Earlier today, I mused about the idea that the 9/11 cacklers (including Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle) were up in arms over the President and Vice-President testifying privately and together, and not under oath, to the 9/11 commission. They railed on the President, as did the White House press corps, including an attempt to sandbag the President on the issue at the President’s press conference on prime time TV earlier this month.
Unfortunately, that criticism, as I mentioned earlier, is not widespread contrary to similar circumstances.
Take for instance, this quote from a Time Magazine piece:
It’s a disservice to history that Clinton’s four hours of testimony on April 8 went unrecorded?and that the commission has offered the same cloak of secrecy to Bush?but sources close to the panel briefed TIME on the session. One commissioner described the atmosphere in the SKIF as “clearly not hostile.” Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere. The former President offered to stay “as long as any of you want,” according to commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, who wouldn’t reveal anything else Clinton said.
What was that?
What did that piece just say?
Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere.
I can’t believe it! Clinton brought a lawyer AND his National Security Adviser? Imagine if Bush had brought Condaleezza Rice and his lawyer to his testimony? It would be the end of the goddamned world.
But this? One line in a Time Magazine piece and instantly forgotten.
Again, to reiterate my position, I have no problem with this. My problem is with the critics who only find a need to criticize when the person on the receiving end of the ciriticism is the President, and if you think otherwise, you’re delluding yourself.
By the way, how many of you knew this before I wrote it (and didn’t read about it today)?