Anyone notice that Bush can't testify to 9/11 commission without Cheney?

I found it interesting that Bush will now testify before the 9/11 testimony but he demanded that he and VP Cheney testify together. Why is this? Well, to me it is obvious that Rove and Cheney believed that if the commission got Bush alone that he would say something damaging and blow their cover stories or that the commission would pick him apart so he needs Cheney to protect him and to cover for him and to get him back on track if he starts to veer off.

him to say: "Nope, it's only little old me!", "And I'm here to lie some more!"

Tweedledee & TweedleDUM

:)

;)

Did never saw Charlie McCarthy without Edgar Bergen at his side.

Same reason.

Anyone who believes that * is actually in charge is a delusional fool.

There hasn't been a republican president since Nixon who's been in charge. They've all been nothing more than front men. Including and especially their "God" Reagan.

I don't see the point of having them testify, if they can't be held accountable to what they might say. If an answer's really going to fry them, they can always plead the fifth, so it's not like they *have* to answer anything...

If it wasn't Cheney, he would have probably asked his Daddy or Mommy to sit next to him and help him out.

That's why it can't be done in public....

imo. Too bad we won't be able to see the body language from Cheney when Bush is speaking. Bush will have to speak, too. I can't believe the commission would permit Cheney to answer for Bush.

It's outrageous that they will not be under oath and testifying in public.

Was a Sat Night Live script used for planned "Joint 911 apperance?


POTUS/VPOTUS unsworn, still-unscheduled joint appearance before the full 9/11 commission will no doubt have many:

"Thank you for that excellent question, Mr. Ben-Veniste. I think Vice President Cheney should probably handle that one... " (as was noted by the ABCNote today!) - -

as they can "correct each other's memories" answering "Why was the administration so focused on Iraq that it neglected to heed Clarke's warnings about al-Qaeda attacks - why did you ignore the briefing Clinton's Sandy Berger gave you?", and "Why did you say the administration consider military action against al-Qaeda before Sept. 11 when the September 2001 Bush plan proposal had no such plan?", and "Why did it take eight months to develop an al-Qaeda policy that wasn't much different from the Clinton approach, and indeed matches the January 2001 Clarke proposal?, and "What did you do with the Hart/Rudman Report given you in Jan 2001?" )


Nice to see that Bush will cave to pressure/public opinion.

speak a coherent sentece, not to mention that he would be too fucking chicken to face these people alone, what did we expect??
Of course Unca Dick needs to be there to kick Chimp-boy under the table if he should accidentally say something honest.

Panel: "Was there any evidence at all that Saddam had WMDs?"

GWB: "No. OWWW! I mean, yes. Lots. All kinds."

Will he get a phone call and a 50-50 chance, too?

They could not risk Bush's testifying alone.

Will Cheney place his hand into a hole in Dubya's back? Will Cheney's ventriloquism really work?