Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation
WASHINGTON -- Chairman Thomas H. Kean, asked at a news conference a few weeks ago about the White House's requirement that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appear together before his commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, quipped: ''Well, we recognize that Mr. Bush may help Mr. Cheney with some of the answers."
Kean's remark sparked laughter among the assembled reporters because it turned upside down the assumption of the question, and of much of official Washington: that the White House requested the joint appearance, scheduled for April 29, so Cheney could coach Bush on his answers. While Bush has declined to explain the rationale for the joint meeting, Democrats charge that Cheney is a ''ventriloquist," and even a number of independent observers say it appears that the two men are trying to keep their stories straight.
Bush, asked twice at his recent news conference why he and Cheney required a joint appearance, declined to discuss the decision, saying, ''It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."
Bush aides have offered a somewhat more detailed explanation. Officials said they see the session as a way to tie together the testimony of many other administration officials. They also said that while the commissioners are free to address any subject, they expect the panel to focus on the actions on Sept. 11, and that because the two were in separate locations, though in constant contact, presenting the narrative jointly would allow for a comprehensive chronology rather than two largely redundant accounts.
''On Sept. 11, the president and vice president were in different locations when these horrific attacks took place, but they were in contact with each other throughout the day," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. ''It makes sense, from that standpoint, to pull together as much as possible."
But analysts said that explanation has not dispelled suspicions that the two men are trying to keep their accounts consistent. ''I've tried to think of a better explanation, and I can't," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. ''There's little doubt if the president had a better explanation, he would have addressed the issue."
Bruce Fein, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and on the Republican staff of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation, said such an arrangement has both constitutional and investigative flaws. ''A joint appearance sabotages the idea of a unitary executive -- the 'buck stops here' attitude of Harry Truman -- by enabling Bush to shift blame or accountability to Cheney when politically expedient." In investigations such as Iran-Contra, Fein said, ''customary legal rules require sequestration of witnesses in depositions and at trial to avoid tailoring the truth to avoid inconsistencies."
America Coming Together, an anti-Bush election fund, offered a less clinical analysis.
''Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy?" the group asked in a news release about the Bush-Cheney appearance.
The thinking of Bush aides, though, is that if the goal of the two men were to keep their stories straight, a joint appearance would not be required. Though the commission is not permitted to transcribe the session, the White House is free to do so, which means the second man to address the commission could read the answers the first man gave.
The commission in mid-February requested individual interviews with Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. Clinton and Gore accepted, but Bush and Cheney each said they would meet only with representatives of the commission. The White House also sought to put a one-hour time limit on the president's appearance.
The commission pushed for the sessions with Bush and Cheney to be for all 10 commissioners and without a set time limit -- a request the White House ultimately accepted, but with the condition that the session be a joint appearance. The private session will not be considered an under-oath testimony because of executive-power concerns voiced by the White House.
''The commission's response was it was a little unusual and a little unprecedented, but it was fine," said commission spokesman Al Felzenberg.
