9/11 commission is a joke.

[rjung]

@Ravenman

There’s no way the SDMB can investigate itself. It’d only be a waste of hamsters.

I’d trust the SDMB to investigate itself more than I’d trust the Bush Administration to investigate itself.

[elucidator]

Ah, nostalgia! When RMNixon, the turd that walked like a man, announced the results of a thorough White House investigation of Watergate: not guilty! I clearly remember straight-faced pundits saying “Well, that settles that! Moving right along…”

As to the investigative committee…me, Elvis, and Spavined G. might form the centrist segment. Going to need someone from the left-wing to provide some balance…

[mack]

@furt

Of course, part of the reason that was so was because restricting was official policy as advocated by a member of the commission among others.

“Declassified by James A. Baker”

Classic.

[Voyager]

@SimonX

From the former head of the intelligence services of one of allies in War on Terror

U.S. officials were concerned that Taliban supporters in Pakistan’s military would warn bin Laden of pending operations.
Pakistan’s just another ally in the War on Terror doing their part.

Indeed. And in return for letting real nuclear proliferation get punished by not even a slap on the wrist, Pakistan sends their crack troops hunting terrorists. I can just hearing them saying
<elmer> Be vewy qwiet! Were hunting tewwowists here."
</elmer>

[Cervaise]

9/11 commission is a joke

<Flava Flav> “Going, going, gone! 9-1-1 is a joke in yo town…” </ff>

[Merijeek]

@Voyager

Indeed. And in return for letting real nuclear proliferation get punished by not even a slap on the wrist, Pakistan sends their crack troops hunting terrorists. I can just hearing them saying
<elmer> Be vewy qwiet! Were hunting tewwowists here."
</elmer>

Just you wait…

I’ll bet that they either know where Bin Laden is, or they already have him.

All of this is a chance to "capture’ Bin Laden (or get a confirmed kill, I suppose) shortly before the election.

Two reasons.

First, of course, is Dubya’s election. He can go ahead and say, “See, I got him! What youze Demo’crat bitchaz gonna do now?”.

Second, it will show what a valuable ally Pakistan is, and so we can OF COURSE totally forgive and forget. Not that everyone doesn’t seem to have already forgotten.

-Joe

[furt]

@mack

“Declassified by James A. Baker”

Classic.

Please file both the declassification and your reponse to it under “hopelessly politicized.”

[Apos]

Please file both the declassification and your reponse to it under “hopelessly politicized.”

So is the accusation you make in your OP, Mr. beam in thy eye. You are repeating: what else, a highly politicized Republican spin point!

So let’s not get all high and mighty about it.

[mack]

@furt

Please file both the declassification and your reponse to it under “hopelessly politicized.”

You can call it and my response anything you want. Doesn’t take the stench out.

I don’t need to describe Baker’s relationship to the Bushes here, but as Counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, he declassified a document that the AG used a few days later to sandbag a member of the 9/11 commission? This is the Bush administration’s spirit of cooperation?

[Ravenman]

What are you people smoking? You don’t think that this “James A. Baker” is the the former Secretary of State, do you? Why the hell would James A. Baker, III, go from being a wealthy and influential politico to being a staff lawyer for the Department of Justice?

Here is a transcript from a congressional hearing in 1999 – a time at which James Baker, III was not allowed anywhere near an influential position in the Clinton Administration – which shows that James A. Baker was serving as Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations at the Department of Justice.

The name is just a coincidence, people.

[iamme99]

@furt

The whole thing is a waste of time, sez I. We’ll know “the whole, true story of 9/11” in about 25 years.

No, not a waste of time at all! It has opened up the innards of the Bush administration for the whole world to see. It has opened up the eyes of many middle of the road voters. It has provided many more opportunities for the Bush team to insert their feet into their mouths. And it has made Bush and his whole administration look even worse to the major media and general public. All of these are very good things and will contribute to helping Kerry win in November!

[Squink]

@Ravenman

What are you people smoking? You don’t think that this “James A. Baker” is the the former Secretary of State, do you?

Actually, I was thinking Jim Bakker, but I see now that he uses two k’s in his name.
Be a good choice for a Bush DOJ man though.

[furt]

@Apos

So is the accusation you make in your OP, Mr. beam in thy eye. You are repeating: what else, a highly politicized Republican spin point!

I wasn’t aware it was a “spin point,” but this is exactly my point. Open hearings in the most political season held by political figures ensure that nothing can be said without it being interpreted as anything other than partisan.

They could find out Bush was smoking crack on 9/11 and the Pubs would deny or minimize it or talk about Clinton. They could find out John Kerry made sweet love to Binny and the Dems would do the same. And both sides would happily float such rumors for the Committee’s consideration if they thought it would fly enough to get them some indignant face time on camera.

Yes I exaggerate. But not by much.

[furt]

@iamme99

It has opened up the innards of the Bush administration for the whole world to see. It has opened up the eyes of many middle of the road voters.

Resulting in that big change in polling numbers over the last month, eh? :rolleyes:

[elucidator]

Some folks is a little slow on the uptake, Furt. We’re working on it.

[Hoops]

@Cervaise

<Flava Flav> “Going, going, gone! 9-1-1 is a joke in yo town…” </ff>

Dammit, Cervaise, you beat me to it!

It’s a Dave Chapelle sketch just waiting to happen.

Sorry for the hijack. I’ll just be over here.

[iamme99]

@furt

Resulting in that big change in polling numbers over the last month, eh? :rolleyes:

Yup. Read the full story here: Link

Newsweek
Updated: 12:55 p.m. ET April 10, 2004 April 10 - After weeks of increasingly violent news from Iraq, presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts now leads the president in a two-way trial heat by seven points (50 percent to 43 percent), according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

Even after adding independent candidate Ralph Nader to the hypothetical race, Kerry enjoys a four-point lead (46 percent to 42 percent), with Nader drawing 4 percent of the vote.

[furt]

Ummm… from your cite:

Highly awaited testimony this week by national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice before an independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks has had limited impact on public opinion. …

Twenty-one percent say Rice’s testimony made them more likely to feel the Bush administration did everything it could to alleviate the threat; 15 percent are less likely to feel that way.

Don’t feel bad; take yer pick and spin whichever way you like

http://www.davidwissing.com/gen2004polls.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Here’s mine: it’s a dead heat, will remain so till the end, and reading much into a point or three this way or that is a chump’s bet.

[Apos]

Maybe this will change your mind about what the hearings are actually DOING, as opposed to just what people are motivated to say about them:

http://www.reason.com/links/links041604.shtml

I wasn’t aware it was a “spin point,” but this is exactly my point.

Exactly the goal of good spin, spun boy. Do you think it a coincidence that you came to decide to start this thread on precisely the time Republicans launched an offensive to try and pre-discredit the commission?

[Desmostylus]

@Ravenman

What are you people smoking? You don’t think that this “James A. Baker” is the the former Secretary of State, do you? Why the hell would James A. Baker, III, go from being a wealthy and influential politico to being a staff lawyer for the Department of Justice?

Here is a transcript from a congressional hearing in 1999 – a time at which James Baker, III was not allowed anywhere near an influential position in the Clinton Administration – which shows that James A. Baker was serving as Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations at the Department of Justice.

The name is just a coincidence, people.

Are you just making stuff up as you go along?

He’s not a “staff lawyer for the Department of Justice”, he’s “Counsel for Intelligence Policy”:

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. BAKER
COUNSEL FOR INTELLIGENCE POLICY
BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
UNITED STATES SENATE

As Counsel for Intelligence Policy in the Department of Justice, I run the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review that prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court). In that capacity, and operating within a system created and modified by Congress, I welcome the chance to provide the views of the Department on the nature and impact of the changes that have been proposed.

And if you want to prove that the guy in your cite, who at the time was “Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations” is some other James Baker, you’ll have to put some more effort into it. Look at the Wikipedia entry:

James Addison Baker III (born April 28, 1930), American politician and diplomat, was Secretary of State in the administration of Republican President George H. W. Bush.

Born in Houston, Texas, Baker was educated at Princeton University, receiving a bachelor’s degree in 1952. He then served in the United States Marine Corps for two years as a lieutenant, after which he attended the University of Texas School of Law, where he received his J.D. in 1957. Baker became employed with the law firm Andrews & Kurth, where he remained until 1975.

Originally a Democrat, Baker switched to the Republican party and managed George H. W. Bush’s unsuccessful Senate campaign in 1970.

He served as Undersecretary of Commerce under Gerald Ford in 1975 and ran Ford’s unsuccessful re-election campaign in 1976. Baker ran an unsuccessful race to become State Attorney General of Texas in 1978.

After serving on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign staff, he was named White House Chief of Staff in 1981, serving in that capacity until 1985, when he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Baker also served on the Reagan administration’s Economic Policy Council, where he was instrumental in achieving the passage of the administration’s tax and budget reform legislation package in 1981.

Baker served on Reagan’s National Security Council, and remained Treasury Secretary through 1988, during which year he also served as campaign chairman for Bush’s successful presidential bid.

Bush appointed Baker Secretary of State in 1989, in which position he continued to serve through 1992, being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991. From 1992 to 1993 he was named Bush’s Chief of Staff. He is credited as being a leading architect of the peaceful transition to democracy in Europe beginning in 1989. Together with President Bush, Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Chancellor Kohl and Minister Genscher he is one of the inspirators of German reunification.

During the Gulf War, he inspired the architect of the 31-nation alliance that fought alongside the United States in the first Gulf War.

Baker served as chief legal advisor for George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign and oversaw the Florida recount. He is currently (as of 2003) senior counsel to the Carlyle Group. In late 2003 he was drafted by the President to assist in the operations of the US-led occupation of Iraq.

He and his wife, the former Susan Garrett, have eight children.

James A Baker is a major Bush flunky.