Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I took this as another demonstration that Cheney is the sort of person who just makes sh*t up and pretends to know things he doesn't. At least he hasn't been pressing this line on talk shows for the past three years.

fog of war

Lynne Cheney's Role on 9/11

Clarke describes the "cast" of the room as "decidedly more political." There's the vice president. There's Condi Rice. There are several top Cheney aides. There's Cheney's wife, Lynne, "offering her advice and opinions." A military aide whispers to Clarke that Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on the crisis conference video monitor -- turning down the volume on the meeting Clarke has been running all morning! -- because she wants to hear CNN.

Maybe he got it from his wife?

Surely in that world, to admit that you didn't know would be worse than dropping your drawers. So of course (like Anno says) you'd say just about anything else. Is anyone shocked that this character would fabricate? Does he need some 'wife' to feed him his lines? I don't think so.
Lynne Cheney on the volume control, preferring the real(!) news is a nice touch though.

You'll notice that this is why Bush and Cheney would talk to the Commission only together, and only if they weren't under oath:

So they could get their stories straight.

Today it emerges that CHENEY is now the one claiming to have issued the "shoot to kill" order - -
but today's claim is that the order was issued only after some vague, undocumented phone conversation with Dear Leader.

This contradicts at least two other versions of the story that have been put out there: Bush has been going around claiming that HE gave the order; and someone in the military (CJCS, maybe?) also claimed to have issued the order.

All this scrambling, and the order was never even carried out.
They're not even GOOD liars.

Being a life long card carrying straight voting democrat, I hate to have to come to the defense of Dick Cheney. Your attack is misleading and unfair and, more importantly, it misses the larger issue and that is that Shrub was completely useless and the spent the morning writing a speech planning for the photo ops sure to follow

Having watached the entire presentation on CSPAN, which I would suggest you do this weekend, here are the important facts.

1) Bush's team found out about the first plane hitting the trade center almost immediately. He and they did nothing.

2) After the second plane hit the WTC, Bush knew the country was under attack. However, he and Carl Rove still did nothing. Instead they got in the car and drove off to Air Force 1 for the purpose of writing a speech to assure the American Public!!! That's right, the President started from the outset treating the situation as a photo op. Bush did nothing, either in his car or on Air Force 1, except work on his speech!!!!!!!!!!!!

3) Bush did even turn over operations to Cheney--they pretty much just fell to Cheney by default. Rumsfeld took himself out of the picture by also leaving his office for a photo op, to go be seen working on the damage to the Pentagon by the plane that hit it.

4) Cheney, to his credit did given the DOD the orders to shoot down planes. DOD never gave these orders to pilots!!!!!

5) During the entire time FAA had its head up its *** and told no one in the gov't what was happening

6) Cheney didn't stop with his calls to DOD--he even had the Secret Service (which knew more than anyone about what was happening and should be commended) call the air national guard at Andrews which lauched planes with pilots who did know they had shoot to kill orders. The secret service agent who gave these orders to a colonel byholding two cell phones, one to each year. Cheney and the Secret Service had to bypass DOD entirely to try to defend Washington.

7) Cheney did not know why 93 went down and assumed it was in response to his order, when he was talking to Rumsfeld. The news that 93 was down came from a military plane, supporting the assumption

8) Cheney lied to cover for Bush. He testified that Bush orally gave him the shootdown order at about 10:00 a.m., in a telephone call but there is no record of such call and no one with either Cheney or Bush recalls such a call.

Good thing Bigtime Dick wasn't under oath! He might have been compelled to say what Moe said.

Gee. Hee ro ic.

You think Cheney's claims about two downed
aircraft are weird; now they think that
democracy will be brought to Iraq!

Of course, there was that urban rumor at the time that Flight 93 WAS shot down by our planes. Perhaps that is just misinformation derived from Cheney's apparently misinformed comment to Rummy.

But suppose the airliner had been in fact been shot down and that was known? Imagine the torturous handwringing over that? We are prepared for that outcome now, but on September 11, how would it have been seen? Wouldn't it be far better to concoct a story - ala Jessica Lynch - of citizen heroes?

Now I know this Admin is incapable of keeping anything under wraps forever and there has been no leakage to suggest this alternate scenario actually occurred. But, if they could ...

My god, I have joined the conspiracy wackos.

Cheney apparently lied when he said he consulted with Bush before giving "shoot down" order to
DOD.
Cheney wasn't under oath, but could he lie freely to a federal commission like that? Isn't telling lies to federal officials a crime, whether one is under oath or not?
Martha Stewart was not under oath when she lied to SEC investigators, but she was prosecuted for that.
Would someone throw some light on this please?

I've long thought that the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania likely was brought down by external forces. The administration might have (wisely) figured there would be recriminations and second guessing about such a decision, so they concocted some bullshit "hero" story where the passengers fought their way into the cockpit and forced the plane down.

Why was it so far off course from DC? And in other plane crashes, the flight recorder conversations are eventually released (like the Egyptian Air sabotaging pilot). You'd think that if a recording existed that buttressed the Admin's heroic story of the "let's roll!" passengers, we'd have had a heapin' helpin' of it by now. Instead, nothing. The surviving loved ones were allowed to hear bits of the tape, but only after agreeing to confidentiality. National security being what it is.

An even wackier idea is that the plane's controls were overridden electronically. There were reports of weapons (in Popular Science, no less) using electromagnetic pulses to interfere with electronic devices, stopping car engines and dropping planes from the sky. You never know.

ecoast asks, without the slightest hint of any immodesty, (darn)"Isn't telling lies to federal officials a crime, whether one is under oath or not?"
Well, let's ask those same toothless officials if they enjoy being lied to --just to see if that will stimulate them to take the appropriate legal action.
Is it a crime? Is it a crime!
Bloody charade.

Moe Levine, I think you have put it perfectly correctly; in fact, i think you have grasped the essential facts better than any other comment (by mainstream media, blog proprietor, or blog commenter) has.

"Isn't telling lies to federal officials a crime, whether one is under oath or not?
Martha Stewart was not under oath when she lied to SEC investigators, but she was prosecuted for that.
Would someone throw some light on this please?"

Sure. "It's OK If You're A Republican" -- the First Commandment of the Administration -- covers so many things and also this.

Martha supported Dems. Ken Lay was Bush's biggest single contributor. Three little questions:
1. Which one's depredations did the most damage?
2. Which one has been sentenced to prison time?
3. How would you explain the discrepancy -- if you perceive one -- between the magnitude of the offense and the punishment?

ecoast wrote, "Isn't telling lies to federal officials a crime, whether one is under oath or not?"

Yes: Title 18, Section 1001:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html

I think that's what they dinged Martha Stewart on, as posters above imply.

William Safire, for all his other sins, is very good on civil liberties; he once had a column entitled 18 U.S.C. Section 1001:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00E12F73A5D0C7A8EDDAB0894DE494D81

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Muppets love Viagra!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Hire a car to feel higher!

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk