Cheny to Hold Bush's Hand in Testimony Before 9/11 Commission.

I mentioned this yesterday in one of my posts. Thanks for the follow-up glynch. But I did note one point here...

From what I understand from watching the news briefing from Kean and Hamilton yesterday is that each member of the commission will be allowed to have their own staff member taking notes. I might have heard that wrong, but that's what I understand.


Now as far as the two headed Hydra before the commission, well that's going to be interesting...

 

I don't know what rules are in place in these sorts of hearings. I know that in a trial, be it civil or criminal, you can keep witnesses out of the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying so that their testimony doesn't affect the next guy's testimony. It's call "invoking the rule." Very elementary procedural stuff.

I would assume the same such rule would be a part of these sorts of proceedings as well, but admittedly, I don't know for sure. I certainly understand your concerns with this, though, glynch. I'd like to know the reasoning behind it as well.

 

I'd like to know the reasoning behind it as well.

The obvious reason would be that Rove felt GWB would perform poorly without a helping hand.

Thoughts of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titantic are dancing through my head.

 

Obviously this is a Constitutional issue and the administration's response is merely the best course to preserve the seperation of powers. After all, there's got to be precedent right?

 

This is all sort of odd.

Why would they want to go about it this way?

Doesn't it make the President look like a child?

Doesn't it make Cheney look even more like the puppetmaster in the White House?

Obviously I'm no great fan of GWB, but, trying to stay even-handed, is this just a way of making sure neither gets grilled for 3 hours individually?

 

You know I'd actually think it would be easier to have two witnesses there if you were deposing them because it would be easier to trip them up, because they both have to tell the same story and there's a greater chance for inconsistency.

Reminds me of a funny story one of the partners at my firm tells. Now, this guy is a big time, rich, high profile, obnoxious, New York lawyer blowhard. Anyway, he was in a situation once where he was deposing 6 guys from one party in a case. So he was going to depose the first of 6 guys, and the other side wanted each of the remaining 5 witnesses to sit in on the first deposition, so they would have an advance preview of the questions, and wouldn't budge on this point. Accordingly, our guy invoked the "multiple simultaneous deposition rule" (which does not exist) in his typical blustering authoritative way, and said that if they wanted to sit in, he would depose them all simultaneously, and surprisingly, the other side agreed; I guess they thought it would be less of a hassle to just get it over with.

So what happened was that he would ask questions of one witness, and then go around to the other five and say "do you agree" to each one. Naturally, they all said "yes" all the time, no matter how bad or stupid the answer the first witness gave was, as they didn't want to be seen disagreeing. I think the case settled a few days later.

 

Cheney's probably there to make sure GWB doesn't screw up. And after watching Dubya's interviews, I can't say it's not the right thing to do. GWB isn't like Clinton, who can find ways to get out of tough spots.

 

"He fell down some stairs."
"Yeah, I fell down some stairs."


Bush has never been one to say the right things when under pressure and interviewed one on one. This has happened ever since he made that blunder about defending taiwan "no matter what" during a talk show, which the Admin quickly retracted that afternoon. In addition, Bush has had less than ten Q&A sessions with the press where he was unassisted, which is paltry compared to Clinton and Bush Sr., both of whom were excellent under pressure, and could stay consistent with their policies. Bush jr has had other meetings but many were to be "off the record". Clearly, he knows and his staff knows that he is not capable of saying the right thing one on one, thus Junior needs to be checked on, and have his hand held so that he doesnt dig himself a hole.

 

Bush's inability to articulate his ideas is well-documented. Monkey can barely read a teleprompter. Without Cheney, there's a very real chance that Bush would make an absolute fool of himself. And this is the most powerful man in the world. Unbelievable.

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall

 

or a wiretap

 

A scurrilous slap at monkeys everywhere... have you no shame???

 

This developement is kinda weird.........I don't know what to make of it.

Sounds kinda shameful........hmmm. What is the rational again?

 

Charlie McCarthy Hearings

Published: April 1, 2004
By MAUREEN DOWD

Following is the text of a letter sent yesterday to Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton of the Sept. 11 commission from Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush.

While we continue to hold to the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers, that the appropriate and patriotic action for the Commission is to shut down and stop pestering us, the President is prepared, in the interest of comity and popularity, to testify, subject to the conditions set forth below.

The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President.

The Commission must agree in writing that it will not pose any questions directly to the President. Mr. Bush's statements will be restricted to asides on Dick Cheney's brushoffs, as in "Just like he said," "Roger that" and "Ditto."

Another necessary condition, in keeping with the tenets of executive privilege: Mr. Cheney will require that the Commission observe the rules of his favorite show from the Eisenhower Administration, "What's My Line?" The panelists, in the manner of Dorothy Kilgallen and Bennett Cerf, must try to guess what the President and Vice President didn't know and when they didn't know it through questions that elicit a "yes" or "no."

After 10 "no" answers, the panel will not be allowed to question Mr. Cheney or anyone else in the Administration ever again. In the mystery-guest round, Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey and other Democrats on the Commission will be blindfolded.

(Or Mr. Cheney is willing to follow the precedent of Garry Moore and Bess Meyerson, using "I've Got A Secret" rules: The Vice President will whisper a secret about the Administration's inadequate response to terrorism in the President's ear and each panelist will have 30 seconds to question Mr. Cheney in an attempt to guess the secret, which he will not reveal even if they guess right.)

As an additional accommodation, the President and Vice President have now agreed to take a "pinkie oath," looping little fingers with each other, while reserving the right to cross the index and middle fingers of their remaining hands and hide them behind their backs.

We must deny your request that Mr. Cheney bring along a PowerPoint presentation depicting who was in and out of the loop, in accordance with separation-of-PowerPoint principles. The Vice President has decreed that the loop of influence is under the cone of silence.

The White House is taking the extraordinary step of bowing to public opinion — even though Mr. Cheney states that he doesn't give two hoots about public opinion. Therefore, the Vice President will only entertain questions about negligence in fighting terrorism concerning the critical period between Jan. 21, 1993, and Jan. 20, 2001. As President Bush stated on Tuesday, March 30, the Commission must gain "a complete picture of the months and years before Sept. 11."

The Vice President will not address any queries about why no one reacted to George Tenet's daily "hair on fire" alarms to the President about a coming Al Qaeda attack; or why the President was so consumed with chopping and burning cedar on his Crawford ranch that he ignored the warning in an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing that Al Qaeda might try to hijack aircraft; or why the President asked for a plan to combat Al Qaeda in May and then never followed up while Richard Clarke's aggressive plan was suffocated by second-raters; or why the President was never briefed by his counterterrorism chief on anything but cybersecurity until Sept. 11; or why the Administration-in-amber made so many cold war assumptions, such as thinking that terrorists had to be sponsored by a state even as terrorists had taken over a state; or why the President went along with the Vice President and the neocons to fool the American public into believing that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks; or why the Administration chose to undercut the war on terrorism and inflame the Arab world by attacking Iraq, without a plan to protect our perilously overextended forces or to exit with a realistic hope that a democracy will be left behind.

The Commission must not, under any circumstances, ask the Vice President why American soldiers and civilians in Iraq are being greeted with barbarous infernos rather than flowery bouquets.

Finally, we request that when the President finishes with this painful teeth-pulling visit, the Commission shall offer him a lollipop.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/01/opinion/01DOWD.html

 

I'm not sure how you pronounce it but I think it is 'menage a trois'?

 

"Remember what we talked about? George is into it too!"

 

that was probably the best timed Seinfeld quote on this BBS EVER!!! absolutely hysterical!