Here it is:
[Quote=Newsweek]
One of the most prominent critics is former Florida Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat who co-chaired the joint investigation of the House and Senate intelligence committees into the Sept. 11 attacks. On Wednesday, in a press conference with two current members of Congress and representatives of families who lost loved ones in the attacks, he will once again urge the Obama administration to declassify the pages—a move the White House has previously rebuffed.
[/Quote]
The President established the system to classify documents and Congress is generally deferential on what he considers to be sensitive national security information. Note that the Senate’s report on CIA torture went through extensive White House review before being declassified, redacted, and released.
Congress could vote to declassify documents, but that’s an extremely rare event. So rare that I can’t think of a case right now. On the other hand, the President has the authority to declassify things with the stroke of a pen.
Thanks, though it seems odd for Congress to defer to the POTUS on classification of its own materials.
It may help to think of it in that the classification of a congressional report is undoubtedly based upon the classification of whatever testimony or documents that Congress received in the course of investigating the attacks. The fact that Congress may have summarized what it found from Executive Branch interviews does not mean that the Executive Branch has lost a claim to secret intelligence methods or whatever.
To put it in a different context, if I told you, “Hey, RNATB, I’ve got a secret – I have a hidden identity whereby I often go by the name of Clark Kent!” You probably would feel obliged to check with me first before sharing my secret with someone else, even if you would be the one actually talking to other people about my alter ego.
Okay, that makes sense. Though all bets are off if you’re Clark Kent.
You are probably correct, although it also runs the risk that some other simple-minded voters would not vote for Clinton.
I expect the 28 pages have nothing to do either with Bush 43 or Clinton 1 - they reference sources the government doesn’t want compromised, or something like that. So they don’t release the pages, and so Moussaoui is free to spout off with nothing to contradict him.
Oh well - maybe Wikileaks will get hold of them, and we will find out they are actually compromising love letters between Netanyahu and Caitlyn Jenner.
Regards,
Shodan
Hawt.
Shouldn’t that be Clinton 42? As opposed to Clinton 45?
Has anyone before now suggested they have anything to do with Bill Clinton? Or is this just your attempt to muddy the waters?
I’m not seeing a debate, here. It’s really more mockery.
Off to The Pit.
Dnftt.
“Dnftt” yourself, this may be just the break the BENGHAZI inquisitors have been looking for! You Go Ufel! Shine that light!!
Oh, good, banished to the Pit.
So, maybe I’m misremembering, but all of ufel’s threads seem to be either about which firearms do the most damage, or on quasi-governmental conspiracies. That boy’s starting to scare me a little.
I’m not all that simple minded, but I still wouldn’t vote for any of the Bush clan.
I meant that some easily influenced Republicans might be prevented from voting for a Bush.
I expect they would compromise elements of the Saudi government, and that neither party wants to do that when OPEC has been playing so nice lately - and when the Saudis are cooperating with antiterrorism efforts. Think Al Yamamah.
Who was President during the period that 9/11 was planned and set up?
Regards,
Shodan
That boy ain’t right.
Anyway, screw the 28 pages. Force Rose Mary Woods to release the 20 minutes!
For the last nine months of that period, your boy was in charge. (Well, his handlers were.)
Clinton had warned about Al Qaeda but the Republicans were too busy investigating his sex life.