Bush, Cheney Prep For 9/11 Panel

Q. How can you tell when George Dubya Bush is lying?

A. Dick Cheney's lips are moving.

Closed-door session? Does that mean we the people won't get to see any video of the juicy details? Damn.

Do you think Barbara and George Sr are paying Cheney standard or reduced baby-sitter rates?

Since almost all the Commission will get from them will be blatant lies, the risks of making testimonies matters of public record are too great.

Claims of national security are the oldest trick of lying political scum in the history of politicians.

Saddest of all, almost 50% of the public are brainless enough to vote for their re-election.

Good morning class and welcome to lying sack of **** 101. We'll start by taking roll...little georgie bush? dick cheney?

Do you have your pencils and paper? Please mr. bush, no chewing gum or napping in class......

!
These two are war criminals and cowards.

Do you think they'll hold hands?

"Cheney wows 9/11 commission by drinking a glass of water while
Bush speaks."

(Headline from the Onion)

It is comments like those on this thread that is the exact reason Bush and Cheney are appearing together. Some are not at all interested in the truth but are only interested in smearing the president in any possible way.

If Bush and Cheney in extemporaneous testimony misspoke in any tiny detail, it would jumped on it like vultures and the biggest possible deal would be made out of it. They are smart enough not to make themselves vulnerable to that kind of irrational attack.

Did you miss the part about it being virtually unprecedented for a vice president, let alone a president to testify before a fact finding commission? There are excellent reasons for this but you have to know the Constitution and at least some history to appreciate it.

Some apparently don't even trust their guys on the Commission to report their findings in the final report. Isn't that what it's all about? To find out anything that went wrong so that we will have a better chance to keep it from happening again?

That's why the president and vice president agreed to talk with the commission. They did not have to.

But I guess that's irrelevant to some.

Seems to me foxy, that if they weren't appearing together there would be no comments like these.

Sure there would be ebrown. It gives the irrational haters some ammunition, but less ammunition than if they can be picked apart separately.

Foxfyre's history lesson
Foxfyre wrote: "Did you miss the part about it being virtually unprecedented for a vice president, let alone a president to testify before a fact finding commission? There are excellent reasons for this but you have to know the Constitution and at least some history to appreciate it."

Apparently, Foxfyre doesn't know his history as well as he thinks he does. After Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached, President Gerald Ford (formerly Nixon's vice president) testified before a congressional investigative committee regarding his pardon of Nixon. And Ford testified in public, not in private as Bush-Cheney are going to do.

Gerald Ford was and is an honorable man. Bush and Cheney could learn from his example. ---BBB
-------------------------------------------

Holtzman to Bush: Testify!
04/21/2004 The Nation

History usually provides a roadmap for the present. Unfortunately, leaders fail to consult the map. That's certainly been the case as the 9/11 Commission has prepared to hear behind-closed-doors testimony from Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush at the same time.

Members of the commission and, for the most part, members of congress, have accepted the secret-testimony arrangement. But why?

Presidents have testified before investigatory committees before. And they have done so on comparable issues. Former US Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman reminds us that in 1974, amid the national firestorm that followed President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon, Ford voluntarily appeared before a House subcommittee that was reviewing the pardon.

"The President came before the subcommittee, made an opening statement and was questioned by the House members. Although each of us had only five minutes, I was able to ask the President directly whether there had been a deal with Nixon about the pardon. The public could determine by Ford's demeanor and his words whether to believe his emphatic denial of any deal," recalls Holtzman, who as a young member of the House was a key player in the Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Watergate scandal.

"The fact that important questions could be posed directly to the President and the fact that the President was willing to face down his severest critics in public were healthy things for our country. And, not even the staunchest Republicans complained that the presidency was being demeaned."

By recalling the history, Holtzman reminds us that President Bush could, and should, simply appear before the 9/11 Commission. There is no Constitutional crisis here. There is no dangerous precedent that could be established. And there is no question of proportionality--certainly, the intensity of the demands for an explanation of the Nixon pardon can appropriately compared with those for an explanation of how the current administration responded to terrorist threats before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks. "As with the Nixon pardon, the events of 9/11 have caused huge national concern," explains Holtzman. "The victims' families--as well as millions of others--have asked why it happened and what if anything could have been done to avert the tragedy. These are simple, reasonable questions."

The best response to those simple, reasonable questions, Holtzman argues, would be for Bush to volunteer to testify in public and under oath to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States.

"Bush would be wise to take a page out of Ford's book. Americans could then decide themselves whether to agree or disagree with Bush's pre-9/11 conduct. They want to trust their President. They want to know that he acted with the best of motives, that he used good judgment and that he is a leader--in other words, that as chief executive, he knows when and how to mobilize the government to take action," Holtzman asserted, in an opinion piece she wrote this week for the New York Daily News.

"If Bush refuses to answer reasonable questions in public, the indelible impression is left that he has something to hide. That impression is reinforced by the White House's insistence that Vice President Cheney sit with Bush at the hearing. The President cannot afford to convey the image that he is afraid to appear on his own. And neither the 9/11 Commission nor the public should permit a behind-closed-door session for anything except national security information. The same principle should have applied to the testimony of former President Bill Clinton. "

Holtzman's wise comments beg one question: Why didn't anyone think to put this former member of Congress and native New Yorker on the 9/11 commission? There are a number of commissioners who share her experience--including, of course, Richard Ben-Veniste, who headed US Justice Department's Watergate Task Force from1973 to 1975. But it would seem that the commission could use someone who recognizes, as Holtzman does, that: "There is no better crucible than a public hearing to help ensure that the truth will come out."

And history will show that Ford's testimony did become the subject of conversation and speculation and his truthfulness was seriously questioned. No new information was forthcoming in the exercise and the result? I believe he holds the dubious honor of being the only U.S. president to have never been elected to the office as president or vice president. It was no doubt at least partially due to that experience that has prompted no President since that time, other than in very selective circumstances, to put themselves in that position.

Not sure many draft-dodgers would have the courage to face public criticism?

How exactly does joining the AF Reserves constitute "draft dodging"? It's not like he went to the UK and hid from service or anything.

I am not one to use the "what if" arguement, but if his unit had been called up to active duty he would have went...

McGintrix
McGintrix wrote: "I am not one to use the "what if" arguement, but if his unit had been called up to active duty he would have went..."

McG, how much money would you be willing to bet that if Bush's unit had been called up for active duty he would have "went"? Your life savings? One dollar?

I would put my money on him not going---and who knows if his unit could even find him. Even if they found him, he wouldn't have been fit to go because he was a drunk and using drugs at the time. He didn't take his physical exam because he knew he couldn't pass it and would have been found out.

BBB

Based on what his superiors write about him, I would risk a month's pay that he would have gone.

What have I written that makes you willing to risk your hard earned pay?