This excuse presumes that the white house knows what information the commission needs to do their job. And just what job is that anyway, to find out what happened and determine how to make a recurrence less likely, or to sweep the whole dirty pile of fuckups under the rug?
Is there any evidence that the administration knows just how they screwed the pooch in the months leading up to 9/11?
The article didn’t suggest that at all. The act of withholding the documents despite the obvious perception of impropriety suggests it.
Or… here’s a crazy idea… rjung might have been waiting for some kind of response from the “other side.” Debates generally involve more than one viewpoint.
Well, since I pointed out the excerpt you mention, and posters still had questions, i don’t think it answered any.
As Squink and Reeder have already pointed out: maybe we should let the commission decide what information it needs, and what information is redundant. To me, this is kind of like someone on trial being able to prevent evidence from being presented to the jury, because “it’s nothing new… so don’t worry about it.” Why shouldn’t we be suspicious of something like that?
LilShieste
forgive the statement of the obvious, but since they are standing there trying to keep the goods behind their backs, they, uh,( at least themselves) think they have something to hide.
query:what the fuck could it be?? I mean, presumably the clinton folks know everything that’s there, and if there were a bombshell, they’d smoke it out without the documentation…But it must be something…
They caved:
Once again, the Bush Administration does the right thing after they get dragged kicking and screaming into it. :rolleyes:
I wonder if the administration will ask congress to extend the life of the commission by a month or two so that they have a reasonable amount of time to digest the new evidence, or is a half-assed job good enough for Bush?
From the linked story:
I’m surprised no one thought of that before. Bush is hiding Clinton’s documents, because the documents prove that it was all Clinton’s fault. :rolleyes:
And we all know that Bush must be covering something up.
:rolleyes:
Pretty much fits the standard definition of a coverup:
Please stop by and give an answer to why the WH is opposed to dispelling the nasty rumors about how it handled the intel in the run up to the Iraq war.
I like how Brutus states that Scotty’s statement is fact. Like he would have said the same thing about Clinton’s speaker. They are paid to spin and lie, its a FACT.
Bush’s problem is that he has built his whole persona as someone who is apolitical and above the fray and also around the idea that he never apologises or does anything to take political damage. That’s probably why he is so polarizing. I can’t really see how people are on the fence with him, honestly. He probably doesn’t have some extremely embarassing stuff there, but the fact that he has been against every single form of 911 investigation, does make you wonder? Maybe he just wants to hide the fact that it could have been prevented. I would have a lot of respect for the man if he came out in late Setember 2001 and said that he had made mistakes, and that he would correct them. He could fire someone that he pinned the blame on and he would be immune from it now. But he has always chosen the easiest way out, politically. Now he’s paying for it. I don’t think that he has any really big secrets to cover up, but the problem is that he has been covering them up for so long he’s screwed himself over.
Fully responsible? So it was Clinton in the cockpit of those planes?
:rolleyes:
The imagery in that article is funny.
How do seeds of terror reap a bitter harvest? Was this written by a 1st year college kid with 1 creative writing class under his belt?
Yea, how dare they let a little thing like evidence get in the way of arresting a citizen of another nation. Thankfully, we have a man in the Whitehouse who takes no consideration for the consequences of his actions. Whew.
This part I’ll agree with, but it fits Bush more than it does Clinton.
lol, this page also includes ranting on how the government can’t make us pay income tax, a boycott of France and French products, spends pages ranting on about “republic” versus “democracy” (making the funny mistake of assuming that “Republicans” are for a “republic” and “Democrats” are for a “democracy”) and charming little tidbits like these:
Really? I thought you were so for the concept of a Republic not being a mob of the masses… oh, nevermind.
Sorry, this is all jsut too funny. Thanks for the link.
Moderator’s Note: Do not make accusations of trolling in the middle of a thread.
Being clever about not using the word does not mean you aren’t breaking the rules.
The broader question is this one: why are Bush and his administration acting like defendants in this deal?
This is a bipartisan commission with the goal of finding out exactly what happened in the leadup to and in the time surrounding 9/11. Still, Bushco has stonewalled it at every turn, starting with opposing its creation in the first place. Now they’re going to great lengths to limit the administration’s testimony and to provide the relevant evidence. And–very importantly–it is not reflecting well on them in the press.
They have to be aware that none of this looks good, which is just about everything in politics. So why are they still doing it? The only reason I can see is that they’ve weighed the risks and benefits, and the risks of hesitant, incomplete cooperation are not as bad as the risks of complete cooperation. But why?
It’s clear that the administration was focused on threats other than terrorism before 9/11, but I don’t see that as damning in and of itself, nor do I think a lot of people would, even if they came clean about it. Aside from that, I never believed that the administration had committed any acts of commission or omission that might have encouraged or allowed the attacks. But they’re spending an awful lot of political capital to keep something from getting out.
That’s the $64 mil question that’s being asked. A very select few attack-Iraq-Bush-backers are willing to try to answer it. The numbers may change if the WH puts out talking points for other attack-Iraq-Bush-backers to c&p and paraphrase.
Identical questions could be asked about the investigation into the use of the intelligence to sell the invasion of Iraq to the US electorate, and the US Congress.
Apparently, the WH thinks that they do have good reason to be what could be very generously described as reluctantly cooperative. It’s apparent that there was a pre-9-11 consensus among some key WH personel that teh US should invade Iraq. The suspect use of the intel may be related to (an)other suspect agenda(s).
The WH’s secrecy has thwarted the American electorate’s right to deny consent to it’s government. The result is that the powers the WH exercised are not just powers of government. Basically, the affairs have been abhorrently un-American. They’ve violated one of the essential principles of “America the Free,” -the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
. The result is that the powers the WH exercised are not just powers of governmen"
Well, John Dean says Bush and Cheney need to be impeached, (and, uh, he oughtta’ know…)
I’m sorry.
I must clarify my position.
Please disassociate the king of the visigoths with a “pro-impeachment” camp.
When you lie to the electorate about a blowjob, that’s an impeachable offense.
When you invent, from the whole cloth, a pretext to rain down death and chaos (upon a people who you yourself in your own justification characterize as powerless to influence their government or its insane tyrant,) on a distant nation, that’s
a war crime.