March 23, 2007
...Remember how Bush and Cheney wouldn’t go under oath or even On the Record for the 9/11 Commission? And how they would only talk together, to keep their bullshit story straight?
...thrill to the antics of the White House Press Corps as they lure Snow into a trap he may never escape.
Q Then you had the 9/11 Commission, we’re having conversations, nothing under oath. And now this.
MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. The 9/11 Commission, number one, was authorized by Congress and signed by the President and supported by the administration. What we were trying to do was, again, to avoid the kind of precedent that we’re talking about now, which is to bring senior aides up under oath. So what you ended up having were, in fact — I think they were categorized as briefings. They used that particular — they used that formulation for precisely the same reasons I’m talking about now.
So I don’t think this is a matter of transparency. This is a matter of trying to have — what do you mean? Condoleezza Rice was on there and she was facing tough questioning from Richard BenVeniste —
Q But certain people — the Vice President and the President would not testify under oath. You had “conversations” at that time. And there’s a —
MR. SNOW: Yes. That’s perfectly appropriate.
Q You used the word “avoid.” There is an avoidance, it seems, of this administration to sit down and talk on the record, under oath, about critical issues.
MR. SNOW: What you’re saying is that every time somebody wants to try to mount a charge you ought to be able to get hauled up and testify under oath, with a presumption of criminality, rather than a presumption of goodwill. I’m not going to buy that.
Q Was it criminal, 9/11 — was that criminal?
MR. SNOW: No. What I’m saying is that the 9/11 Commission, we participated fully.
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_CNN_Employ_Magical_Psychic_News_Announcers';
From my favorite source for political satire:
The Internets are buzzing with the bizarre story of BBC News reporting the 9/11 collapse of WTC7 before the building actually collapsed - all over a live shot of Ground Zero, with the 47-story highrise clearly in view and clearly standing.
What it "proves" is anyone’s guess, but it sure makes for hilarious viewing. But BBC reporters and anchors who maybe didn’t know the Manhattan skyline so well could possibly be forgiven for reporting an erroneous story and not knowing that great big highrise was World Trade Center 7 (otherwise known as the Salomon Brothers building). So why doesn’t the BBC simply say it got a story wrong and didn’t know any better? Stranger still, why did New York-based CNN anchor Aaron Brown do the same exact thing on September 11, 2001? We’ve got all the creepy video and much more to make your head asplode, after the jump.
First, the BBC video which has been posted and then +deleted+by+Google and then posted and then deleted by YouTube again and again this week. The great big highrise next to the lady reporter’s head is WTC7:
"Google’s home page has this little “How to of the Day” feature with links to WikiHow, “The How-To Manual That Anyone Can Write or Edit.”
Because political reality isn’t outrageous enough, today we learn how to write political fiction. For a truly successful work of political fiction, you apparently need to pull off a huge “terrorist attack” and then get some bogus congressional committee to collect all the “evidence” in a “report.” Instant bestseller!
UPDATE: Damn, Cheney already had the picture removed! Good thing we got the screenshot."
At Wonkette, thanks, 7man.