Bush can't possibly stand on his own against the commission without Cheney there to guide him (and Bush's lead lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, no less).

Sort of the puppet/puppeteer thing, you know?

The Dems say they are testifying together to not "contradict" each other.

The White House maintains it's important both "tell a story" together."

All in all, as an American who contributes to Bush and Cheney's paycheck, I'd really like to know what those two are talking about. :mad:

It is because they are not "testifying." They are voluntarily providing information. Historically/constitutionally, the president cannot be called to testify, and have, historically refused..like Thomas Jefferson. Note, the president did not testify after Pearl Harbor.

Here we are, at war, in an election year, and we have proof that this 9/11 commision has lost its way and become nothing more than a side-show for pot-shots.

If Bush can steer the focus away from the flack, history can be recorded.

That's a tall order, don't you think? Especially with the death of 10 more soldiers in Iraq just hours ago. After all, 9/11 led to Afghanistan, and Afghanistan has led to Iraq. The "flack," in a sense, is the history.

So you, also, want to turn what the commision is about (PRE-9/11 EVENTS) and change it into POST-9/11 events ?

That is the f'd-up FLACK i'm talking about.

No, not at all. I'm really not that interested in any conclusion the 9/11 Commission comes to. 9/11 already happened; it's past tense.

As far as POST-9/11 events resulting from PRE-9/11 events, I leave that "history" to Bob Woodward and John Dean. Bush et al created that own quagmire for themselves and successive presidents to clean up.

My own desire is to figure out why these two had to testify together (and flint - the word is "testify:" even the White House is using it). Why the secrecy? Why can't the White House even be able to record the conversation? Are they afraid of a Nixon relapse?

I think Bush/Cheney and even Clinton are scared of their own knowledge, lack thereof, or poor judgment and misguided attention to other concerns (Bush and Iraq).

If at all, Bush/Cheney should be afraid of the "leaks" that will mysteriously pop up from their little private talk today.

Ah, so you're just looking for opportunities to bash?

Why the secrecy? again, we are at war!

testify may or may NOT be under oath.

But it's still testifying. And no matter how you want to twist definitions about, Island, Bush loses credibility by pulling this stunt with Cheney, and behind closed doors.

If Bush is so resolved, then come out with it publicly and under oath. But he can't. He shows, if anything, poor ability to stand on his own feet. He needs Cheney to hold his hand.

And War, as you state - what a ridiculous argument. You should know better, particularly because 9/11 "happened" and this commission is interested in events leading up to 9/11. How can 9/11 be connected with the war in Iraq unless Bush was already preoccupied with Iraq? See how the pieces fit together? He testifies in secret because we're at war - does that mean Bush and Cheney fear they might divulge intimate plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 when they, in fact, should have been concentrating on al Queda.

See, Glenn, you're all crossed up - and if you were my press secretary or advisor - I'd can you in a hot second. Bush and Cheney screwed up by doing this in private. If they want to give the illusion 9/11 happened because of a reason other than an obsession with Iraq, they would have done so in public. But now, because they're behind closed doors and we're "at war with Iraq" this intervention with the commission smacks of the secrecy and poor judgment that got us in this quagmire in the first place.

Like Bush/Cheney, your own defensive arguments of "we're at war" is turning around to bite back.

I guess Bush by doing this in secret has already answered everyone's question: he has to testify privately because we're at war - that's right, war with Iraq after AND BEFORE 9/11.

Well, David; for you to twist the definition of WAR to be limited to Iraq is rather disingenuous, don't you think?

We are still in Afganastan, and still knocking back terrorist where ever we can find them. Many of the people who brought us 9/11 are still out there and listening.

As you said; " particularly because 9/11 "happened" and this commission is interested in events leading up to 9/11.". . ..Yet you repetedly change the focus to Iraq. (all while attempting to take the moral high-ground)http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/nono.gif

You clearly are trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, here.

Also, for you to make strawman-jobs, so you can "can" people from those jobs is also rather disingenuous, don't you think?

One thing is for certain, you are grasping at straws.

If this "tesitimony" were so important, democratic members of the panel would not have gotten up and left in the middle of it because they had "more important" plans.

David, I don't think Island was "twisting" definitions, he was employing them. There's too much of using words loosely to imply something that's incorrect.

This Commission has become a disgrace and a fiasco -- including a commisioner responsible in large part for the Chinese Wall between intelligence agencies that was indisputably responsible for the intelligence failures under Clinton and (to a lesser extent) Bush sitting on the panel!

B/c it's become such a media circus, if the President is going to respond to questions, it's best that it be behind closed doors -- to prevent grandstanding and "gotcha" bull***** from commissioners and let them get down to real questions.

As for Bush and Cheney simultaneously, why not? Why take the time of the two most powerful people in the world on two separate occasions?

JP

JP - everything that you, Stoney and Glenn say on the surface is fine. Have them testify simultaneously because they're busy men; have them not testify under oath because they're president & vice president; let them be secretive because we're at war, etc...

But honestly, it's just Bush and Cheney's posturing as they both hide behind the law.

How secretive does one have to be to simply say, "Yes, I was preoccupied with Iraq. And no, I did not follow up the al Queda threats."

Be a man!

Maybe the two members who left did so out of disgust?

Just providing an alternative scenario since so many have jumped on this non-issue as an issue...


Let's see......

1. President, according to some, is not really testifying

2. Since he is not testifying, what he has to say cannot be weighed the same as one who is under oath

3. Since there is less weight, the information shared has less weight, hence less important; time to leave and get a latte.

Since there is so much rancor displayed on both sides, we may as well offer alternative scenarios where possible. Enjoy. I am sure the idealogues here will hop on this and try to label me one way or the other. In any case, you will be wrong. I just despise conjecture used to bolster weak thinking.

Puck said it best.

I simply despise weak thinking...

DD:

I like it!! Good comment.

Maybe it would be chaos, but wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone would do their best to be well informed, listen to what they consider the opposition BEFORE they opine? Ya know, the other guy just might have something intelligent to add to the mix.

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies (read opposition) even closer.

Ah, So its your cognitive dissonance making you ornery lately. (?) :rolleyes:

Moneyguy -- the reservation is about 4 leagues directly behind you.

This entire "thread" is predicated on conjecture about some nefarious purpose behind W's appearance, the terms of such, and his appearance with Cheney. Do you refuse to see that this whole idea of there being ulterior (and therefore benthic and necessary to plumb) motives is itself weak thinking?

Call "weak thinking" what you must to cover your own gaps, but to cast that aspersion so broadly is to show your own inability to state your case. Most anti-W sentiment is similiarly predicated on inference and innuendo.

Your .. and I use this term loosely and strictly without prejudice... reply evidenced no ability to "listen" to those on the side opposite your own; merely condesencion to endure the noise before you restated the same drivel.

Do a better job at critique and those fluent in the language (and slavishly adherent to fascist ideas such as a dictionary that means something) might take you more seriously.

JP

Instead of making up scenarios, why not just consider what they said...they made other appointments...apparently that they considered more important. Didn't see anyone miss a chance to drill Dr Rice on national TV. Guess it is not as much fun without the cameras on you. Apparently there are lots more important meetings to take than one with the President and Vice President of the United States.

My point...Many people jump to conclusions, no matter what their predetermined ideas/concepts. I try not to do that. My "scenario" was simply stated to point out the futility of trying to "guess" what goes on behind closed doors. All the talking heads and all the pundits cannot tell us specifics, they can "opine" to their heart's content.

Sorry you misunderstood, Slacker. I am not anti anyone in this "race". I would, however, like to see relevant issues looked at rather than constant character assassination from both sides. Like I said, you try to label me and you are wrong. I am a card carrying independent and proud of it.

I dislike it just as much when innuendo is spread about W as I do about Kerry. None of the personal attacks have anything to do with the problems facing the country. Am I the only one here that feels that way?

And, BTW, I define weak thinking as permitting others to think for you and not using your God given capabilities to come to your own conclusions. Do you also find fault with that definition?

Not upset with anyone here, just the "attack and destroy" mentality.

I guess I am just baffled that the "fair minded" folks concerned about the President and Vice President's meeting with the 9-11 commission did not ask the same questions about Bill Clinton's testimony...Clinton did not testify alone (took Sandy Berger and his lawyer), was not under oath, and did not testify in public. Where were the liberal pundits then? Sounds pretty much like the same scenario to me.