I agree that the Bush/Cheney testimony before the 911 Commission was, at best, poorly managed by the White House. I think the ostensible concerns and reluctance by Bush was understandable, but it did leave him open to all sorts of sniping from the Dems.
On Capitol Hill, U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, criticized Bush and Cheney for demanding that they appear together. “I think the only advantage to them doing it together is that their comments be consistent. But I really think that the whole process would have been better served if the president had gone in alone and the vice president had gone in alone.”
Perhaps. Of course, then, if there had been any discrepancies between the two stories, it would have been lit upon to demonstrate how they were both lying bastards. And if both of them had told the same story, it would have been lit upon to demonstrate how they had pre-rehearsed their stories, the lying bastards. I guess that’s what Rep. Pelosi means by “serving the process better …”
So, yes, if Bush and Cheney are lying bastards, it’s no wonder they wanted to meet with the commission together. And if they were telling God’s Own Truth — they’d probably want to meet the commission together, too.
The same argument can be used about the other ill-seeming parts of the arrangement — that the White House legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales was there, that there were WH folks taking notes as well as the commission staffer, that the meeting was not recorded, that it was not under oath. Lying bastards would want things just that way. So would folks telling the truth, but apprehensive about how that truth might be twisted about.
Reuters clearly feels the physical arrangements were questionable, too.
The meeting, with potential election-year ramifications, took place in the very heart of presidential power, the Oval Office, rather than in a room that would have provided a traditional table-and-chair setting.
Bush and Cheney took up opposite seats in front of the fireplace, and commission members were clustered in the room on couches and chairs.
Which actually sounds kind of comfortable and informal. Nor is meeting with a delegation at the White House — or even giving testimony — unprecedented.
The commission of five Republicans and five Democrats issued a statement saying Bush and Cheney had been “forthcoming and candid” and their input would be of great assistance as it looks to complete a final report by July 26.
Which is how they’ve described everyone’s testimony so far, so nothing should be read one way or the other into it.
So, at any rate, it was not a very good PR arrangement for Bush, even if he’s Innocent as the Driven Snow. Of course, given the potential harm if someone had decided to exploit sworn, recorded, and/or solo testimony in a politically aggrandizing way (or, conversely, if he’s a lying bastard), maybe it wasn’t so stupid. It wouldn’t offend many supporters, and it’s not going to make Bush’s opposition any more torqued off at him.
What I find most mind-boggling about the whole matter, though, is that, after all the hammering on Bush to testify in the first place (as Reuters put it, Bush only agreed to meet with the commission “under pressure from victims’ families”), two of the Dems — vice-chair Lee Hamilton, and former Sen. Bob Kerrey — left in the middle of the testimony. Hamilton had to go to a luncheon where he was introducing visiting Canadian PM Paul Martin. Well, so long as it was an important commitment like that, no problem. I’m sure Kerrey had a similarly vital call on his time, like catching his favorite soap opera or something.
Speaking of disrespect for the purposes of the commission …
UPDATE: Perhaps Kerrey had to go re-watch a tape of his Daily Show appearance again to find out what questions he’d promised to ask. Certainly Kerrey has every right to appear wherever he wants on TV, and I love the Daily Show, but, damn, if that’s the sort of attitude he’s going to publicly cop, how can he possibly be serving on a “non-partisan” information-gathering commission?
In a phone call to The Post after returning to New York yesterday afternoon, Kerrey said he thought the White House meeting would only last until 11:30 a.m., and so he’d scheduled a meeting with Domenici for a half-hour later at the Capitol, just about a mile from the White House.
“The White House said it would be over by 11:30 a.m.,” Kerrey said, adding that the meeting was for an important school project, but he refused to disclose it.
When it became clear the Oval Office meeting was going to go longer than he thought, Kerrey said he asked commission Chairman Tom Kean if he should stay or go – and Kean told him he could leave.
“I told the chairman I’d cancel my meeting if he wanted me to,” Kerrey said.
I can’t imagine what could be more important than meeting with the President and VP on this matter, especially since it sounds like it was such a productive meeting. I wonder if anyone’s asked the 9/11 Families who lobbied so hard for the meeting with Bush and Cheney how they feel about it.
And as it turned out, the meeting that Kerrey had to rush out to was something of a bust — waiting while a Senate vote was going on, and then about a minute’s worth of time — and he now evidently regrets having done so (though more, it seems, because of the flak he’s received than any other reason_.
And as it turned out, the meeting that Kerrey had to rush out to was something of a bust — waiting while a Senate vote was going on, and then about a minute’s worth of time — and he now evidently regrets having done so (though more, it seems, because of the flak he’s received than any other reason_.