Which some radical communists might see as, oh, maybe a good reason for Bush not to be the one to appoint the members.
I will say that if I’m ever accused of wrongdoing, I hope I get the chance to handpick the cops who investigate me.
Daniel
Well, strictly following OP own logic, supposedly if OJ has murdered Nicole, then Bush must have murdered WMD, right? That’s news to me. I know that he murdered more than 500 US soldiers and unknown huge number of Iraqi children, but WMD? How did he murder WMD? Because everybody thought they were there and he went in and found that they weren’t?
I thought the main lesson of OJ trial was that even when you have a good case, you still have to present it convincingly.
Call me a Bush apologist. Try to excuse your incompetence.
hey New Iskander…
yeah you!
Listen, this isn’t really that hard to figure out is it?
waves hands to get New Iskander’s attention again
Listen! I think the OP wanted to say this:
Its very funny that George Bush is appointing the WMD panel to investigate himself. We all know that he has no desire to find out who distorted evidence because it will in some come back to prove himself guilty. Its very similar to OJ who has also has no real interest in finding Nicole’s killer because it was obviously him. The joke made reference to OJ’s half-hearted attempts to “search for the real killer” because as we all know OJ did it. Just like we all know that Bush in no way wants to find out why we missed the WMD evidence because on some level it will find someone in his government guilty. Likely someone very high up.
You seem to be the only one in the thread not getting it.
Okay go back to playing with your ball now.
And I can tell you the way this is going to go down.
Sure, today the panel is front page news, but by the time any real conclusions are reached, it’s going to be a paragraph or two buried on page 4, which no one will read.
And, moreover, the Bush folks will just keep repeating the phrase “intelligence failure” over and over, so much so that the general public will believe it actually was an intelligence failure. (Can’t wait to see the shot(s) of GWB speaking to an audience with that little backscreen behind him saying “Intelligence Failure”.)
I read the following with suspicion:
"White House officials said Monday that the commission being created to investigate intelligence shortcomings will decide for itself if it will examine a highly charged political issue: whether President Bush and other senior administration officials exaggerated the evidence that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illicit weapons. "
It all comes down to the President’s ability to establish the panel. Then, the “independent” panel can decide how to proceed, and in what direction to proceed. If the panel decides that its first priority must be to ascertain if any connection between Janet Jackson’s titty and Al Queda exists, then GeeDubya can shrug and say “It’s an independent panel! I got nothing to say about it!”
To expand Nurse Carmen’s perfectly delightful metaphor, this is more like O.J. establishing a panel to investigate why he was wrongfully charged in the first place. (Who hired Mark Fuhrman, and why? Why wasn’t Kato Kaelin’s possible culpability more thoroughly examined?)
GeeDubya asserting a right to establish the makeup of the panel is an invitation to play poker with his cards. Yours are dealt face up, he gets to draw twice. Its a crock, and worthy only of derision.
Still, we should be grateful for this recent addition to the “Wit and Wisdom of W.”:
“I don’t know all the facts,” Bush said. "What we don’t know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that." (emphasis gleefully added)
As soon as I saw that the panel reports back in 2005, I knew this was full of shit.
Actually I knew before that but it just confirmed my suspicions.
You know, somewhere out there, Bill Clinton is kicking himself for not thinking up this scheme. “Damn, that’s brilliant! Why couldn’t I have named a panel to investigate all those stupid charges against me?”
Of course, in some small way, this simply shows that Clinton has more morality than Bush does. Not that you could convince any of the Bushistas of that…
From a “Let’s restore honor and dignity to the White House” perspective, of course, this is yet another disgusting disappointment.
But the vicious politico in me is happy; indeed, this could hardly turn out better.
If the commission appointed were really independent, then if it had findings against Bush, he could claim it was a partisan hack job along the lines of Ken Starr. If they exonerated him of all charges, he could hold up their independent status as proof that he really is innocent. In other words, whichever way things went, he could spin them.
But if he appoints them, then if even if he’s found innocent, the commission’s results will be tainted and suspect. If they find him guilty, of course, that’ll be really damning.
By appointing the commission, Bush is guaranteeing that the findings can only hurt him.
That’s assuming that the Democrats do their job and don’t let anyone forget the commission is cherrypicked.
Daniel
Hmm… that may be a good point, Left Hand, as long, as you say, as the Democrats do their job properly.
I was going to say that this will likely be another Hutton Inquiry, which found Blair innocent because it was distracted from the real issues. Of course, despite being found innocent, Blair’s approval rating has dropped, not increased. I just hope that the American public has learned to at least question everything the government and government-approved bodies say.
I take this opportunity to refer to reader, once again, to the pellucid insights of Mr. Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Sic 'em, Josh!
Who should appoint the members of this commission? Is there actually any political process, when one party controls the legislative and adminstrative branches, to accomplish this in a way that would be acceptable to the other side?
Appoint John McCain Chairman, and let him pick the rest?
But it would still be Bush doing the appointing. And McCain has been unabashedly pro-war. I’d be happy with McCain, and if you would also, that seems like it would cover a broad spectrum. 
Of course there’s the fact that he already has a full-time job… But let’s just say we both agree that someone like McCain who is available for the job would be OK.
John Mace has a good point. I guess it’d be hard to figure out who actually should choose, since everybody seems to have a dog in this hunt. One thing for certain, is Bush has the most at stake, so clearly should be the first to be ruled out. I do have a huge amount of respect for McCain, and he has shown a willingness to criticize Bush, but even McCain may be reticent to do damage to his party if the truth becomes too ugly. I’d certainly like to see him involved. On the flip side, I certainly wouldn’t want to see Daschle naming the comission. But there are several moderate Dems I wouldn’t mind seeing. Jeffords would be a twist, but he’s a bit of a lightning rod.
It really just comes down to not Bush, and let the Senate and the house duke it out. Hopefully there would be enough pressure to keep it on the up and up.
Oh, and New Iskander? Next time I’ll subtitle for the loose analogy impaired.
"There will be no whitewash at the . . . no wait
Just to jump on this before a Bush-leaguer does, President Clinton was prevented from attempting such a scheme by the still-active Independent Counsel statute. Saying that his failure to try it indicates a higher morality on the part of Clinton than Bush is a trap that I would urge you to avoid.
If a Pubbie wants to come in and play “woulda-coulda-shoulda” with this, the best course is to let him do his own digging.
Oh, come on, don’t let reality get in the way of a joke.
Though if someone does want to play the “higher road” card, they could point out that Clinton did sign the extension of the Independent Counsel statute that boomeranged on him. Supposedly he even muttered “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” as he signed it…
This is why, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Independent Counsel idea is a good one.
What would be a fair way to appoint this? Let the Senate Ethics Committee choose members: Democrats on the committee choose five members, and Republicans choose five members. Make their end report fully transparent, dissenting opinions and all.
If the Ethics committee is not the right body to choose commission members, then choose a different body; just make sure that the commission’s members are chosen by folks on both sides of the issue.
Daniel
Please don’t. Subtitles do to jokes what politics do to a good company. Apparently, you have many admirers; take care of them and leave one lonely curmudgeon wallow in misery. This is not a hospital, Nurse; you don’t have to attend to everyone.