Simple question..Why has the White House stonewalled the 9/11 investigation?

And why are they against extending it?

Do they have something to hide? Why not give them all the time they need?

It seems they fear something. Do they really not want what may have been done to stop it to get out?

It’s certainly beginning to look that way. According to this morning’s Washington Post:

A lengthy court battle over the notes would serve nicely to prevent the information from being considered in the commision’s final report.

Simple answer: It’s same thing that always gets the Bush White House in trouble. Bush knows that often poor decisions get made by committee and that generally better decisions get made by a small number of trusted people. He errantly thinks that’s how governments should be run. He’s not a proponent of open government and thinks things should be worked out in small rooms, preferably one-on-one. That’s how I prefer to settle my affairs, too. But I’m not a government.

It worked for him in Texas. Despite the same sunshine laws that exist in many other states, Texas is a “let’s meet and work it out” kind of state, politically speaking. The Federal government isn’t (and shouldn’t) work that way. Someone needs to take him in to a small room and explain it to him, preferably one-on-one.

I think Manhattan is close but a little wide.

It’s not so much that small groups make better decisions.

I think it’s that this is an administration composed largely of players who formed their work practices in the corporate world as opposed to the government world. And secrecy in decision making is second nature in the corporate world. A small group make decisions, then give the orders to subordinates without necessarily bothering to explain the whys and wherefores.

As Manhattan said…I recognize myself in there. VERY infrequently does my staff know everything about why we’re launching some initiative. They just need to know what to do. I like it that way.

It really is a sad day for America.

Yeah, that must be it! Its, like, a procedural sort of thing. Not that they’re trying to keep anything under wraps, nosiree Bob. Well, now that you explain it to me, clearly there’s nothing more to see here, we should all just move along.

Thanks for clearing all that up, guys!

So in other words, you have nothing to offer but your usual backhanded comments, right elucidator?

I, for one, am indifferent. Knowing who screwed up makes not a whit of difference to me. Let them finish the investigation. Or not. Doesn’t really matter.

Why, thanks for noticing, Air! I shall, of course, continue to regard you as the very model of cogent debate.

Wouldn’t knowing what went wrong help in fixing it in the future?

I understand what you are saying about the decision process. But what the hell does it have to do with stonewalling the investigation?

Dave. You really don’t want to know who dropped the ball on 9/11 if the ball was dropped? Why do you not care?

Stonewalling will be used in the campaign this year I am sure.

Hi…just joined and this thread caught my eye.

Has the following story ever been discussed in this forum?

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 …

Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 9/11 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA? Neil Mackay investigates

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.[…]

[Material redacted out of copyright concerns. Please post links or short excerpts only. --Gaudere]

Welcome to the boards! Yes, the story, in its many incarnations, has been discussed before. And for future reference, you shouldn’t post entire copyrighted works here.

Regardless, here is an effective rebuttal to all those goofy 9-11 conspiracy stories.

I find this attitude astonishing. Don’t you think finding who and how it happened mght be useful in preventing more tragedies?

I thought we shoudn’t post full stories like that… put a link next time please.

If Bush is stonewalling on purpose he is a fool… its practically impossible to pin 9/11 on him clearly… even if he was incompetent.


That’s the way to fight ignorance. Make fun of the poster.

But then why should I expect better of you?

Relax, I mock the story, not the poster. Since there are no followup stories to it, not to mention a utter lack of coverage from the bigger outlets (BBC, CNN, FNC, etc), I am fairly confident in filing that story under ‘Tin Foil Haberdashery’. Stories like that only serve to distract from factual discussions of 9/11.

The small meetings Manny mentioned don’t work as well if the participants think that their semi-private musings will be spread across the front pages of the Dallas Observer or the New York Times. A presumption of leakage, or worse, examples actual leakage, inhibits the ability of participants in such meetings to speak their mind; call a spade a spade. That inhibition degrades the effectiveness of the group.

In trying to understand Bush’s motives for stonewalling here, we should be careful not to ensnare ourselves in the same flawed assumptions that colored the administrations case for making war on Saddam:

Powell’s Case, a Year Later: Gaps in Picture of Iraq Arms
As suspicious as Bush’s, or Saddam’s actions may seem, we can never intuit the workings of their minds with complete certainty. The only way to really nail down a case is with hard physical evidence.

What you are describing is the world of cronyism, not the world of corporations.

Maybe the how is important, but the who? Doesn’t matter who. Besides, it IS Bush’s responsibility, if not his fault. He’s the boss. No matter how much he wants to palm off responsibility on others, it comes down to him, period. On this point I’m not willing to let him get away. The boss is always responsible, and so the boss gets the rap. As it is in the business world that he so loves to say he’s trying to emulate, as it is in this case.

Realistically, even the how isn’t important. It’s perfectly obvious how it happened. What’s important is that we learn from whatever mistakes we may have made to facilitate the wackos that did it. Other than that? Doesn’t matter.

You guys want a name? I’ll save you the time. George W. Bush, with a little help from Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, and maybe even a little Reagan since he started our little assistance deal to Afghanistan and helped to create the situation that created the monster Osama bin Laden. There, now we don’t have to waste any more time or money on this report trying to name a few names who will inevitably be some second-tier scapegoats like Ollie North was in the Iran/Contra deal.

So where’s my money? I just saved the government a bloody fortune.

What Minty said.

This is not really some innocent issue of Bush preferring “one-on-one” meetings to unfocused committes. It’s more basic than that. He’s an autocrat. He thinks that he should give orders and that should be the end of it. He also thinks that he should never be personally questioned or criticized. he’s sees Congress as his subordinates and he sees this investigation as insubordinate.

He’s never had to be accountable before. People have always done what they were told, the help knew their place and the rules for other people didn’t apply to him. He is truly an elitist, an unreflective snob. Democratic government is a constant revelation to this guy. He can’t just tell people to shut up or give them written warnings. Those Democrats in the Senate question everything he does and Mr. Rove says he can’t even fire them no matter how impertinent they are.

I don’t know how much their really is to find with this investigation but I get the impression that ego has as much to do with Bush’s stonewalling as anything…that and he wants it to be disposed of before the election.