Bush/Cheney Testify Together. Why?
 

So why is it these two are testifying together before the 9/11 commission? I think I know the answer I'll get from critics of the administration - that Bush can't cut it on his own, and he needs help.

But I want to know what Bush supporters have to say about this. Why do you think they feel the need to testify together? It seems to me that by dodging this question every time it is asked, the President is giving credence to the idea that he couldn't handle the inquiry on his own. Any thoughts?

Not only are they testifying together, but they will not be testifying under oath and the hearing will be private and it will not be recorded (though anyone present may take "notes"). It is also highly possible that their testimony will not be made public.
I don't get it. I don't know that either of them really have anything to hide here, I am not conspiracy theorists, but by proceeding how they are it seems to me that they are projecting the image that there is something to hide. It doesn't make sense to me unless they are terrified that Bush testifying on his own would prove to the world how truly incompetent he really is.

I haven't heard that one yet, but if that were true, it would be kind of surreal. You might even ask yourself,.. 'what the fuck?' :hmm:

Eh, I'm no Bush fan, but the man handles himself well in public. I thought his press conference a few weeks ago was just fine. He kept on-message and dealt with the questions well. He may make up some interesting words from time to time, but I don't think the white house is afraid of letting Bush speak in public.

Odd the way this thread is panning out. I am a Bush fan, and for the life of me, i can't figure this one out. Bobaphat, I agree with you. If there's anything he has done that needs some explanation, this is it. Nothing can be quoted i think i heard....WTF?

Handled questions well? I strongly disagree, but rather than drift off topic, I'll only point out the portion of the questions relevant to this discussion:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040413-20.html

Does he really think the American people are too dumb to realize that the question he answered wasn't the one that was asked?

Q Will you please just answer my fucking question and stop giving me bullshit runaround?

We KNOW it's a good chance, and we're sure you really want to answer them :rolleyes:, but what we want to know is- WHY... BOTH... OF... YOU........TO-GE-THER.

Pathetic.

I suspect there will be a lot of questions generated from both of their responses and these responses will be highly intertwined. Rather than countless follow up sessions to address all the "Well, Cheney said this, but you said this, can you clarify it for us?" they can address any questions the board members have immediately.

In truth I guess I just don't really care. Does anyone really think something is gonna come to light if they testify separately? I don't.

And for those who will likely go the "Well you just believe anything the administration says and will back them without question." or "You wouldn't say that if it was Clinton facing the questioners." I'll save you some time by stating that I would allow the same opportunity for any Presidential/Vice Presidential pairing with regard to questions that would more than likely be tightly linked.

They are meeting together so Uncle Cheney can kick George under the table when he starts to flub and answer...

Obviously, these guys are not as important as the dudes who know the recipe for Coca-Cola. You'd never find all of them in a room at the same time, just incase something happened to them. Or is it the KFC recipe?,..:lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

As a Bush supporter, I too have looked for a good answer for why they will testify together, and have yet to hear any. I think the best justification is that the committee can kill two birds with one stone by the joint testimony, when they should consider themselves fortunate that the president and vice-president are even testifying at all. LBJ, when asked to testify in front of the Warren Commission, just said no, that presidents don't do that sort of thing. (Interesting considering the theories that he was far more directly responsible in that situation) That was another time and age when the media were far less politically powerful, and the fact that Bush is testifying, even with Cheney there too, speaks to the different political climate.

Why aren't you calling for Clinton's and Gore's testimony to made public? Wouldn't you want to here what an administration did to combat terrorism after numerous attacks on US interests?

why wouldn't the testimony be under oath?

They shouldn't be lieing to the 9/11 committee anyways. Unless they go under oath it seems to be that they are looking for a way to lie legally to cover their asses.

Put them under oath or don't have them testify at all. If they can't testify under oath then what has this nation come to.

I want to hear both.

I want Clinton/Gore
and Bush/Cheney separate testimonies for everyone open to public and recorded.

What do you really think will be gained by separating them?

If that is the justification, they why can't they just say it? All they have to do is utter one simple sentence, and the matter would be settled. Poof! You don't have to hear the reporters repeatedly asking you the same question any more. And as an added bonus, you don't have to look like an idiot in front of the entire world for not understanding a simple question, even when it was repeated to you in no uncertain terms.

I think the real question is, "What do Bush/Cheney think will be lost by separating them?" They are the ones who insisted so adamantly that this is the way it should happen, so I think the burden is on them to explain it to the American people. If they've got nothing to hide, why is it so hard to get a straight answer out of them on this point?

A real answer. One that isn't coached.
I imagine the situation will look like Cheney is Bush's lawyer and after every question Cheney whispers something into Bush's ear before he responds.

I would like any and all of the testimony to be made public

No one can honestly believe that individual appearances wouldn't be coached.

It's quite simple. They are doing it together in an effort to save time. They were questioned today for HOURS. If they did it each separately it would take twice as long. And it makes sense to have the two highest members of the administration testify at the same time because they work more closely together than anyone else in the admin.

Considering the amount of vacation time that the President grants himself, one would think that saving a few hours would not be such a priority. Especially considering the importance of this inquiry.

And separating them would not take any additional time for either the vice president or the president -- they would just be there at different times. The only people that would need to put in more time would be the commission, and I think they're quite willing to do so.

To save time? That's bull. Save time from what? Bush spends months on vacation. Has spent numerous days flying around the country to stump for different candidates and to campaign for himself.

He, and his second can't give several hours each, individually to something as important as the 9/11 commission?

Save time? It's not like Bush is running around on the short struggling to do things.

It does not make sense to "testify" (it's not really testifying if it is off the record and barred from the public) together either just because they work so closely. If anything that's more reason to keep them apart when they go in for their questioning.

[edit] looks like we thought the same thing at the same time.

Though I especially like the points you made in your second paragraph about how the only extra time that would be taken up would be the willing commissioners.[/edit]

I agree with the points made by lordjeebus and Superbelt. But I'd like to add one further criticism.
assilem states his opinion as if it were fact. assilem, do you have any sources to back this up, or is it just speculation? if it's speculation, then my previous statement of "why can't they just say it?" applies here.

LOL, yeah the vacation time of the President is quite an issue. I've been hearing that a lot recently. Stern was on it this morning. The President is working 24 hours a day seven days a week for the entire time in office. Whether he does it at home or on his ranch, at Camp David or whereever, it's not the same as the average citizen going on vacation.

He gets daily briefings, has who knows how many meetings, phone calls, etc yet we should harp on the fact that he takes what was it 98 "vacation" days a year.

Please.

I think it's been documented that Bush has taken, by far, more vacation time than any other president in american history.

It's like he doesn't even like the job.
It's a short-timer position as well. And you should know going in what kinds of time demands are expected of you. Hell if I were President I would relish the short period of time I was granted to be in that position and to exercise the office of the President whenever possible.

What does this have to do with anything? I've only seen comparisons between Bush and those Presidents back through Carter so I won't stipulate that he's taken more than anyone else.

The job doesn't end when he's on vacation. It doesn't end when he goes to sleep. He's always on call no matter where he is or what he's doing.

As early as the end of August 2001 Bush spent 1/4 of his presidency on the Ranch. (50 some days) How did he need that much vacation time after just taking office?

Bush took 250 days off to crawford specificially up to August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency to that point.

To date Bush has spent all or part of about 500 days at or en route from/to Kennebunkport, Camp David or Crawford. That comes to 40% of his time as president.

Clinton, for contrast, was a workaholic and took 152 days off up to December of 99 (which was his entire 8 years)

I care about this for two reasons.

One, it shows to me a lack of interest in the office.

Two, to refute the claim some here and throughout the republican world that Bush doesn't have or shouldn't bother giving his time to the commission.

It's obvious he has had plenty.

And what does this matter? Are you saying he'd do a better job by being in Washington more? Is he not working while he's on vacation? Is being a workaholic an admirable trait?

This seems to be yet another instance of SAP. Stupid Ass Politics. It has nothing to do with anything but it's something that might rile people, at least those who don't bother to think about whether this makes one iota of a difference.

So, again, it seems that his opponents can read his mind.

As far as the answering the question with regard to him lacking time, it doesn't say one thing about that. Wasted time is wasted time. I seriously doubt that endless hours of questioning of the President and VP (separately or together) would result in a different story than the one that's been told by Condoleeza Rice, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I've offered a reason that having them together would make sense. It's a matter of not wasting time answering the same question posed in a slightly different manner or countless follow ups for clarification.

That is the impression that I get when I see Bush go on another month long vacation in Crawford.
Do I think I can discern exactly what is on his mind? No, but that is my impression from the information available.

'endless' hours of questioning is different from the story he might tell reporters, because when in questioning he can't give the dodging answers that he gives when asked why, for example, he is doing the questioning along with Cheney and behidn closed doors.

And I wouldn't call submitting yourself to questioning to the commission tasked with: "...........is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." ............. as wasting his time.

I'll address your last point first. Answering politically motivated questions that don't go to the root causes of the intelligence failures is a waste of everyone's time. There's no doubt been plenty of that. Additionally, going back and forth with a "he said" and "you said" line of questioning is a waste of time.

What makes you think he and every other politician couldn't give "the dodging answers" he gives reporters during the panel questions? They don't give respondents truth serum and there's no magical ability of the questioners to elicit responses. The President and VP will answer as they see fit whether together or separate and the odds of one "slipping up and telling the truth" as their opponents seem to wish would happen to prove their cover up or puppet master theories are outlandishly slim.

Even if they had agreed to testify separately with an unlimited time frame they'd be criticized by their opponents.

Not speculation. Common sense, I suppose.

Not the president’s time. The commission’s time. They have a dead line you know. And it makes sense to have the two highest members of the administration testify at the same time because they work more closely together than anyone else in the admin.

Looks like you just took a page right out of GWB's playbook... If you ask me, common sense would say that when an individual is asked a simple question, they would give a simple and direct answer. But apparently you and GWB have some higher form of common sense that I'm unable to comprehend.

Or you are just unwilling to elfstar.

Oh how thoughtful of the pres/vp to make time management decisions for the commission! Clearly the commission doesn't have the common sense to make these decisions for themselves...

Speaking as a workaholic, yes...I think that in some situations, it is a very admirable trait. One of those situations, I would think, would be being the President of the United States. Yes, I think that that I would very much like for my president to be a workaholic.

You seem to have taken this to a whole new hostile level. Sounds like you don't like the President and you will take issue with the way he wipes his ass. That was not the pretext of your original post. You asked a thoughtful question and now I see your motivations for it.

I don't think I was any more hostile than you with your "common sense" statement, implying anybody who disagreed with you had no common sense.

And regardless of my tone, I have repeatedly brought up points which you refuse to answer. I'll list them again for your convenience:

1. If the president is doing this to save time for the commission, why doesn't he just say it? It seems pretty simple.

2. What right does the president have to set the schedule for the commission? These are respected people with tons of experience. Can't they be trusted to decide for themselves how to best spend their time?

Q1. If the president is doing this to save time for the commission, why doesn't he just say it?

A1. I honestly don't know.

Q2. What right does the president have to set the schedule for the commission?

A2. He is the p r e s i d e n t. They fit into his schedule, not the other way around.

Q3. These are respected people with tons of experience. Can't they be trusted to decide for themselves how to best spend their time?

A3. That question has no relevance. The only reason to post that question is to further the stupid flame war that I'm not going to continue on with. Call me what you want.

By the way. My "common sense" statement was not hostile. It was my opinion. To ME it makes sense. That is what the TFP is about. For you to imply that I was imposing my views on everyone else here is demeaning. This is a place for ideas and discussion not flaming. Don't put words in my mouth

That was a flame.

Thank you for your honesty. That's all I was looking for.

It seems to me this is a contradiction. Whose time is he looking out for?

That question was meant to be a paraphrase of Q2. I'm not sure how you took it.

You claim your opinion is "common sense". But for it to be "common", it would have to be held by a significant portion of the population. Unless you offer some evidence that such a population exists, I don't think you are justified in calling it common sense. It is simply "your sense".

Furthermore, I think even common sense should have an underlying reason behind it. It is common sense that I should stop when a traffic light is red. But there is a reason for the common sense - namely that if I don't stop for red I'm likely to get into an accident. You have offered no such underlying reason for your "common sense", so your answer is little different than saying "because I say so" or "it's obvious".

Perhaps you were simply careless in your choice of words, but this is why I took issue. By using the word "common" you were in fact attributing that opinion to persons other than yourself.

the "saving time" argument is the weakest i've heard. why do people who testify in court take the stand one at a time? Wouldn't it save time to have all the witnesses who saw basically the same thing testify together?? I hope the answer is obvious.

Regarding not taking in cameras or recording equipment: that's more understandable to me. part of the reason the president balked at letting rice testify and himself for that matter was because of a turf war, near as i can tell. prez thinks that the executive branch should be above the beck and call of such a commission, and therefore should not be forced to testify or be scrutinized by such a body. therefore, by not having anything recorded that could be reported by the media, it keeps the appearance that the president did not have to answer to anybody. but that's just speculation on my part.

common sense
n.
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

Quote:

Originally posted by elfstar Perhaps you were simply careless in your choice of words, but this is why I took issue. By using the word "common" you were in fact attributing that opinion to persons other than yourself.

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks) n.
The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

those who do not trust them, will not trust them no matter what. Those that do trust them will tend to continue to trust them. I trust them. I was in the air force for all of clintons terms and I did not trust him, and I don't trust kerry. oh well.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I would much prefer someone with a balanced life making critical decisions rather than someone completely caught up in their "work".

onetime--when a decision has to be made about who's going to manage your favorite football team, would you rather have someone running it who has a balanced lifestyle (say, gwb) vs. someone who is a workaholic (say, gibbs from the wash. redskins?)

Certain workaholics can be effective in their jobs BUT overall I will consistently bet on a balanced leader over a workaholic.

fair enough onetime. just one question then--who would you consider to be the most successful sports team manager (if you're into sports anyways)? or even list the top 5. I will wager 10-1 that all of them are workaholics.

I'd like to see a winning football coach who spent more than 30% of the season on vacation.

Not read everything above, but the concessions given by the enquiry to the Whitehouse in order to have Bush agree to answer their questions were three-fold

1) Bush is not under Oath
2) He appears with the VP
3) There is no transcript

Personally, I wonder more why items 1 and 3 were needed rather than item 2, which doesn't sound too bad.

I don't know enough about coaches to say, but the comparison between sports and running the country is flawed IMO.

Football coaches have more intelligence about their opponents than would ever be available in other situations, they only have to be prepared on, what, less than 20 occassions, and the consequences of their actions don't impact the world (although I know quite a few fans who would probably disagree).

my only opinion...The commission had no choice but to accept the terms the president set, if they wanted the opportunity to interview him.

Why interview together? The only answer I could figure is that way the story between the two of them would be consistent. It wasn't being worried about what the pres. would say, but more concerned about what conflicting statements may have come out if each had been interviewed separately, right after the other.

onetime--exactly. even though sports managers deal with situations not as important as running a country, the best ones are still working their butts off and don't lead balanced lives. the best managers, in general, are workaholics. look at fortune 500 companies, the best US presidents throughout history (i hope you don't think ronald reagan was one of the best--consider instead jefferson, washington, lincoln, both roosevelts).

it's true that being a workaholic does not mean you're automatically a good manager, but I think it's clear that the best managers are workaholics.

I disagree entirely. The best managers understand all the needs of those they lead. Workaholics tend to primarily value those who exhibit levels of "dedication" to work similar to their own. This does not translate into long term effectiveness.

Give me a workaholic president anyday...

coolidge and harding were prone to quitting around 4 pm in the afternoon and look where we went :) (not entirely due to that, but it's funny)