Well in a sense I do not agree. I to despise all the apologists for the Bushists, but I feel that just like me who is busy posting on the net and not effecting policy, they are harmless.
OTOH It does scare me that the opinions they express appear to be those of many in this country.
Absolutely. Look at how many of those who could bother to vote went for Bush.
Matrin and AQA,
Please stop in and proffer responses as to Why the Bush Admin’s so Reluctant to Put an End to the Well-Founded Rumors Surrounding GWB Admin’s Use of Intel re Iraq?
Yoou’re confusing right with ability.
Could someone sum this up? So, who’s testifying and under what conditions?
Public Hearings:
April 13-14: Hearing on law enforcement and the intelligence community, in Washington
May 18-19: Hearing on emergency response and the 9-11 plot, in NYC
June 8-9: Hearing on national crisis management in Washington
Private Meetings:
Bush & Cheney meet privately with Chairman and vice Chairman
Clinton & Gore meet privately will full Commission.
The schedule can be found at www.9-11commission.gov
Martin - - it appears that you have given up. I find this sad as you seem to be passionate, but only about the hopelessness of the situation. As another poster mentioned, i thought US was built on the (slightly) paranoid belief that you cant trust your government and that you should be ready to question and if nessesary boot the lying fckers out at any given point.
You appear to be accepting the facts as told, just because you cant change the past and there is no point in blaming anyone, because the stupid electorate dont really care anyway.
One thing that worries me is that you see everything in black and white - much like NumptyBush ( “youre either with us or against us” ). This together with your passive approach to questioning the current administration, makes me wonder - do you work for them?
sin
People who want to get elected.
The commission could issue a subpoena for Rice, but if the White House wished to fight it, they would almost certainly win under a claim of executive priviledge. The best bet is to convince Bush that it is in his interest to allow Rice to testify (yeah - ain’t gonna happen). But it would be fruitless, from the commission’s point of view, to throw this into the courts, only to have the courts confirm that Rice need not testify.
Quote:
Martin “So unless he has some clear cut facts in his book that go beyond the very simple opinions he is expressing on the news, I don’t think we need to worry about the “validity of his facts.” Because I’ve yet to see any.”
This is because you havnt read the book right? I think Yossarian would recognise that kind of logic.
Im not tring to hassle you Martin, but you do know that this post makes you look a bit, well, silly. Do you also believe that Mel’s new moovie is anti-semirtic without seeing that either?
PS.
Can i use “I don’t think we need to worry about the “validity of his facts.” Because I’ve yet to see any” as my tag?
sin
Please see later links, already provided, that he did so only under extreme pressure. Fox wouldn’t have told you that, though.
Pal, you’re the one offering Cheney’s “having to run the country” as an excuse for not explaining his own actions here. Obviously he has the time, contrary to your loyal assertions.
See above.
No, the only way to gain credibility is to tell the truth and to accept responsibility for one’s actions. If doing so puts one in conflict with the way the Bush White House works, that’s the fault of the Bush White House, isn’t it?
**mack Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde
Who really cares what the electorate thinks?
People who want to get elected. **
Well, Pres. Bush wants to get re-elected, and he’s got $200 million that he’s gathered toward that effort, and yet he doesn’t particularly care what the electorate thinks:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/19/bush_encounter/index_np.html
Nobody has mentioned yet how the White House retort didn’t come from a normal press conference, but from a release given only to (can you guess it yet?) … Fox “News”. Link
So Rice has time to feed the only major media outlet she can count on not to be critical, but she doesn’t have “time” to say anything under oath.
Not to mention writing an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post.
So, neither faction held the high ground after all.
Not true. I don’t know why people keep repeating this nonsense. Go to this MSNBC News site for the interview she gave to Peter Jennings last night (I saw it live). She clearly states that she will spend as much time in private as it takes. You may want to rip her apart on her insistance of standing on the constitutional principle of separation of powers, but you don’t do yourself any favors by propgating the “urban legend” of her not having time.
The MSNBC site also rebutts your FOX News conspiracy theory. And the transcript was already out there-- no press release necessary. All they had to do was (my bolding):
FOX reporter Jim Angle was one of the interviews at that time, and already had the transcript and audio tape.
Did nobody else catch the irony of ElvisL1ves criticizing the Bush Admin for releasing information only to Fox News, but citing to the Washington Post.
You can’t make this stuff up.
. . . Wait, I guess you can.
Speaking of making things up.
I’ve said this a number of times already, so I don’t have any real hope that my message will get through this time, but I’m not in favor of unaccountability and secrecy. I just think these hearings are a waste of time. I don’t think they’re going to accomplish anything beneficial.
People keep insinuating that if we don’t have these hearings, no one will ever have the opportunity to talk about what happened on 9/11. That’s ludicrous. We’ve been talking about 9/11/01 since 9/11/01. I’m willing to bet that no other story from the past decade – not Martha Stewart, not Enron, not Janet Jackson’s boob, not even the 2000 election fiasco – has resulted in so much talking, so many reports, so much speculation, so much investigation, so many movies and documentaries, so many changes to our laws, so many revisions to our policies, so many military actions, and so much influence on our daily lives.
We don’t need a bunch of former politicians discussing things in front of cameras to arrive at answers; in fact, I think that putting a bunch of former politicians in charge of the hearings is more likely to mean that nothing useful will come of them. And as if proving my point, ElvisL1ves was kind enough to link to an article (in the Washington Post!) that included the following:
Isn’t this exactly what we don’t need? For our 9/11 inquiry to turn into a partisan snipe-fest? For the question to change from “What went wrong and what can we do in the future to prevent these attacks?” to “Who’s more to blame, those bastard Republicans or those bastard Democrats?”
I feel confident that the American people will do an adequate job of holding Bush accountable for his mistakes (and the Democrats responsible for their own). But they’ll be held accountable through the election that’s coming in the next few months, and not through a Committee censure, or whatever.
I think the 1st Amendment gives a pretty good method. Specifically, free speech within the media and populace is, in my opinion, vastly superior to public hearings at the legislature.
So open the information up and let us sift through it. Let us publish editorials and discuss is at water coolers and on message boards. Let us write exposes and do news reports. The people can take care of this just fine without having surrogates on the Hill mucking things up with their partisan bickering.
I don’t know why they’d start now.
The Legislative Branch ain’t shit, but its ours. It’ll have to do. “petition for a redress of grievance”, and all that. I
t is of vital importance that we know if the people in whom we have invested an awesome power are wise and studious. The expression of that right is perhaps well placed with the media, perhaps not. But the New York Times can’t issue a subpoena to obtain the facts from a politician who would rather be fishing.
White House Asks 9/11 Panel to Meet Rice
She wants to present a private rebutal to public arguments about her public statements? Cake and cake. What could she say that would convince anyone, that the anti-terror plans were in Saddam’s closet, with the Candelabra? She tried that before with the yellowcake fiasco. It didn’t work.
That’s a fair point. Other than a FOIA request (which can be enforced through the Courts, but which I don’t think includes individual testimony) or public pressure, the New York Times would not be able to force anyone to turn over information. And I can certainly see how people would think that live testimony is a good way to get at the truth, since you can judge a person’s credibility by his or her demeanor as he/she answers the questions. Plus, it minimizes a party’s ability to use spin and preparation for its answers. So there will obviously be times that legislative hearings will be necessary to get to the bottom of certain issues.
On the other hand, I’m not enamored with the idea of using live testimony as a means of getting at the truth. It has certain advantages, but it’s also more susceptible to slips of the tongue, vague wording, mistakes, and faulty or unrefreshed memories.
Plus, the Committee doesn’t appear to be too enamored with the idea of subpoenaing witnesses, either. Obviously, they have the power to do so, but they seem to think it’s better to get the witnesses to testify of their own free will. I tend to agree with them.
Of course, it’s possible that subpoenas have been issued for witnesses and new information which were not available under the FOIA, and that I’m wrong about this, too. If I am wrong, then please correct me.