Yes, but only while the planets are aligned. Come June, pffft. Opportunity missed.
Good idea, Sam! And who is more likely to have the tippy-top ultra secret double clearance than someone who has been Commander in Chief! Who’s ready for the Clinton Committee! Or the Carter Report!
Carry this idea through, Sam. I will throw the full weight of my support behind you!
Me neither. But I’m still baffled that he’s going on the current course, since it holds the risk of giving the appearance of a cover-up.
I don’t think the Democrats have overplayed their hand yet – aside from a handful of eyeball-rolling statements, most of the stuff I’ve heard has simply been concerned inquiries.
Though I’m sure the GOP leadership doesn’t take it that way, since they’re all waiting for the payback shoe to drop (and not entirely without reason, after the way they raked Clinton over the coals for eveery imagined offense in the last seven years).
Did you read her speech , or just look at the picture? Here is the paragraph referring to the headline:
“rightly savaged?” Pooh.
The funniest part of it is that the headline was on the NY Post, which is about the most right wing paper I know of.
I don’t know offhand of anybody on the left “savaging” her for this, and I would have to guess that the folks on the right doing the “savaging” are “savaging” her simply for being Hillary Clinton- sort of the way the National Review fantasized about killing Chelsea Clinton.
Savages indeed. JDM
Chris Matthews tore her a new one over it on Hardball on Tuesday night.
I know that her speech was softer in tone than the picture implied. But holding that inflammatory headline up for a photo op was a tone-deaf thing to do. A good politician should understand the power of images. I think she does. She just misjudged the tone of the enquiry, and went over the top.
If you are saying that Chris Matthews is on the left, that’s pretty funny too. He has been a leading anti-Clinton figure for as long as I have been aware of him- all during the impeachment and before. I know he says he’s on the left, but then so does Christopher Hitchens. I think they’re lying, or drunk.
The thing to remember is that she is the senator from New York. Displaying the headline from a notable (unfortunately) NYC newspaper is perfectly valid to demonstrate the concerns of her constituency, particulary when the newspaper is otherwise 100% pro Bush.
Now I am sure Senator Clinton enjoyed holding up that NY post headline against Bush. That’s the same paper that in the mid 90’s ran a headline that said in huge letters: INDICT HILLARY!, in smaller letters: 80% say, and on the inside, in the actual story, that a poll had said that 80% of respondents beleived that if there was evidence of criminal activity on her part, she should be indicted. JDM
Comparing his desire to avoid needless, resource-wasting committees to a desire to keep all Americans under his control is “Moderate Criticism”? Boy, Tejota, you’ve got iron-clad logic.
This is what is known as an assumption. Note the first three letters of the word.
That’s it, of course! The scales fall from my eyes!
Our Leader, The Man Who Would Be Churchill, is not trying to cover anything up. This isn’t about any potential embarassing revelations! He’s simply trying to conserve energy and resources in a Time of War!
All those copiers running at Warp Nine! (“She canna take much more of this, Captain, the dilithium toner is buckling!!”) All that needless scurrying about!
The True American Patriotic Party isn’t concerned with such mundane issues as the retention of Power! Its all about thier fundamental opposition to dilly-dallying!
Feh!, as they say in Lubbock.
Elvis L1ves said:
Interspersed with, by my count, five insults and/or potshots at Bush and Republicans.
Gee, where would anybody get the idea that this issue could possibly end up being partisan, in an election year?
Whatever the Bushistas really want to conceal about 9/11 is already buried forever. That part we all just have to get over, it’s a done deal. Finito. No special commission will ever reveal what A said to B on the C phone, etc. and what may or may not have been decided at that time, what might have been determined to be feasible or likely.
All the White House is ever going to cough up, even under subpoena, will be inocuous data that points to nothing. Meanwhile they will try to hammer home their message that such questioning of the Executive branch “helps terrorists”. As if a lack of blind obedience equalled plain treason! As if the USA never had any system of checks and balances! I don’t know; for me, that sort of language does a much greater disservice to what America’s supposed to be about than just about anything I can think of.
As to what they’re hiding in particular … is it so completely unbelievable that the big pipeline across Afghanistan is a factor in all this, somewhere? Especially after the Taliban decided not to play ball with companies like Haliburton? Is it so inconceivable that there’s a memo somewhere, that suggested that US oil & gas companies would be better off if the Taliban somehow found themselves out of power? If such a memo ever hit the papers, there would be Trouble.
Taking US oil & gas companies’ exploitation of Central Asian energy resources into consideration, the “war” we find ourselves in is well within six degrees of separation of the Bushes’ financial and power base and its closely related Enron scandal. Which they’d (naturally) rather not have the populace reminded of as the fall election approaches.
Milossarian! Where ya been lately? Certainly not trying to think of substantive posts, obviously.
So what do you think of the OP? Got anything to contribute?
…and about a dozen at Democrats in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular.
What’s your point?
So you’re suggesting that executives from Big Oil hijacked the airplanes and drove them into the WTC, in order to blame the Taliban?
Because otherwise, I can’t see any reason why oil and gas companies have anything to do with the matter. Sure, getting rid of the Taliban assisted them. By that token, FDR started World War II because he wanted Ford to be able to sell cars more effectively in Europe.
Both sides of this debate are arguing about whether there should be a committee or not, and if so, who should staff it.
Both sides are ignoring that Bush has already proposed who should investigate the pre-9/11 errors - the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Before we create a hypothetical commission, what is everyone’s opinion on having these “public servants” do the job?
Sua
Both are pre-existing, permanent committees, and as such are complicit in any structural failure of the intelligence community.
In an ideal world, they would be investigated also.
So: (as it relates to the OP) it seems we break down finally into three basic possibilities
- Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Nothing to see here, looky-loos. Go away.
- Not much. Some potentially embarrassing tidbit, but no biggy.
- The Mother of All Brouhahas. Teapot Watergate Lewinsky. Weapons grade scandal.
My money is on 2. Admittedly, as an unabashed partisan, 3 would send in me into giggling fits unknown to me since they shot Ol’ Yeller. Still possible, ain’t likely. Seems likely Mr. Mueller’s family has begun pining for his ongoing presence, but beyond that……
So, then the question becomes: Why Bother? Why even take the risk for such small potatos?
Firstly, because the Pubbies have it mind to wrap themselves in maudlin, jingoistic patriotic bushwa. They intend to present themselves as the hard-headed, clear-eyed and realistic Action Team needed to protect America from the Evil Ones, and their sniveling Liberal dupes.
Secondly, and dependent clause. They must present Our Leader as firm, competent, and wholly trustworthy, half John Wayne, half Ronald Regan. Like trying to auger a hole with a Jello drillbit. They cannot allow the impression that Our Leader is either ignorant or indecisive.
I think, therefore, that they are hiding something that isn’t particularly important. What they are afraid of is an investigation that stumbles onto an ugly fact that they themselves are not aware of!
Placing my trust in human nature in general, and Republican behavior in particular, I await results “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces” (Twain)
tejota, that’s actually not a bad response at all. Ponder this, I must.
Sua
That different parts of the federal bureaucracy had information that might have prevented the attacks should not be surprising.
That GWB should not be held responsible for (say) a report from a Phoenix FBI agent that he never saw is clear as well.
However.
The current brouhaha is healthy insofar as it focuses attention on the Bush administration’s neglect to carry out necessary managerial reforms after 9/11. The task is admittedly difficult.
At the same time, I most definitely do not appreciate the current administration’s ostrich-like behavior.
Item 1: Tenet of the CIA claims there was no intelligence failure. Oh.
Item 2: Last week, Rice maintained that nobody could have predicted that Al Quaida would use a plane as a missile.
Hogwash. Indeed, 2 attempts to do exactly that had been foiled (against the Eiffel Tower and CIA headquarters). And the WTC had already been bombed.
As one defense expert said (paraphrase), when the DOD perceives an emerging threat, they appoint a “red team” and a “blue team”. The red team plans an attack, the blue team plans a defense. Then they get together and run a simulation.
I’d like to see the CIA conduct such exercises. And there’s no reason why the existence of such activities could not be made public, although the technical details could remain secret.
More generally, procedures should be put in place to funnel relevant information up the chain of command, as it were. Furthermore, I understand that there is a mismatch in the US Govt between its collection of data (copious) and the analysis of the same.
Item 3: Paraphrased from the Economist: “More generally, the Bush admin seems culpable of a broad libel against Bill Clinton. Ever since 9/11, Republicans have repeatedly claimed that the former admin was less diligent in guarding America against such attacks than Mr. Bush. Spies who reported to both White Houses say privately that this is rubbish (at least before 9/11). People like Ms. Rice were much more concerned about missile treaties than obscure Afghans.”
Item 4: Tom Ridge appears to get blocked whenever and wherever he attempts administrative reforms.
Item 5: Have there really been sufficient efforts to strengthening our vaccine infrastructure?
Item 6: When will steps be taken to inspect more than 5% of the cargo coming into the US in containers?
Item 7: Are there sufficient redundancies built into the core of our financial infrastructure?
Item 8: More generally, what would a taxonomy of terrorist threats look like? (Hm. Maybe we should pass that one to the Straight Dope International Security Board.)
Sua and Tejota, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians?
We can’t have an endless chain of investigations. An honest job will speak with credibility for itself, and ass-covering will too. Let the people with the authority and the access do the job, and let them be public with it.
Can you cite any historical precedent? Good luck; there isn’t really any. There has been a depressing string of treason and espionage cases involving government officials in recent years, but they’ve all been from the FBI, CIA, and Navy Departments among others. The persons involved have all been politically conservative, generally Republican, clean-cut, apparently solid citizens, etc. - but traitors. You can go back several generations and find the same thing. By contrast, there has not been a case of an actual security leak from Congress since, well, ever. Bribery and related corruption, yes, but not national security leaks.
You really have got to work on your facts, pal. A lot of people spend a lot of time cleaning up after you here.