Bush undergoes 9/11 questioning

[winterbadger]

US President George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have begun their appearance before the commission investigating the 11 September attacks.

Mr Bush and Mr Cheney are not under oath, and no recording is being made at the private meeting at the White House.

from the BBC

Simple question: if they are going to tell the truth, why do they have to testify together and why can no record be made?

I can understand even the testimony not being open, if issues of national security are in play (though Rice was able to testify openly). I can understand why it would be thought appropriate to have the commission come tot he White House in stead of the president and VP going to the commission (though the president and VP seems to be able to go anywhere else in the country safely and without inhibiting their performance of their duties, if the end result is more money for their political campaign).

But if one were to set out to intentionally devise a circumstance that would demonstrate an intent to lie, a scenario that would justify the most outlandish of conspiracy theories, a situation that would conclusively prove that the president is as stupid as his harshest critics have suggested, I don't think one could come up with a better plan than this. Even refusing to testify at all could have a more positive construction placed on it than this.

Can anyone at this point have any doubt that the administration is corrupt, deceitful, and untrustworthy? I can't see how.

Comments

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

The refusing to testify under oath is the worst part, imho. It allows them to lie and not go to prison if caught.

[winterbadger]

I'm of two minds whether that's worse than the refusal to allow a record. That, I assume, stems from the knowledge that if a record exists, at some point it can be subpoenaed of FOIAed, even if only decades later. A variety of nonexclusive possibilities spring to mind:

1. they're going to lie and don't ever want anyone to be able to prove they did so

2. they're going to refuse to answer questions and prefer that the result be a "he said/she said" situation (Commissioner: "The president refused to answer my question." Press secretary: "The president answered all questions fully and in detail.")

3. they're going to give testimony that contradicts statements they themselves have previously made and don't ever want anyone to be able to prove they did so

4. they're going to actually admit mistakes or errors in judgement and don't want those on the record (that's the most generous light I can put on the situation)

I refuse to believe that national security concerns are among their considerations; if that were the case, they could have arranged to provide classified testimony (but that, of course, might have been declassified down the road, see #1).

As I understand it, others have been allowed to testify without taking an oath. I just don't understand how this is anything but an admission that, as Rigel says, one is planning on lying.