April 30, 2004



Erm, s/John/Bob as we say in geekspeak.

Media Hound

The front page NY Times story doesn't mention the walkout at all:


The New York Post has on the front page, big font,
"Oval Office Insult; two 9-11 Dems walk out on Bush."


uh, ok, but I dont speak that, so could you translate?


Your first link says "John Kerrey", I think you meant "Bob". Just trying to be helpful, although I don't mind you saying you respect John Kerry.


InstaPundit suggests the 9/11 Commission in its totality can't be that important. Maybe it's just the Bush/Cheney collaboration that's not that important. After all the resistance maybe the Pres/VP deserved a snub. Maybe they were honored by the fact they all of the commission didn't walk out or just say nevermind. I mean whatever the Pres/VP have to say now after all the attempts at stonewalling/story-straightening should probably be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

Gary Farber

"former Senator John Kerrey...."

I believe you mean "former Senator Bob Kerrey."

If you look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/politics/29CND-PANE.html?hp

You'll see: "The session began at 9:30 a.m., as scheduled, officials said. It lasted until shortly after noon."

"The panel's vice chairman, former Representative Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana, and one of its members, former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, both Democrats, were seen leaving the White House around noon. The other panel members continued to meet with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney for a few more minutes."

Take your pick of versions.

Mike Daley

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey walked out on the President and Vice President because he had to: "Kerrey dashed to handle a private business matter - lobbying Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) for more money for his employer, the New School University in Manhattan. "
A pox on their houses for all time!


D'oh! Yes, I meant Bob KERREY and I'll update that.

By the way, the paper version of the NYT does mention the walk out, but just says "two members."

As to the idea that what they had to say was unimportant b/c they stonewalled, I just don't see how a Commissioner could take that position unless it was just pure pissiness -- unless the entire brouhaha was political gamesmanship from the beginning. The very idea of stonewalling suggest something of value being left unsaid. And besides, you wonder how they could manage to not know what happened the last hour.

Even if that's true for a regular Commissioner, how can it be true for the vice-chair? It either matters enough to go through all of this, or it was political to begin with, or they've either made up their minds, OR decided that if the two were stonewalling IN the session they'd just walk out. But if that's the case they should have the courage of their convictions and say to the press: we walked out in protest b/c the session was unproductive. Not do this mealy mouthed dance of saying they had meetings.

In any event, I put this on Kean, the Republican, not Kerrey (Bob) the Democrat. He's the one that cleared Kerrey for take off.

The truly annoying thing is them saying, well, it went longer than we thought. Excuse me? A big part of the fight was getting them to stay past an hour if the Commission NEEDED them to. The length of the meeting indicates SOMETHING productive was being accomplished. So, in the end, the WH ends up being more committed than the Chair, Vice Chair, and one of the (to my mind) most important commissioners.


I'm still mystified at the respect for Bob Kerrey, who I think is an a-hole.


"he said he only had an hour (since he's a little worried about, you know, this year's threats)"

Okay, this is either complete nonsense, or Bush doesn't give a hoot about "this year's threats" when he spends four hours at NASCAR etc.

Or both.


"for every snide comment about this was behind closed doors, every editorial noting that the American people deserve to have heard what was said I ask this: what did you have to say about former President Clinton's testimony?"

Both (actually all - Clinton, Gore, Bush, Cheney) should have been public (at least in terms of transcripts being made available afterwards), both should have been properly transcribed and become part of the record, and both should have been under oath. And Bush and Cheney should have testified separately, obviously.

The comments to this entry are closed.