I know we've hit this in other threads, but it is important enough to merit a dedicated thread... ________________________ Bush and Cheney testify before 9/11 commissioners today - - - - - - - - - - - - Tom Raum April 28, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's supporters see his and Vice President Dick Cheney's upcoming testimony to the Sept. 11 commission as a form of closure, enabling them to show maximum cooperation and get on with other business. Critics see it as a reluctant concession after months of resistance. "You should not look at this as an adversarial process. We are all working toward the same objective here,'' said White House spokesman Scott McClellan of Thursday's planned closed-door testimony. Bush and Cheney will meet in a private session beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT at the White House with all 10 members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. At the administration's request, the questioning will not be recorded, nor will a stenographer be present to make a transcript. Commission members may take notes. That significantly differs with the commission's interviews with former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore, which a commission member said were recorded. Bush plans to build his answers around the theme that he knew al-Qaida was a threat but there was no hint of the time, place or date of an attack, administration officials said. He was preparing by reviewing documents from the months leading up to the attacks and has been consulting with White House chief of staff Andy Card, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. The testimony of Bush and Cheney will not be under oath, but they will "tell it exactly how it happened,'' McClellan said. McClellan said he expected Bush -- not Cheney -- to do most of the talking. Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Bush and Cheney would ``tell the whole truth and nothing but'' to the panel. "This is a closure in terms of procedures and in terms of some of the symbolism that is associated with the commission,'' Bond said. Once Bush and Cheney testify, the administration will be able to say that ``all interested parties'' right up to the president had appeared before the panel "and no stone was left unturned,'' Bond said. But Lanny Davis, who was special counsel to former President Clinton, said it will be hard for Bush and Cheney to demonstrate full cooperation given their past resistance to the panel and their ``insisting on appearing together.'' "To me, transparency is the high road the White House should have taken from day one. And it mystifies me why they haven't,'' Davis said. Bush first opposed creating the commission and then opposed extending its life. He also initially opposed having Rice testify in public. And he at first said he would only meet with the chairman and vice chairman of the panel, and only for an hour. But he relented on all counts. Davis said Bush can only show complete good faith if he follows the lead of then-President Ford, who testified before Congress in public about his 1974 pardon of President Nixon. ``History has taught a lesson that all presidents need to be transparent. Avoiding transparency on grounds of constitutional principle is not going to fly in the post Watergate era,'' Davis said. John Hinshaw, a history professor at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, likens Bush's appearance before the Sept. 11 commission to President Reagan's testimony before a panel led by the late John Tower into his administration's role in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair. Reagan is rarely remembered as the American president who sold arms to Iran to try to win the release of U.S. hostages and used the money to illegally finance right-wing Nicaraguan guerrillas, Hinshaw said. Rather, he is regarded as the man who "stood tall'' against the Soviet Union and "restored American credibility,'' Hinshaw said. Since polls show that nearly four in ten Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, "that's what will color the perceptions of Bush,'' Hinshaw said. Norman Ornstein, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, said that on balance there are ``more positives than negatives'' to the joint appearance by Bush and Cheney. "Unless a president really messes up, the sense that you're being forthcoming I think helps in this case,'' Ornstein said. "If Bush says something really foolish, that could be a negative. But I doubt very much that that's going to happen. And the odds of that happening with Cheney there are less.''
Dick 'n' Bush testify at 9/11 commission. Cheney with his arm up to the elbow in Bush's butt so he can put his hand inside sock-puppet's head and feed him lines. Commission member: "Mr Vice President, I saw your mouth move!" Cheney: "Did not!" Commission member: "Did too!" Cheney: (giving Commission member THAT LOOK which says "I can make you disappear and never think twice about it) Did NOT. Commission member (wiping sweat from brow): Uh, my mistake, Mr Vice President.
They will not be under oath, and no recording or transcript will be made. What is the freaking point???
Bush, Cheney Prepare for 9/11 Questioning By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, April 28, 2004; Page A08 President Bush has met with White House aides and has been consulting with Vice President Cheney in preparation for Bush and Cheney's appearance before the Sept. 11 commission tomorrow morning, administration officials said yesterday. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush's aides have decided not to allow a recording or make a transcription of the appearance, in part because of the classified information that will be discussed. The 10-member commission will be allowed to have one staff member present to take notes. The decision, following a practice President Ronald Reagan used in 1987 when appearing before a commission probing the Iran-contra matter, removes the possibility that the transcript would become a political issue and precludes any subpoena. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and another lawyer from the counsel's office, who will take notes, will appear with Bush and Cheney, officials said. Commission interviews with former president Bill Clinton and vice president Al Gore were taped, but not all of the more than 1,000 other interviewees agreed to recordings, officials said. The great care being taken by the White House -- it has required that the two men appear jointly, in private, and not be under oath -- reflects the political and governmental significance of tomorrow's meeting. The White House originally sought to limit the time of questioning and number of questioners. Bush has so far weathered the inquiry well, according to public opinion polls. His appearance with Cheney is one of the last major steps the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is taking before it issues a report this summer in the midst of the presidential campaign. Bush and Cheney have done joint preparation, some of it by phone, according to a senior administration official. Bush has also been preparing for his testimony with Gonzales, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. "I expect he will continue to visit with those individuals over the next couple of days," McClellan said. "And the counsel's office provided him some materials from that time period to look over. And he will continue to look over some of those documents from that time period to refresh his memory." Tomorrow's session, which is to be held in the White House and begin at 9:30 a.m., is expected to go about two hours, but this is at the commission's discretion, officials said. McClellan said Bush will "answer whatever questions they have." The commission's public hearings this spring have given attention to potentially damaging charges about Bush's actions before the attacks, including complaints from former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke that Bush virtually ignored terrorism before the attacks. The commission's work also led to the release of an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing to Bush saying al Qaeda wanted to attack inside the United States and was interested in hijackings. But those developments, while raising doubts about the administration's performance, have not dented Bush's standing on terrorism. A Washington Post poll this month showed that 61 percent of Americans thought the government "could have done more" to prevent the attacks, up from 53 percent in 2002; 56 percent said the Bush administration did not do enough to follow intelligence leads about a possible attack, up from 46 percent in 2002. Two-thirds said they were following the commission's work closely. Americans are split on whether Bush bears responsibility for not doing more. But 58 percent of Americans said they would trust Bush more than Democratic challenger John F. Kerry to lead the fight against terrorism. Advisers to Kerry say the questions raised by the commission, including concerns about the reasons for waging war in Iraq, have not influenced voters because they are more concerned with current actions. "The conclusion I come to is people are not so much reevaluating the past as convinced the president is wanting in the present," Kerry pollster Mark S. Mellman said. The two political parties continued to joust over the commission and its members yesterday. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) issued a statement criticizing commissioner Bob Kerrey's appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," during which host Jon Stewart jokingly offered advice on questioning Cheney. Previously, Democrats had complained about Republican commissioners' coordination with the White House, and GOP lawmakers had called for the disqualification of Democratic commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick because of her work on terrorism in the Clinton administration's Justice Department. Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton met privately yesterday with House Republican leaders, and then with House Democratic leaders. After the meeting with GOP lawmakers -- some of whom have sharply criticized the commission for partisanship and questions of credibility -- Kean and Hamilton declined to comment to reporters, except to say it was "a good meeting." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters that the hour-long session in Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office "made me feel a lot better" about the commission's work.
My thread title is wrong... (see bolded)... _______________ Bush-Cheney 9/11 Interview Won't Be Formally Recorded By ELISABETH BUMILLER and PHILIP SHENON ASHINGTON, April 27 — The White House said on Tuesday that there would be no recording or formal transcription of the historic joint interview of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The interview, to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday at the White House, will be recorded by two note takers, one from the White House. Under a pact with the White House that allowed all its 10 members in the interview, the commission is permitted to take a note taker, but not a recording device. The panel said it did not press for a formal transcription of the session, letting the White House decide. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters that the session would not be officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" that would include highly classified information. "Let's keep in mind that it is extraordinary for a sitting president of the United States to sit down with a legislatively created commission," Mr. McClellan said. An adviser to Mr. Bush said a larger consideration was the concern that an official transcript would set a precedent for appearances by presidents before other commissions and create legal problems down the road. Mr. Bush will not be under oath, and the White House has been adamant that what he says should not be considered official testimony. "He is not testifying, he is talking to them," the adviser said. "A transcript implies testimony. This would open a Pandora's box of all sorts of precedent-setting and legal issues. We were reluctant for the president to do this, anyway." Legal scholars said the lack of an official transcript would give the White House some deniability and make it more difficult to use the president's words as evidence in a future suit against the government. "It gives them more maneuverability in case someone slips up or says something he regrets," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, said. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have cleared much of their schedules to be ready for the session. Mr. Bush has prepared with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, as well as with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, who will sit in on the interview. Mr. Cheney's office declined to give details of his preparations. White House officials would not say whether Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had prepared together. Commission members say they believe that they are under no formal time limit for the interview. Although the White House had offered one hour each for interviews of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, they dropped that as part of an accord in which the president and vice president could be interviewed together. The panel chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, said White House officials had not told him that the questioning would have to be cut off at a specific time. "The only thing they've told me so far," Mr. Kean said in an interview last week, "is to please respect the fact that this is the president of the United States, and I'm sure members of the commission will do that." Former Representative Timothy J. Roemer, a Democrat on the panel, said: "I believe that it is very important that we get all 10 commissioners in the process. We should make sure that all 10 commissioners have ample opportunity to ask questions. I certainly have a lot of questions and probably not a lot of time to ask them." Mr. Roemer noted that "we were able to get about four hours with former President Bill Clinton and three" with former Vice President Al Gore and that Bob Woodward spoke more than three hours with Mr. Bush for his Iraq war book. "I don't know that the metric should be what Bob Woodward got on the Iraq war," Mr. Roemer said. "But certainly the seriousness of 3,000 people dying on 9/11 would suggest that we need ample time." Mr. Kean said the panel would focus on Sept. 11, but he would not be more specific. Members have said they want to know about interactions among Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other officials on Sept. 11 and, specifically, when Mr. Bush issued an order letting military pilots down civilian airliners. The commission is investigating whether the order was relayed quickly to fighter pilots who might have had a chance to shoot an American Airlines jet before it struck the Pentagon. Mr. Roemer said he wanted "to know about the sense of urgency in the administration in the summer" in dealing with a flood of reports about terrorist threats, "the time period when alarm bells were going off and people's hair was supposed to be on fire." He said testimony to the panel suggested that many people in the administration paid too little attention to terrorism that summer. Mr. Kean said he was humbled to be part of the session. "This is real history," he said. "Presidents just don't do this. Presidents don't meet with commissions like this." Mr. Kean added that the panel had no ground rules but was asking its staff to prepare essential questions.
Just to remind folks... _______________ Bush tried to block the formation of the commission Failing, he then appointed a patsy chairman, Henry Kissinger Then he refused to testify And he blocked them from getting key documents Then he agreed to talk with them But not under oath And only for an hour And only with the chair and deputy chair And then he insisted on having Cheney go with him And agreed to a single notetaker Then he refused to grant the commission a time extension Then he tried to stop Rice testifying And he blocked the release of papers from the Clinton Administration Then tried to stop the August 6, 2001 PDB from being released Then he flip-flopped on the extension, Rice testifying, the Clinton papers, and the PDB Then he ran ads saying Kerry was a flip-flopper Then he changed his mind about the notetaker Then he decided he would only talk Then he decided that for the talk, he needed his Legal Counsel with him Then he decided one counsel isn't enough and he added another one plus other WH staff In other news... The White House said Tuesday it expects that President Bush rather than Vice President Dick Cheney will handle most of the questions when they appear jointly Thursday before the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. and... McClellan said Bush "appreciates the job the commission is doing. He strongly supports the commission's important work."
Let's also remember Bush's answer in the primetime press conference when Bush was asked about why He and Cheney were appearing together rather than seperately as the commission requested.
This administration has already proven to us that this President is not responsible for what he says, why should it change now? "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"
Jesus! I hope Jr doesn't answer questions like his press secretary! Oh, who am I kidding... ----------------------- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Okay, the President had his usual briefings this morning. And the meeting with the 9/11 Commission started right on time, at 9:30 a.m. this morning. And they are continuing to meet right now. QUESTION: Who is in the meeting, for your side? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Hang on. I'll come to questions. I'll go through my routine here. Other than that, all I have is that I'm briefing at 1:15 p.m. and State Department is briefing at 12:30 p.m. That's all I've got. Now, go ahead. QUESTION: So who is in the meeting, from your side? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, I'll go over everybody that's in there. You have all 10 commission members, you have one member of the commission staff present. Then you have the President and Vice President; Judge Gonzales is there, and two staff members from the Counsel's Office are there as well. QUESTION: Who are the staff members? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into the names of the staff that's present. QUESTION: Why? QUESTION: Why? QUESTION: Why? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Just, Judge Gonzales. They're lawyers on the White House Counsel staff. I know you all want to call them and talk to them afterwards, but I'll just say, two members of the White House Counsel staff. QUESTION: No, that's not why, we just want their names. QUESTION: For God's sake, this is a matter of historical record. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: It's a private meeting, Helen. QUESTION: It's not a private meeting, it's a public meeting. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I just told you who is present. QUESTION: It's doing the nation's business. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: These are two members of the Counsel's Office that have been working closely with the September 11th Commission. QUESTION: Why the secrecy? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I don't look at it that way. QUESTION: But we do. QUESTION: It is a good question. It is an historic moment. This is -- in a public event. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll talk back with these individuals and see if -- but -- QUESTION: Just for the record, really, just for the record. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll talk back with these individuals, but I'm not in the habit of just going and naming every staff members that attend all these meetings. QUESTION: But this isn't just another meeting. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I understand. QUESTION: You're the spokesman for this White House, and you should give us the basics. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'll check with those individuals, but I'm not going to get into naming staff members without their -- QUESTION: Why did the White House feel there was a need for three staff members -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: -- without talking to them about it. QUESTION: -- versus one for the commission of 10 members? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, you have 10 commission members there, too. So you have a lot of members of the commission. These are two staff members that have been very involved in working on these efforts. QUESTION: What is their purpose, Scott? Are they there to record what takes place? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: Are they there to advise the President -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, I'm sure they'll be taking notes. QUESTION: -- or Judge Gonzales -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: What is the purpose? What is their purpose? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Because they're two members of the Counsel's Office that have been very involved in working on these issues with the September 11th Commission. And they'll be there taking notes, just like a member of the commission staff will be there taking notes. QUESTION: So they're actually there more to record what happens. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, take notes, yes. QUESTION: Are there two note takers? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Yes, I expect both of them will be taking notes. I expect members of the commission will be writing information down, as well. QUESTION: You said there was one note taker. Is there an official note taker or are these both -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I said there would be at least one member yesterday, and then yesterday afternoon when I was updated, I said that there would be two members of the Counsel's Office present. QUESTION: Who are they? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Helen, I'll check with them. And I don't want to go and just name them without talking to them first. QUESTION: Where are they all sitting? Is the President at his desk? Where is the Vice President? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The President and Vice President are sitting in the chairs in front of the fireplace. And the commission members are sitting on the couches and in chairs in the Oval Office. QUESTION: Who got the couches? How did they decide who got the couches? What, did they run in, and -- (laughter.) QUESTION: Why in the Oval Office? Why not in a place where all of them could sit at a table? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, the President has lots of meetings in the Oval Office. He meets with world leaders there on a regular basis -- QUESTION: There's 10 members of the commission. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: -- and this is a similar setup. Well, it's like yesterday, when we met with -- when the President met with Prime Minister Persson of Sweden. You have several members of the staff -- of each other's staff in there. You have the ambassadors and you have other members of staff in there. And they all sit around on the couches and chairs. That's where we sit when those meetings take place. It's a similar setup to that. QUESTION: Scott, are we going to hear from the President today? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Look, if there's any change in the schedule, I'll keep you posted. QUESTION: So does that mean maybe? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, I'm not ruling anything in or out at this point, but we'll keep you posted, obviously, on the meeting. QUESTION: What does that mean? What are your plans to read this out in some way, or give us your take on what happened? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: One, don't expect a readout on the discussion. I think I've kind of indicated that over the last few days. This is a private meeting. But let's let the meeting take place, and then we'll go from there. QUESTION: But we could hear from the President. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I'm not ruling anything in or out, David. We'll keep you posted. QUESTION: Scott, what was the preparation prior to this? How many times did the President and Vice President together meet with the White House Counsel? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I provided a general description of what he did to prepare for this. And I talked about how over the last couple of days he continued to visit with members of -- the President continued to visit with members of the White House staff -- specifically Condi Rice and Andy Card and Judge Gonzales, and that he looked over materials and documents that were provided to him by the Counsel's Office. QUESTION: But specifically, what did he and Judge Gonzales talk about, because if he's just taking notes today, he already knows what the President apparently is going to say. SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, one, April, keep in mind that a lot of this occurred two-and-a-half and three years ago. And the President wanted to refresh his memory and look over documents from that time period to make sure he can provide the commission as complete account of events as possible. I mean, this is a good opportunity for the President to sit down with members of the commission and talk with them about the seriousness with which we took the threat from al Qaeda, the steps we were taking to confront it and how we have been responding to the attacks of September 11th. The President believes their work is very important, and it is very important to helping us win the war on terrorism. He's pleased to sit down with the commission and answer their questions so that they can provide the American people with as thorough and comprehensive a report as possible. And that's what's going on right now. QUESTION: Scott, a follow-up to that real quick. I know it's been a couple of years, but it was such a poignant time for this administration. What does he really need to be refreshed on? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: April, this is two-and-a-half years ago. Of course he wanted to look back at the documents to make sure that he's providing the commission as complete an account as possible about the events prior to September 11th, the events on September 11th. And I think that that's -- that anyone would want to do that prior to sitting down and visiting with the commission. QUESTION: But in news interviews, he was able to go off and just rattle off the events. But what specifically -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Well, I'm sure that -- well, I'm sure, April, that they have some specific questions going back to that time period, and we're talking about two-and-a-half, three years ago. QUESTION: Scott, will the White House release a photo of this session this morning? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I don't -- I don't anticipate that. QUESTION: Why not? And also, did the President say anything before he -- before he went into -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Yes, the meeting is going on right now, Terry, so I don't -- QUESTION: Did he say anything to you or anybody else before he went in about how he felt -- SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No -- QUESTION: -- or what he was feeling? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No, he was looking forward to it. Like I said, he's pleased to sit down with the commission. I talked to him this morning, and he -- the way I would describe it, he believes their work is very important to helping us win the war on terrorism, that the President's most solemn responsibility is to protect the American people. And that's the way in which he looks at this, that he wants to do what he can to help the commission piece together all the information they've been provided access to so that they can complete their work in a timely manner. He wants to -- he looks forward to seeing their report and he looks forward to seeing their recommendations and seeing if there are additional steps that we can take beyond what we are already doing to win the war on terrorism. QUESTION: Did he and the Vice President open with statements? Did they plan to open with statements? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: It's going on right now, Wendell. That wasn't the plan. That wasn't the plan. QUESTION: It was not the plan for them to open with statements for the committee? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: No. QUESTION: Scott, what time is the next event on the President's schedule today? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: He's got some events scheduled this afternoon, some meetings that he has, I know. He meets regularly with members of his Cabinet department. I think Secretary Ridge is coming this afternoon, two something, 2:30 p.m., something like that. And he's got some other staff meetings and personnel meetings, things like that. QUESTION: Will the President be able to explain why the bin Laden family was flown out of the country right after the event? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: I think that that matter has already been discussed and addressed previously, Helen. QUESTION: And also why the FAA didn't go up? SCOTT MCCLELLAN: Helen, I don't know what questions the commission is going to be asking. The President looks forward to answering their questions.
Text of President Bush 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. 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.
It's hard to say which is more pathetic... the attempts of the White House to manipulate the Commission with this absurd setting and ground rules or the equally pathetic attempt by McClellan to explain the unexplainable. What a sickening, shameless display by Bush, Cheney and the rest of this sorry crew.
The only thing sickening about this entire process is how the liberals have distorted it into a political witch-hunt from its orginal purpose which was preparing ourselves for the future. When you saw the *disappointment* come across the liberals' faces when Bush and Cheney decided to testify, it really proved my point. Instead of being happy that this testimony would be incorporated in the report, and would add to the report, thereby help us in the War on Terror, the liberals could do nothing but complain about the conditions to the testimony. Typical liberals. Now you see them whining and crying because their sole purpose of conducting this inquiry was foiled. Instead of being able to play political gotcha!, the testimony will actually be used for its purpose -- helping America learn from the tragedy that was 9-11. Isn't it amazing how the liberals managed to politicize this commission? Isn't it?! Political grandstanding has never seen a finer day! Known propagandists like Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward have never seen a finer opportunity to sell books! Political opportunists and military and intelligence persecutors Benviniste and Kerrey have never had a better chance to try to discredit and distort! You know what they say: A liberal is never happy unless he is complaining about America, or finding fault with fellow Americans! Guess what, we see it again today from the typical cast of characters. LIBERAL FILTH
Why, based on these two transcripts, would you get a suddenly different feeling. It looked to me as if he was not being a jerk here, just having to deal with sharky reporters, especially in the case of McClellan.
Excellent! We finally have an answer! After asking for weeks why, oh why do Bush and Cheney have to appear together, in a highly unusual move, and after dodging the question countless times, here's to the Prez for finally cearing it up: And I think it was important for them to see our body language as well, how we work together. The reason wasn't nefarious, or another indication that Bush is afeared to go it alone after the disasters of his previous unscripted press appearances ( Meet The Press, etc.). No, sir. It was so that the Commission For The Events Surrounding Septermber 11th and How Well White House Officials Play Together can finally get a glimpse of the full picture. There are rumours that the Commissioners also got to see a slide show entitled Dick and Dubya's Fishing Hole Adventures, where the two good ol' boys kick back in the sun, pull in a mess load of fish, and generally get along like good ol' buddies. Onse pic reportedly is of the hijinks that ensued when Dubya tied an old tire to the end of Dick's line while the latter was nappin'. Whoooey! Now to the uninformed, (aka lunatic liberal fringe, etc.) it may seem that this has little to do with 9-11. But what you fail to realize is that fishing together is part of what makes Bush, CHeney and 'Merica GOOD, as opposed to those who don;t fish, or aren't 'Merican, which makes them BAD. In this country we have the freedom to fish where and when we want, and in most other countires tying a tire to another man's line would result in immediate excecution. So it in moments like this where we see the real value of the battle against evil, and fishing limitation. Fishing together, answering questions together, invading other countries together, it's all part of the fight for freedom, and if you don;t see it, you're just looking for some wacky conspiracy because you hate fishing, 'Merica, or are just plain evil. Anyone who doesn't see that the commissioners' ability to see how Bush and Cheney hold their posture or look at each other during the questioning period overrides any and all allusions to conspiracy, fear, or defensivness is just trying to make something out of nothing. I admit that the previous few years of 'lies', 'misstatements', 'mistakes', knowing use of false info, bugging the rooms of ambassadors/UN reps for countires opposed to the war, avoiding responsibility for and often even questions about errors/lies, exposing the CIA emplyment of spouses of war critics, jingoistic arrogant treatment of allies, and ideal based post war policies had me thinking Bush, Cheney et al were a bunch of corrupt, dishonest, and arrogant bunglers who exploited 9-- based fear to further their own material and idealogical agendas, but now that they were so forthcoming about the necessity for CHeney to sit in with Bush, and for such a profoundly credible reason, I have seen the light, and it is GOOD...as opposed to what I used to think, which was just EVIL.
"Let me hear your body talk! Unhh! Body talk!" Man oh man, but Richard Bruce Cheney has been getting some action. It was just last week that C. Luther Powell said that "when we're alone, it's just Dick and Colin." I mean, give the old guy a break. He has a heart condition!
I'm sure you'll blame this on your "bad typing" skills, like you try to blame all other errors in logic, spelling, grammar, and proofreading, but nonetheless... The phrase is LUNATIC FRINGE LIBERALS. Today I announce an alternate phrase: KOOK FRINGE LIBERALS as a matter of fact, here is a good example right beneath this very message! I I I I V
