Why is Bush-Cheney testifying together in closed session?

  • News
  • Thread starter amp
  • Start date
You have to know the facts. So Cheney is there to make sure he doesn't say anything that hasn't been rehearsed. In summary, it is odd that Bush and Cheney will testify together, and it seems to be because Bush may need coaching from Cheney due to his lack of intelligence. This is also the reason why their testimony will be in closed session so the public won't see Cheney prompting Bush. Clinton and Gore are not scheduled to testify before the 9-11 commission yet, but when asked about it, Clinton joked that he needed certain props to assist his memory and they are waiting until Monica can clear her schedule. The fact that Bush needs Cheney's help and that Clinton was able to testify without a handler present shows a
  • #1
amp
Its odd (at least to me) that Bush-Cheney will testify together, here's what appears to be the reason, IMO, Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch so Cheney is there to coach him. How you may ask? Let's see - tone of voice, inflection, leading questions, gestures and perhaps in other ways. That is also the reason why it's going to be in closed session so the public won't see the prompts Cheney gives Bush. :tongue:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think it is funny and odd the Bush can't testify without a handler present.
 
  • #3
Zero said:
I think it is funny and odd the Bush can't testify without a handler present.
Bush is a muppet sitting on Cheney's lap
 
  • #4
Oh, man. This is hilarious.
 
  • #5
When are Clinton and Gore scheduled to testify before the 9-11 commission?
 
  • #6
Robert-I believe that Clinton was having difficulty with recall and suggested that he would better be able to give testimony if he were given certain props to assist his memory. So, they are waiting until Monica is able to clear a spot on her calender. :)
 
  • #7
Kat-Well she couldn't clear a spot before, so I don't hold any hope she'll be able to do it now.
 
  • #8
kat said:
Robert-I believe that Clinton was having difficulty with recall and suggested that he would better be able to give testimony if he were given certain props to assist his memory. So, they are waiting until Monica is able to clear a spot on her calender. :)
Heck. Just give the man a cigar as a prop! :eek: :biggrin:

:biggrin: Give one to Robert Z., too. That was hysterical! :biggrin:
 
  • #9
Robert Zaleski said:
When are Clinton and Gore scheduled to testify before the 9-11 commission?

When they asked Clinton about this he responded:
"I did not have sex with that women!"
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Zero said:
I think it is funny and odd the Bush can't testify without a handler present.

I thought it was even funnier, in a way, when after 911 Cheney was somwhere in a vault, and President Bush was in New York. I was actually glad to see Bush there since we needed a show of confidence I think, and this is one of the rare ocassions that he actually scored a few points with me, but it did strike me as funny that it seemed to imply who is and is not expendible.

Is there any reason given as to why they will testify together? This does seem a little odd to me as well.
 
  • #11
The only reasons I know of were given by comics...

Bush: "So when you frown that means I need to refresh my memory"
Cheney: "Right, now when I wiggle my little pinkie, you ..."
Bush: "I have to go to the bathroom."
 
  • #12
You can always recognize how pathetically desparate the conservatives are when they bring up Monica Lewinski. Frankly, having a retired porn star as president would be less humiliating than this testifying ventriloquist act. It is shameful. Our national leader is not a responsible adult. The truly frightening thing about it is that his handlers are more afraid of what he'd say if he was alone than they are of this fiasco.

Njorl
 
  • #13
Wonderful!

I'm loving the opinion on this thread.
Here, here Njorl!
 
  • #14
Wouldn't you like to know what was on Clinton and Gore's minds when the following events occurred:

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000,

The 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel,.

The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel

The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassy in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000

The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors.

In 1996 the government of Sudan had Osama bin Laden in their custody and offered to hand him over to the United States. Bill Clinton and his cohorts elected not to take the Sudanese up on their offer. Why? Because they couldn't figure out a legal means of trying him.
 
  • #15
Robert,
I would love to know what Clinton and Gore thought about those matters. And if the commission asks them, I'm sure they will answer. I'm also quite certain Clinton will not need his vice-president to hold his hand while being questioned.


"The 1998 bombing of U.S. embassy in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000 "

You mean the bombings that were prevented from hitting the embassies themselves due to increased security awareness? The bombings that resulted principly in the deaths of innocent Africans because the terrorists could not get their truck-bombs to the targets?

You also left out the terrorist captured before he could bomb LAX airport. He was captured because interagency information sharing resulted in increased border security with Canada during the millenium. This sharing was due to Clinton and his people cracking the whip on terrorism's importance - something Bush failed to do.

Yes, it took Clinton a while to learn the importance of terrorism. It didn't take Bush long at all to forget it.

Njorl
 
  • #16
Actually, Cheney doesn't seem to be too quick either, mabye they're just going in together cause they're two confused, scared, and helpless individuals? :confused:

Well, I like to think that anyway, makes me feel better :eek:
 
  • #17
Just a little follow up.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/politics/09CLIN.html

Mr. Clinton met "in closed private session" on Thursday afternoon with all 10 members of the bipartisan commission at its request, the panel said in a terse statement issued after it was all over. The encounter, in an anonymous government office building off the Mall, lasted about four hours, and the commission said it "found the former president forthcoming and responsive to its questions.
"

No hand holding, no ridiculous time limit.

Njorl
 
  • #18
How could Bush pull off his post-9/11 speech yet now need a security-advisor blanket?
 
  • #19
Loren Booda said:
How could Bush pull off his post-9/11 speech yet now need a security-advisor blanket?
You don't get a Teleprompter to testify.
 

1. When will Bush and Cheney testify?

The date for Bush and Cheney's testimony has not been officially announced. However, it is likely that they will be called to testify in the near future as part of ongoing investigations.

2. What are they testifying about?

Bush and Cheney will most likely be testifying about their actions and decisions while in office, particularly in relation to national security and foreign policy.

3. Will their testimony be public?

There is no definitive answer to this question at this time. It will ultimately be up to the courts or investigative committees to determine if their testimony will be made public.

4. Can they refuse to testify?

As former presidents and vice presidents, Bush and Cheney may have certain privileges and protections that could allow them to refuse to testify. However, it is ultimately up to the courts or investigative committees to determine if they can invoke these privileges.

5. Will their testimony have any legal consequences?

It is possible that their testimony could lead to legal consequences if any new evidence or information is revealed. However, it is also possible that their testimony may not have any impact on ongoing legal processes.

Similar threads

  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
68
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top