PDA

View Full Version : What's Bush hiding this time?



sharkattack
04-29-2004, 07:05 AM
I read in the paper yesterday that Bush has agreed to speak to the 9-11 commission..............but would only do so if no permanent record would be kept of the meeting (i.e. no stenographer, no video, no audio tapes. Zilch!)................and only if he could have Cheney by his side during the WHOLE time. (Someone has to play the part of the ventriliquist I guess.)

Geesh, does he have any idea how bad this looks for him/Cheney? I'm thinking that he does but he's so arrogant that he thinks he's got the election in the bag and can get away with it.

Same goes for his refusal to release the names of the people who were part of his and Cheney's energy task force meetings. I wonder what he's hiding there? Hmmmmm.........

I used to consider my self a moderate republican, but I really can't anymore, at least in good conscience.

Any thoughts?

kmac12
04-29-2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by sharkattack
(Someone has to play the part of the ventriliquist I guess.)

Bob Woodward's book has debunked the idea that Cheney controls GWB. So, please stop using that analogy.

Quit watching SNL. ;)


Geesh, does he have any idea how bad this looks for him/Cheney? I'm thinking that he does but he's so arrogant that he thinks he's got the election in the bag and can get away with it.

I do not know why he and Cheney are meeting together. I do not think it is as scandolous as people think. Who cares if they meet together!?!

Woodward said that he interviewed Bush for 3.5 hours and Cheney wasn't there. So, I do not think he is trying to hide something.

As for the recordings and whatnot, it is an election year and he probably doesn't want anything he says to end up in a Kerry ad. I am sure that is the reason he was initally against the 9/11 commission right before an election. It is all politics. The Democrats would have done the same damn thing.

sharkattack
04-29-2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
Bob Woodward's book has debunked the idea that Cheney controls GWB. So, please stop using that analogy.... The Democrats would have done the same damn thing.

So if Bob Woodward says it's so, then it must be true? (Um...OK)

Even if the Dems would have done the same thing doesn't make it right.

I forgot to add the part about Bush and Cheney insisting that they are NOT placed under oath during their questioning by the commission.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by sharkattack
So if Bob Woodward says it's so, then it must be true? (Um...OK)

Well, since he is pretty moderate and proven to be honest, I would say so.

Why, do you have evidence that he is lying?

Or, even better, do you have direct evidence (not speculation) that Cheney is controlling Bush?

It is popular for SNL and late night talk shows to exhibit this since it gets laughs. Thats it.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by sharkattack
I forgot to add the part about Bush and Cheney insisting that they are NOT placed under oath during their questioning by the commission.

Actually, they do not even have to testify. He is doing so voluntarily, but obviously, that isn't good enough for some people.

It is unusual for a sitting president to be interviewed by such a commission. It just doesn't happen.

Also, Clinton did not give testimony under oath and Gore probably won't either. So, please stop complaining about it.

Reborn79
04-29-2004, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
Actually, they do not even have to testify. He is doing so voluntarily, but obviously, that isn't good enough for some people.

It is unusual for a sitting president to be interviewed by such a commission. It just doesn't happen.

Also, Clinton did not give testimony under oath and Gore probably won't either. So, please stop complaining about it.

This concerns an even that took the lives of 3000 innocent people...everyone should be under oath (clinton, Gore, etc.). The fact that Bush goes into this hearing with Cheney by his side, not under oath, with no recordings....that's telling.

And it isn't just about 'Cheney controlling Bush'...if they 'tesify' together, they can prevent themselves from contradicting each other.

Same with criminal investigations...you don't allow the accused, when under interrogation, to be questioned TOGETHER. You question them separately, to see if any discrepancies arise.

Of course, Bush and Cheney aren't criminals (debatable), however there is nothing wrong with the same process being used for them, for the simple goal of making sure the truth comes out.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
This concerns an even that took the lives of 3000 innocent people...everyone should be under oath (clinton, Gore, etc.). The fact that Bush goes into this hearing with Cheney by his side, not under oath, with no recordings....that's telling.

Whatever. Biased opinion since you hate Bush.


And it isn't just about 'Cheney controlling Bush'...if they 'tesify' together, they can prevent themselves from contradicting each other.

Same with criminal investigations...you don't allow the accused, when under interrogation, to be questioned TOGETHER. You question them separately, to see if any discrepancies arise.

Of course, Bush and Cheney aren't criminals (debatable), however there is nothing wrong with the same process being used for them, for the simple goal of making sure the truth comes out.

This is not a criminal investigation and there is no reason that the truth will not come out with both of them testifying at the same time. You do not interrogate a sitting President. This is an interview/information session only.

Please name the last time that a sitting President was interviewed by such a commission (other than Clinton's legal issues)?

It is voluntary. Bush haters just love to stir up trouble. They want soooo bad for him to be guilty of something.

Reborn79
04-29-2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
Whatever. Biased opinion since you hate Bush.



This is not a criminal investigation and there is no reason that the truth will not come out with both of them testifying at the same time. You do not interrogate a sitting President. This is an interview only.

Please name the last time that a sitting President was interviewed by such a commission (other than Clinton's legal issues)?

It is voluntary. Bush haters just love to stir up trouble. They want soooo bad for him to be guilty of something.


More 'surface' talk.

The point is this: If Bush and Cheney have nothing to hide, they should have no reason to oppose testifying separately (even if they are not under oath).

Sure, it's voluntary, but it is telling when they act this way concerning the commission.

You have too much faith in Bush and Cheney (I guess you could say I have too little :( ). Even you, who are one of the few conservatives on this board that I have respect for, can admit that testifying together is questionable, especially for something as important as this.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Reborn79
More 'surface' talk.

The point is this: If Bush and Cheney have nothing to hide, they should have no reason to oppose testifying separately (even if they are not under oath).

Sure, it's voluntary, but it is telling when they act this way concerning the commission.

You have too much faith in Bush and Cheney (I guess you could say I have too little :( ). Even you, who are one of the few conservatives on this board that I have respect for, can admit that testifying together is questionable, especially for something as important as this.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this.

I trust Bush and Cheney. I do not believe that they are trying to hide anything and you are opposite. This type of thing makes you even more skeptical of them.

To be honest, my opinion is that they are appearing together to keep from looking unorganized and incompetent. I think if interviewed separately they could have discrepancies, but not important, juicy ones. They do not want the commission to report that they are unorganized. I am the first to admit that Bush is not good under this type of pressure (you remember the recent press conference?). That is why Cheney is there.

Think about it, 10 people (most if not all are lawyers) trying to catch him in a lie. They are just trying to remain consistent and feel that they would work better as a team. This way, if a question comes up that Bush cannot answer, then Cheney is there to answer it and vice versa.

Whether you like it or not, it is an election year and he has alot at stake.

Ditto on the respect thing. I appreciate it. ;)

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 08:36 AM
bill clintons meeting was in private, considering that he was president during 3 attacks and during the vast majority of the planning for 9/11 you could conclude that he is hiding something as well.


presidents dont meet under oath and in public when it comes to congressional hearings. hell, they hardly ever even testify.
not because they are hiding anything, but because there is a balance of powers, and the president isnt responsible for the house or the senates investigations.

bgzee
04-29-2004, 08:44 AM
What I want to know is what good is this testimony gonna do if there is no transcript or recording of it, and they are not put under oath? The fact that they don't want to be put under oath says that they don't want to be completely honest, avoiding the fiasco that Clinton went through, difference being of course that Clinton had to testify about gettin' a BJ and Bush and Cheney are testifying about a national security breach. I dont place blame for 9-11 on Bush or anybody for that matter, but he sure is making himself look suspicious with this.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
bill clintons meeting was in private, considering that he was president during 3 attacks and during the vast majority of the planning for 9/11 you could conclude that he is hiding something as well.

presidents dont meet under oath and in public when it comes to congressional hearings. hell, they hardly ever even testify.
not because they are hiding anything, but because there is a balance of powers, and the president isnt responsible for the house or the senates investigations.

Exactly. Clinton met in private and not under oath. There were also no recordings there, but no one says anything about that. Actually, the day that he testified it was hardly a news story.

It is true though that Bush is doing something that is unprecedented. A sitting president does NOT go before a commission of this type.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
What I want to know is what good is this testimony gonna do if there is no transcript or recording of it, and they are not put under oath?

It is NOT testimony. They are gathering information only. Why can people not understand this?

They act like this is some sort of a trial.

And, again, Clinton was interviewed the same way as Bush (in private, not under oath). So according to your rationale, he must have something to hide too!

If you are going to bitch, do so about him and Gore also.

bgzee
04-29-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
It is NOT testimony. They are gathering information only. Why can people not understand this?

They act like this is some sort of a trial.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3489465.stm

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040212-064016-9898r.htm

If they 'testify' does that make it part of a 'testimony'? Call it what you wanna call it... Clinton had to testify, under oath. Why not Bush?

kmac12
04-29-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3489465.stm

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040212-064016-9898r.htm

If they 'testify' does that make it part of a 'testimony'? Call it what you wanna call it... Clinton had to testify, under oath. Why not Bush?

Yes, I guess testify can be the correct word (I was mistaken), but many make this sound like a trial or something. It isn't. It is information gathering only.

And, Clinton did NOT testify under oath or have his testimony recorded. Gore will probably not either. It is very simple. They do not want to say anything that will be held against them. None of them are hiding anything.

Talk about your conspiracy theorists! Woof! ;)


"This is not a criminal investigation," he said. "This is not someone before a grand jury. The purpose of these private sessions is for the president and vice president to provide information to the commission and that is what they are going to do." - Alberto Gonzales - White House Counsel

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 09:16 AM
presidents dont take part in congressional hearings, simple as that. bush is being quite generous with giving them this meeting.

this all goes to show that the left isnt interested in any findings the investigation leads to, they are interested in using the clout that comes with a congressional hearing to embarrass and unseat bush in november.

bgzee
04-29-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by kmac12
Yes, I guess testify can be the correct word (I was mistaken), but many make this sound like a trial or something. It isn't. It is information gathering only.

And, Clinton did NOT testify under oath or have his testimony recorded. Gore will probably not either. It is very simple. They do not want to say anything that will be held against them. None of them are hiding anything.

Talk about your conspiracy theorists! Woof! ;)


"This is not a criminal investigation," he said. "This is not someone before a grand jury. The purpose of these private sessions is for the president and vice president to provide information to the commission and that is what they are going to do." - Alberto Gonzales - White House Counsel

Ok, well did Clinton put a restriction on any kind of recording or transcripts? Like I said, what good is a testimony if there is no record of it?

If anything, Bush is digging himself an early grave by making it look so suspicious, so honestly I'm not gonna complain.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Ok, well did Clinton put a restriction on any kind of recording or transcripts? Like I said, what good is a testimony if there is no record of it?

If anything, Bush is digging himself an early grave by making it look so suspicious, so honestly I'm not gonna complain.

Ok, then please tell me what Clinton said in his testimony. I would love to know. There WERE restrictions on it. The media hardly batted an eye at it also. Gore's will be the same way. You just wait and see.

I think only democrats feel that this is shady and that is a double standard since Clinton's was the same way.

If you want to complain about Bush, do not complain about his testimony not being under oath or recorded. ;)

It will not affect Bush's ratings.

CerealKiller
04-29-2004, 09:31 AM
Q. How can you tell when George Dubya Bush is lying?

A. Dick Cheney's lips are moving.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Q. How can you tell when George Dubya Bush is lying?

A. Dick Cheney's lips are moving.

Its a funny joke, but no truth to it. Dems and liberals are putting alot of stock in Woodward's book, so here you go if you didn't see it...

WOODWARD - "Well, Bush is the president, and as we've learned throughout history when you get that office, there is a deference that everyone shows you. And it's not remarkable that the vice president would be one of those people. He knows, and the Constitution makes it clear, the authority of the office rests in one person, not a committee, not the West Wing, not the National Security Council, one person. And I think Cheney recognizes that."

RUSSERT - "In many ways, the presentation of the war on Iraq is an attempt to reinforce those political qualities: strong leader, bold action, big ideas."

WOODWARD - "Yes, exactly. I mean, it's right there. When I saw this, it connected about six roads for me. And you see it time and time again, and I think that's why the White House recommends the book, though it shows lots of warts and lots of problems, and I think as people get into it and look at it and debate it, they're going to say, "Wait a minute, what happened here?" But it shows Bush in charge. It shows him more than a strong leader."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4829855/

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
Q. How can you tell when George Dubya Bush is lying?

A. Dick Cheney's lips are moving.


the left never fails to show its real intentions............

bgzee
04-29-2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
the left never fails to show its real intentions............

to tell jokes?

kmac12
04-29-2004, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
to tell jokes?

No, the jokes are fine, but some people are spreading the idea that Cheney is actually in charge. Which is not true.

CerealKiller
04-29-2004, 10:00 AM
I think if they are going to testify together they should be made to hold hands. Whadda ya think ?

kmac12
04-29-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
I think if they are going to testify together they should be made to hold hands. Whadda ya think ?

Yes, jokes are funny, we get it.

"John Kerry will undergo surgery to repair his right shoulder. He originally hurt it when he suddenly switched positions on Iraq." - Craig Kilborn

"We make jokes about it but the truth is this presidential election really offers us a choice of two well-informed opposing positions on every issue. OK, they both belong to John Kerry, but they're still there." - Jay Leno

"Yesterday Senator John Kerry changed his mind and now supports the ban on gay marriages. I'm telling you this guy has more positions than Paris Hilton." - David Letterman

CerealKiller
04-29-2004, 10:14 AM
That's the spirit kmac. :D

Bush appearing alone before the 9/11 commission would be like Charley McCarthy going on without Edgar Bergen.

kmac12
04-29-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
What I want to know is what good is this testimony gonna do if there is no transcript or recording of it, and they are not put under oath? The fact that they don't want to be put under oath says that they don't want to be completely honest, avoiding the fiasco that Clinton went through, difference being of course that Clinton had to testify about gettin' a BJ and Bush and Cheney are testifying about a national security breach. I dont place blame for 9-11 on Bush or anybody for that matter, but he sure is making himself look suspicious with this.

Portions of an article on CNN.com...

"The commission found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid," the statement said. "The information they provided will be of great assistance to the commission as it completes its final report."

It is rare for a sitting president to talk to such a panel. There have been only a handful of appearances since 1862, when President Lincoln discussed relieving a Civil War general.

Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was be no recording of the session, nor a stenographer in the room.

Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/index.html

They are all hiding something damn it!!! Argghhhh!! ;)

LordNeon
04-29-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
No, the jokes are fine, but some people are spreading the idea that Cheney is actually in charge. Which is not true.

Maybe Bush could help deflate that notion by not having to appear with his boss before the comission.

BuckWyld
04-29-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Maybe Bush could help deflate that notion by not having to appear with his boss before the comission.

dont make fun of bush, if cheney has another heart attack bush could be the next president

SteakNPotatoes
04-29-2004, 12:57 PM
I remember seeing a documentary type thing on one of the science channels on TV where they had a panel of "lie experts" give out tips and such. One of the main ones they all agreed on was that liers usually try and defend their lies by trying to convince everyone how they are not lying. Those being accused who are telling the truth simply deny vehemently that they are lying, not go and try to show how they are not lying...


"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."

LordNeon
04-29-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by SteakNPotatoes
I remember seeing a documentary type thing on one of the science channels on TV where they had a panel of "lie experts" give out tips and such. One of the main ones they all agreed on was that liers usually try and defend their lies by trying to convince everyone how they are not lying. Those being accused who are telling the truth simply deny vehemently that they are lying, not go and try to show how they are not lying...

Ever see the movie "Fargo"? When Bush said "We answered all their questions", I can only think of that scene when the loser car salesman is being interrogated and doesn't know what to say so he keeps saying, "Ma'am, I answered your question! I'm cooperating!"

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
to tell jokes?

the real intention is to find any reason at all, no matter how trivial or blatently false in order to unseat bush in november. its all politics for them.

Reborn79
04-29-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
the real intention is to find any reason at all, no matter how trivial or blatently false in order to unseat bush in november. its all politics for them.

Yeah, we need to focus on the REAL issues...like whether Kerry threw RIBBONS or MEDALS over the White House fence in protest of the Vietnam War? That is what is vital! We must know!




Heh...and you have the audacity to blame the democrats for bringing up 'trivial' issues.

BigKazWSM747
04-29-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
dont make fun of bush, if cheney has another heart attack bush could be the next president

hint: if you want to make it a joke. You should type it like this:

Don't make fun of bush, if Cheny has another heart attack, Bush might actually have to start ACTING as the president.

And for the record, I think its dumb that the two of them had to show up together. They should have appeared separatlely, especially since they really have no reason to be together for this. And no I don't believe Cheney controls Bush.

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
Yeah, we need to focus on the REAL issues...like whether Kerry threw RIBBONS or MEDALS over the White House fence in protest of the Vietnam War? That is what is vital! We must know!




Heh...and you have the audacity to blame the democrats for bringing up 'trivial' issues.


wow!!! another liberal steps out of the woodwork and proves himself to be either ingorant of current events, or a hypocrit.

the MEDIA is the one making th big deal out of this, simmilar to when the MEDIA attacked bush in his national guard service.

the fact is you hide behind real issues. you say you want to speak of real issues, but i truth you wish to forward another conspiracy theory on bushs evils. no liberal here has shown a real interest in the "issues", but more of a hatred of bush so deep to where their eyes rest soley on the prize. the truth is more of a thorn in the side then a weapon of choice for the left.

bgzee
04-29-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by enjoyincubus
wow!!! another liberal steps out of the woodwork and proves himself to be either ingorant of current events, or a hypocrit.

the MEDIA is the one making th big deal out of this, simmilar to when the MEDIA attacked bush in his national guard service.

the fact is you hide behind real issues. you say you want to speak of real issues, but i truth you wish to forward another conspiracy theory on bushs evils. no liberal here has shown a real interest in the "issues", but more of a hatred of bush so deep to where their eyes rest soley on the prize. the truth is more of a thorn in the side then a weapon of choice for the left.

pot -- kettle -- black

BigKazWSM747
04-29-2004, 04:13 PM
guys you should chill with the rhetoric. The Bush puppet jokes are getting old and I think i've heard enough in this thread about "liberals" to last me the rest of the week *cough* enjoyincbus *cough*.

enjoyincubus
04-29-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
guys you should chill with the rhetoric. The Bush puppet jokes are getting old and I think i've heard enough in this thread about "liberals" to last me the rest of the week *cough* enjoyincbus *cough*.

well...forgive me for whatever pain i have caused.

philly007
04-29-2004, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Reborn79
This concerns an even that took the lives of 3000 innocent people...everyone should be under oath (clinton, Gore, etc.). The fact that Bush goes into this hearing with Cheney by his side, not under oath, with no recordings....that's telling.

And it isn't just about 'Cheney controlling Bush'...if they 'tesify' together, they can prevent themselves from contradicting each other.

Same with criminal investigations...you don't allow the accused, when under interrogation, to be questioned TOGETHER. You question them separately, to see if any discrepancies arise.

Of course, Bush and Cheney aren't criminals (debatable), however there is nothing wrong with the same process being used for them, for the simple goal of making sure the truth comes out.

I'm beginning to think these hearings are pure farce. I saw some of the Condi Rice thing on TV, and hell, I think Judge Judy does a better job grilling a poor SOB about an unpaid cell phone bill.

irpker
04-29-2004, 11:18 PM
Bush is using his [B]executive privilege[B/] to the utmost advantage. He set the rules for his interview, not the committee, because he is not legally obligated to go before the committee. He can tell them to fukk off if he wants to (even though it would be political suicide).

It's not very complicated. Go look up what executive privilege is and how it relates to the current wars we are in as a nation.

kmac12
04-30-2004, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Ever see the movie "Fargo"? When Bush said "We answered all their questions", I can only think of that scene when the loser car salesman is being interrogated and doesn't know what to say so he keeps saying, "Ma'am, I answered your question! I'm cooperating!"

I think it is said that you equate him with that character.

When Bush said that yesterday, he was responding to a question from the press. I can understand him getting defensive on this issue. The press has been out to get him lately.

Maybe you recall the press conference a couple weeks ago?

Since this is an election year, the press become like predators and look for anything that will make the candidate look bad. I do not blame him for being defensive. Case in point, the Good Morning America interview with Kerry the other day. These types of attacks from the press are crazy, but they get the most play on the news talk shows.

One thing that I try to do is not get caught up in the little non-important issues like Kerry throwing medals away, getting a $1K haircut or Bush maybe going AWOL. These types of things are ludicrous. I also think the many complaints and speculation over this interview are ludicrous.