# make case:joint commission appearance of Bush/Cheney doesn't scream mendacity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036 "2004-04-03T06:09:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/1 "2004-04-03T06:09:44Z")
can any Bush supporter (come one, you’re out there) with head held high, argue that the pitiful insistence that these guys appear together (to refresh each others memories, yeah, that’s the ticket…) is anything else than an admission that they intend to lie, and want to be secure from contradicting each other? Any other arguable motive? anyone? Bueller? Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/2 "2004-04-03T06:22:27Z")
Nice try, but you are using the 'Burden of Proof" fallacious argument-- that which is not proven false must be true… In fact, if you have a proposition, then it is **you** who must furnish the proof. Prove to us that they intend to lie. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/3 "2004-04-03T06:33:38Z")
not at all. I am deconstructing the interest the vindication of which is so important that they are willing to spend the political capital (tune in to Leno for more on this…)necessary to insure a joint appearance. In that vein, consider what obtains by the converse–well, the commission has to spend twice as much time, but hey, that’s no big deal if memory refreshing is needed, that’s ok, the refreshee merely answers the question :I’ll have to get back to you about that. No problems. (Unless one of the parties anticipates a major cognitive synaptical freeze–who might that be?) Is obscuration of the president’s mental state a vindicable interest? Maybe… Consider, as another way of looking at it, the following. Those who resist measures to make driver’s licenses harder to forge, are entering the analysis after the point at which someone, for some reason, has decided to present documentation which does not, in fact, match his or her true identity. ( I know that this seems obvious, but compare the inference there to the reluctance of partner Mace to draw an inference here…) In simpler terms, what interest other than the freedom to lie without being contradicted by the other’s remarks is served? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/4 "2004-04-03T06:40:23Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > In simpler terms, what interest other than the freedom to lie without being contradicted by the other’s remarks is served? Once again: that which is not proven false is assumed to be true. You may be correct in your statement, but by demanding that others disprove something, you have shifted the “burden of proof”. That’s not the way a debate works. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/5 "2004-04-03T06:52:06Z")
perhaps you object more to the form than the substance of my question, which, I confess, was tailored more to the constraints of the character limit I ran up against in the title dialog box, than the broader net I wished to cast. To put my quandary differently. If I speculate on the pros and cons of the president’s insistence on joint appearance, (and I stress, insistence), I confess that I confront a failure of imagination insofar as any benign motivation might underlie his position. In that vein, I was soliciting help from those whose estimation of his character was not, like mine, hopelessly poisoned by being lied to without ceasing for his entire term. To repeat, without reference to format, forum or evidentiary threshold, is there something that I am missing? Some benign interest served by insisting on jointly appearing? (again, I stress “insisting”) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/6 "2004-04-03T07:53:14Z")
I’m willing to give George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that the reason he has to appear with Cheney at the same time is simply because – if he were to appear before the panel by himself – his testimony would be two hours of “Uhhhh… I don’t remember.” As it is now, I suspect Cheney will be doing the majority of the talking when they face the panel. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/7 "2004-04-03T08:03:11Z")
Before we run off the rails here, why not let’s first establish who wanted them to appear jointly under the conditions they are appearing before we question anyone’s motives (i.e. let’s at least nail down WHOSE motives we are quesitoning). Let’s keep in mind that the commision is not composed of people out to get the President, but in fact people picked by the President. The head of the whole shebang is, for goodness sakes, Condi Rice’s friend and collegue back from when they worked together in a previous administration. I’d say the commision has plenty of decision making power of its own. Maybe they wanted both Bush and Cheny together. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/8 "2004-04-03T08:29:35Z")
I suspect it has to do a lot with appearances, that thier position as Executive Branch personnel be pointedly respected. They don’t really _have_ to appear and testify, according to the seperation doctrine. They want that doctrine preserved as a matter of constitutional principle. Richard Nixon, you may recall, was equally firm in his defense of constitutional principle. By insisting on negotiation, they establish that they are only doing this out of the goodness of their hearts anyway, and by no means are they implying that they are somehow _obliged_ to answer embarassing questions from nosy people. Hence, they insist on a public recognition that no precedent is being set by this unseemly display, that they retain the right to refuse such deference in the future. It is common knowledge that GeeDubya doesn’t do especially well in such settings. As the very embodiment of simple candor, he is apt to mispeak himself. Mr. Cheney will be right at hand to clarify, as need be. As well, Fearless Misleader is a “big” thinker, a decision maker and a visionary, such men seldom clutter thier minds with details, the actual who, what, and when of his decision making, he doesn’t know _exactly_ where the bodies are buried. Cheney does. He put them there. In a way, the excercise is an effort to _avoid_ mendacity, by limiting the number of potential situations where it might become necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/9 "2004-04-03T15:24:13Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Let’s keep in mind that the commision is not composed of people out to get the President, but in fact people picked by the President. This is not right. The 9-11 panel, which is to hear from Rice, Bush, and Cheney shortly, only had its chairman picked by Bush. The nine other members were picked by the Speaker of the House (x2), the Minority Leader of the House (x2), the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate (x2 ea), and one joint pick by the Minority Leaders of the House and Senate. You may be thinking of the Iraq WMD commission, which was created by the President and has not yet started its work. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/10 "2004-04-03T16:48:08Z")
re:apos I believe it is accepted that the joint format was at the insistence of the wh. Jamie Gorelick, in an npr interview, said the commission would prefer separate interviews both to provide maximum time for questions of each man, as well as to prevent “coordination” of testimony. I’ll try and provide documentation on the issue, unless someone has it at fingertips. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/11 "2004-04-03T17:00:12Z")
From letter, Alberft Gonzales to 9/11 commission, 3/30/04 “I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.” Granted, this implies but does not prove that the joint format idea orginated with white house–if there is really any substantive doubt on this, I’ll dig deeper but, really, come on folks… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/12 "2004-04-03T17:09:33Z")
“In a way, the excercise is an effort to avoid mendacity, by limiting the number of potential situations where it might become necessary.” Well, I, for one, am vastly relieved by this insight. Perhaps the beneficial impact of Cheney’s presence can be magnified by equipping Dub’s chair with a mild, yet obtrusive, electrical shock, energized by a button hidden in Cheney’s left shoe under his big toe…you get the picture. I am not, however, much persuaded that a benign motive has been discovered for the wh position. Apos’ valiant effort (“hey, maybe this obvious scam was the COMMISSION’S idea, yeah, that’s the ticket”) begs the question, embracing as it does the major premise (the joint appearance is fishy) but ducking the conclusion by caviling at the facts as stated. Let’s just assume, (hypothetically, if you demand) that the white house insisted. Trust me on this. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/13 "2004-04-03T22:22:52Z")
Burden of proof in the court of public opinion. Huh. Where does that argument fall on the scale of last resorts of the argumentless? Just a bit short of claiming patriotism, it seems. This is not a high school debate tournament; it’s politics. The OP asked for innocent explanations, and still none have been posted. **elucidator** , I’m surprised you didn’t quote Josh Marshall. [here](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_28.php#002784): > [@](#): > > Only three scenarios or explanations make sense to me. > > The first – and most generous – explanation is that this is simply another way to further dilute the Commission’s ability to ask questions. > > If, say, the meeting lasts three hours, that’s three hours to ask questions of both of them rather than three hours to ask questions of each – as might be the case in separate meetings. > > That wouldn’t be any great coup for the White House. But it would be one more impediment to throw in front of the Commission’s work, which would probably be a source of some joy for the White House. > > From here the possible explanations go down hill – in every respect – pretty quickly. > > Explanation number two would be that this is a fairly elementary – and, one imagines, pretty effective – way to keep the two of them from giving contradictory answers to the Commission’s questions. It helps them keep their stories straight. > > (It’s a basic part of any criminal investigation – which, of course, this isn’t – to interview everyone separately, precisely so that people can’t jigger their stories into consistency on the fly.) > > The third explanation is that the White House does not trust the president to be alone with the Commission members for any great length of time without getting himself into trouble, either by contradicting what his staff says, or getting some key point wrong, or letting some key fact slip. And Cheney’s there to make sure nothing goes wrong. > > These last two possibilities do, I grant you, paint the president and his White House in a rather dark light. But I would be curious if anyone can come up with another explanation for this odd demand. The committee \*will \* issue a report, and even beforehand there will be hints or leaks as to what it says, well before Election Day. If Bush is on his own, and reveals himself as being as clueless as the existing evidence suggests, that conclusion is going to get an inarguable official imprimatur at a very inconvenient time. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/14 "2004-04-03T22:49:47Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … > **elucidator** , I’m surprised you didn’t quote Josh Marshall. [here](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_28.php#002784):… I like to foster the impression that I am capable of independent thought and opinion formation. So thanks a lot, pal. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/15 "2004-04-03T23:16:59Z")
I found this article interesting: > [@](#): > > [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/04/03/politics1255EST0504.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/04/03/politics1255EST0504.DTL) > > Bush stubborn streak can make him slow to respond > > The White House continues to refuse to budge on releasing information about closed-door meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force, which crafted the administration’s energy policy. The matter is now before the Supreme Court. > > His dogged insistence in 2001 on creating a national defense against incoming ballistic missiles from hostile states wore down most of his international and domestic critics.The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using airplanes, undercut his early emphasis on missile attacks as the nation’s biggest security concern. > > Restricting Rice’s availability, and his own, to the Sept. 11 commission fueled Democratic criticism that the White House had something to hide in the controversy caused by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke’s accusation that Bush’s fixation on Iraq undermined the war on terror. > > When he finally capitulated last week and agreed to let Rice testify under oath and in public, and agreed that he and Cheney would go before the full commission in a private session, much of the damage had been done – and it looked like Bush was buckling to political pressure. Much more in the article. In fact I had forgotten about the ballistic missile shield which was so much argued about before 9/11 proved it was moot. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/16 "2004-04-04T12:33:15Z")
moot, shmoot. They are still budgeting big dollars and holding rigged tests every six months… What’s slightly weird about the joint thing is that it popped up suddenly–previously all the back and forth was about the wh position that it would be two members questioning for one hour and out. The time limit was the first hurdle to fall then the personnel limit… Maybe then they figured they needed cheney in there–like, one hour dub could do, but more was dangerous?? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/17 "2004-04-04T14:42:36Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > Maybe then they figured they needed cheney in there–like, one hour dub could do, but more was dangerous?? Sure! They probably had that all figured out in advance: 9 minutes of chit chat, friendly banter; 15 minutes of going to the bathroom; 20 minutes of Scott McClellan-like repetition of talking points without responding to the heart of the question; 16 minutes of commercial breaks. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/18 "2004-04-04T15:12:14Z")
Watched Bob Kerrey on the tube today and he said he didn’t care, and thought of this thread. Do you have any specific evidence yet that your OP (“insisting”) is in fact the case? I’m not trolling, I’m asking. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/19 "2004-04-04T20:23:11Z")
Kean also suggested he would have preferred that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appear separately before the commission, rather than together as they are slated to do under an agreement between the panel and the White House. from today’s reuters story [http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/339113|top|04-04-2004::13:47|reuters.html](http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/339113%7Ctop%7C04-04-2004::13:47%7Creuters.html) btw-apparantly, not content with fixing the forum, the fix is in on the verdict as well. “White house to vet, line by line, the report” Chutzpah? The mind boggles…The senses reel. Will they actually have the balls to either a)stall the report till post nov.2 ``` b)redact, a la the saudi section of the intell committee report ``` ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036/20 "2004-04-05T13:35:15Z")
Umm why must they appear together? Well who’s going to operate Bush if he’s there on his own? Hope Cheney has some gaffa tape to hand… sin [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/make-case-joint-commission-appearance-of-bush-cheney-doesnt-scream-mendacity/238036.md?page=2)