9/11 COMMISH FARCE

Bush and Cheney go before the 9/11 Commission today. Ho hum...I can't imagine that anything of substance will come of their testimony. Hell, to even call it "testimony" is a farce. Here's the first definition of the word from dictionary.com:


A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.


Of course, there will be "note-takers" for the commission and for the White House. I guess that's supposed to make us feel as though there will be a record of what is said, as there should be. However, that just creates a situation in which there can never be a challenge to the veracity of any statements either side may eventually make about what is said. The commission might leak some statement and the White House will be able to say, "no that's not what was said according to our note-taker" and then release their version of the story.

In other words, what is said will not be recorded by an objective source, an impartial record of simply the words that come out of Bush and Cheney's mouths. Not that it would make any difference if we had a record of what came out of their mouths anyway. Bush and Cheney both said that Saddam had WMD before the Iraq war. Well, he doesn't and didn't and there have so far been no repercussions for Tweedledum and Tweedledee for these lies. The only people that have suffered the consequences of the Bush-Cheney mendacity are Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, their fellow soldiers, and thousands of Iraqis. Oh yeah, and we American taxpayers (as opposed to the un-American tax cheats) who are footing the bill for all of this well into our children's futures.

If it is President Cheney's intent to "strengthen" the Presidency, and it clearly is, one might well ask how strong he intends it to be. Napoleon strong? That's pretty strong, but maybe not quite good enough for our little Shrub. Hitler strong? Oops...was that an inappropriate question? Should I not have asked that? Don't dictators have the power to jail their own citizens indefinitely with no legal recourse? Don't they occupy countries to "liberate" them and impose their desired systems of government on those countries? Don't they babble on about amorphous, abstract "terrorists" and whip their nations into a frenzy about "national security" and promise to make the country "secure" at any cost from these "terrorists"?

Anyway, as for President Dick Bush's appearance before the 9/11 Commission, it's happening today yet it will have never really happened at all. The only hope of preserving it for history in any kind of objective way at all is if one of the commissioners wears a wire and records it. Bush doesn't answer questions anyway, he just uses a question as an opportunity to repeat his dogmatic tripe. But Bush ain't stupid--he saw what happened to the last president who testified under oath like a man and was beaten and bloodied by an hostile Congress (even though Bush has a friendly, kiss-ass Congress, he's still a pussy for not going under oath--yeah, I'm resorting to name-calling--it's OK, Rush gave me permission)


So what's the point? The commission gets to say they questioned the president and the president gets to say he relented to questioning. Which sounds nice, but it's all farcical hogwash and wastes everyone's time.
Over and out...