What do they have to hide?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,136
Location
Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
Not much I can add to this. Funny it comes from the NYT, however. They've been some of Bush's biggest supporters.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0128-02.htm

Published on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 by the New York Times
9/11 Commission Says It Needs More Time to Complete Inquiry
by Philip Shenon


WASHINGTON — The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks announced on Tuesday that it was seeking an extension of its deadline to complete the investigation until at least July, raising the prospect of a public fight with the White House and a final report delivered in the heat of the presidential campaign.

The White House and Republican Congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally mandated deadline, now set for May 27, and a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension.

But commission officials said there was no way to finish their work on time, a situation they attribute in part to delays by the Bush administration in turning over documents and other evidence.

The commission said Tuesday that it had not yet received a commitment from the administration for public testimony from prominent White House officials, including Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser. The panel said it was still in negotiations over the possibility of testimony from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"We are telling the Congress and the president what we need to do the best possible job," said the panel's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was formerly governor of New Jersey, in announcing the panel's decision to seek an extension of at least two months. "Much work remains, and some hard work in finalizing our report."

The commission's vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member from Indiana, said the panel was "mindful of the politics" of an extension, "but if we do not have the extra time, we would not have as many hearings as we would like."

The request for an extension came after a day of public hearings in which the panel listened to parts of a taped telephone conversation from the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, in which an American Airlines flight attendant aboard one of the hijacked planes calmly relayed information to the airline about the chaos on board, including the stabbings of two of her colleagues and a passenger.

Although the contents of the tape have been previously disclosed, it was the first time it had been played publicly. The flight attendant, Betty Ann Ong, is heard describing how hijackers had forced passengers to the back of the plane and locked themselves in the cockpit.

"Our first-class galley attendant and our purser are stabbed," Ms. Ong quickly but calmly told an agent at the airline's reservation office in North Carolina. "We can't get into the cockpit. The door won't open."

At the hearing, the panel also sharply questioned former officials of the Federal Aviation Administration over why they had not merged terrorism watch lists that might have alerted airlines to block some of the hijackers from boarding the planes on Sept. 11.

The agency's former security chief acknowledged in testimony that he had not known until this week that the State Department maintained a special terrorist watch list, known as Tipoff, that had thousands of names.

The administration initially opposed creation of the 10-member independent commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Administration officials have acknowledged concern that Democrats, particularly the Democratic nominee for president, will try to make use of the report's findings to embarrass Mr. Bush, especially if the report contains any suggestion that the White House failed to act before Sept. 11 on intelligence suggesting that a catastrophic attack might be imminent.

The White House confirmed news reports last year that an Oval Office intelligence summary presented to Mr. Bush shortly before the attacks suggested that terrorists might be planning an attack using passenger planes.

"It smacks of politics to put out a report like this in the middle of a presidential campaign," said a senior Republican Congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Democrats will spin and spin."

An extension of the commission's deadline would need to be approved in Congress in the next few weeks, and the Senate authors of the bill that created the panel last year, John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, have already said that they are willing to try to shepherd an extension bill through Congress, although both have said they expect a fight with Republican Congressional leaders.

"I fully support an extension to ensure that the commission's work is not compromised by the Bush administration's delaying tactics, secrecy and stonewalling," Mr. Lieberman said Tuesday from New Hampshire, where he was campaigning in that day's Democratic presidential primary. "Clearly the president is not interested in a complete and thorough investigation."

Prospects for legislation to extend the deadline were uncertain.

The White House, which in previous statements had suggested that it strongly opposed an extension, said Tuesday that the final decision would be left to Congress.

"Congress is the one who set that deadline when they set up the commission," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "But we think it's important they move forward as quickly as possible to complete their work," Mr. McClellan said of the commission.
 
"At the hearing, the panel also sharply questioned former officials of the Federal Aviation Administration over why they had not merged terrorism watch lists that might have alerted airlines to block some of the hijackers from boarding the planes on Sept. 11."

Well, whoop tee do. We've known the answer to that since around 9/12. Bureaucratic inertia. Turf wars.

They ain't raised one question that could not be asked about the various agencies' data bases that could be useful in the War on Drugs--if the agencies weren't into the power trips of turf wars. Same for lots of other stuff...

The Lieberman quote is pure election-year politics.

Sorry, Malone, but this is the quintessential "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Art
 
Don't discount the political implications of a delay. Two more months puts the report on the street in July, 3 months from the election.

And yes I think Bush is a political animal. The way he is buying votes every possible way shows me he can // will not be leaving any unpleasantness untended.
 
"The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks announced on Tuesday that it was seeking an extension..."

If they're independent then why do they have to ask permission for an extension?

John
 
Kinda OT, but every time I think I've put 9/11 just a little bit behind me, something comes up. The latest is the recording of that flight attendant.

Makes me angry all over again, and though I am not pleased with President Bush's domestic agenda, his leadership shortly after 9/11 and the fact that he didn't bow to world pressure to treat it as a law enforcement matter (i.e. the staus quo) means he will get my vote, no matter how much I disagree with some of his act.
 
JohnBT, they're independent as to what they investigate. They're not independent as to the money it costs to do the investigating. "Permission for extension" = "We need more money."

Art
 
Funny it comes from the NYT, however. They've been some of Bush's biggest supporters.


If you really believe that.....


Well, let's just say it explains a lot. :rolleyes:


That's on par with saying that Peter Jennings is a careful, professional journalist who doesn't let his political views influence his reporting.
 
That's on par with saying that Peter Jennings is a careful, professional journalist who doesn't let his political views influence his reporting.
No, he's a corporate hack like the rest of them. And if you don't think the NYT is in sync with the Bushies, you weren't paying attention when their reporters and editorial writers were beating the drums for war against Iraq.

Sorry, Malone, but this is the quintessential "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Art, you dissappoint me. Spinmeister does not suit you.

What's hard to understand about this situation? The commission was put in place by a repug congress supposedly to find out what went wrong. This isn't some partisan fishing expedition like the Starr posse. They tried to do their job, and the white house has stonewalled most of their most important requests for access to information. Now the repugs are refusing to give them the time they need to do their job.

I ask again, "What do they have to hide?"
 
What do they have to hide?

Why don't you tell us?

This is the same lame old trick that Mikey Moore (the left's very own Macy's Parade balloon) uses. Ask a vague, seemingly filled with sinister mystery question, and let the handwringing and ignorant speculation begin.

:barf:

Make some specific allegations. Come up with one crumb of a remnant of a shadow of a piece of evidence for said allegations.

Ball is in your court.
 
It's politics, it doesn't matter if there isn't anything to hide...

Malone,

It really doesn't matter. The report is going to invariably contain things that will look damaging in 20/20 hindsight. It won't matter to the spinmeisters in a political campaign that the idea of hijacking jets and turning them into makeshift cruise missiles would never have occurred to anyone outside of a technothriller. It won't matter that the opposition party had been gleefully dismantling our intelligence community since the mid 70s. It won't matter that many of the plans to knock down barriers between different agencies sharing information and the creation of an Office of Homeland Security to look at all the intelligence for possible terrorist threats against CONUS were proposed by the Hart/Rudman Commission in 1998 and quietly shelved by the previous administration. What will matter is that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch.

We don't have polite discourse in this country anymore. Nothing is above politics. There is plenty of blame to be spread among both parties. If you think for one minute that the Gore administration would want that report released at the begining of the campaign, I've got some oceanfront property here in Southern Illinois I'll make you a heck of a deal on.

The very idea that one party or the other could have prevented the attacks on September 11th 2001 sickens me. Sometimes (expetive deleted in deference to Art's Gramma) happens.

The politicians on both sides of the aisle need to get over it already. There is no political hay to be made from an event so fantastic that it was incomprehensible. It's time to learn how it happened so that maybe we can keep it from happening again. National security needs to be bi-partisan.

It would be interesting to see how certain democratic candidates for president voted on intelligence matters since the Church Amendment reformed our intelligence services and are now castigating Bush for going to war on bad intelligence. If the buffoons in both parties had been in power during World War Two, the world would be a much different place. The Pacific rim and Asia to the Indian subcontinent would all be part of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere and the rest of the world except for Sub-Saharan Africa would be part ot the Third Reich.

Jeff
 
Meanwhile, they're still hiding things...

Again from the NYT:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0129-12.htm

Published on Thursday, January 29, 2004 by the New York Times
Bush Aide Leads White House Offensive on Iraqi Weapons
by David Stout

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — The White House went on the offensive today on the issue of Iraq's weapons program, as President Bush's national security adviser brushed aside calls for an independent investigation into pre-war intelligence.

CLAIM vs. FACT:
Condoleezza Rice & Intelligence

CLAIM:
"You are never going to be able to be positive [about intelligence]."
- Condoleezza Rice, 1/29/04 [Source]

FACT:
The Administration - and Condoleezza Rice personally - made repeated, unequivocal statements that they were positive that Iraq had WMD, and that their 100% certainty was justification for an invasion. Some examples: Rice said on 10/30/03 that "Saddam is the only tyrant of our time not only to possess weapons of mass destruction, but to use them in acts of mass murder." Donald Rumsfeld said on 1/20/03 uneqivocally that "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons." President Bush said unequivocally on 1/3/03 Iraq "not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction" and said definitively on 10/7/02 that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." Vice President Cheney said in August of 2002 "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

FACT:
"For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."
- President George W. Bush, 1/20/04 [Source]
 
Malone,
What makes you think the intelligence didn't tell them that? I seem to recall members of the congressional leadership form both parties being given access to the intelligence and not disagreeing.

I suppose if we want to get really deep into useless conspiracy theories, we could say that George Tenant, a Democrat and Clinton appointee gave the administration the wrong intelligence to set up just this situation. :what:

That makes as much sense as the administration going to war just because....Face it, we began dismantling our intelligence capability in the mid 70s. Then we got into it even more in the 80s lest the evil CIA overthrow Daniel Ortega, who seems to be loved as much as Castro in some circles in your party. By the time we really needed an intelligence capability we were left with what we have.

The fact is, no one from either party who saw the raw intelligence believed that Saddam didn't have WMDs any longer.

Malone, you're way to intelligent to really believe the administration made up WMDs as an excuse to go to war. One thing I learned in 29 years in the Army was that intelligence is usually wrong....Bush has done plenty I don't support, but I refuse to believe he sent men to die for no good reason. There are some things that have to be above domestic politics. War is one of them. This wasn't one of those things like bombing Kosovo or invading Grenada. Congress authorized this. A Democrat heads the agency that provided the intelligence. So are you suggesting a conspiracy at the higest levels of both parties? Or did Tenant provide faulty intelligence to both the administration and congress for his own purposes, or as I suggested earlier, is he working for the DNC to create this exact situation? Or maybe we just acted on the best information we had, and that information was wrong? Which is it?

Jeff
 
Why don't you tell me what they're not hiding? That makes just as much sense.
No it doesn't. You asked, and I quote, "What do they have to hide?".

Who says they are hiding anything? You would like us to believe that they are hiding "something", but what if they are just following standard intelligence procedures? Oh! That wouldn't be ominous and foreboding enough. Where, oh where, would be the handwringing in that?

Nah! No matter what the administration gives this commission, it won't be enough. It isn't beneath the fruitcakes running this country to demand that all White House butt-wipe used on the morning of 9/11 be submitted to the Kommisar for his perusal. Just in case Builderburgers deep within the White House were scribbling passenger jet coordinates and flushing them to Al Qaeda scuba death-commandos in the sewers. :rolleyes:


Jeff already outlined what everyone with any common sense knows. If you (or they) haven't figured out what allowed 9/11 to happen by now, then you probably never will.
 
Igor,
We used to have a quaint rule that both parties obeyed. It was that once troops were deployed, debate stopped until the war was over. Politics stop at the waters edge used to be the way we played the game in our country.

Just curious, what kind of location is NE EU? Covers a lot of ground.

Jeff
 
Grenada was mentioned above. I was in Grenada before the invasion. My boyfriend at the time was checking out the Medical School. I knew nothing of politics until about 5 years ago, so I was stupid to have even been there.There were Cuban soliders everywhere. Outside the radio station they had taken over. Riding around in pick-up truck with Automatic guns in them. That air strip that was being built was hugh. It was Cuban workers building the airport. I went into a shack to get a coke. There were posters on the wall that were hugh large with the picture of Ronald Regan's with "Down with the Imperalist Amercians" We were out on a beach one day---no one else there and a Cuban solider with his automatic rifle walked up to us and asked for money for him and his comrades hidden along the shore "watching out for the Amercian invasion" We had 5.00 to give to the cause. I was eating in resturant one night and a Grenadian whispered in my ear that the man siting at the next table was a Russian. Believe me The communists were there up to something and it wasn't to help the people of Grenada. I got me a machette and kept it under the mattress. I never wished for a firearm so hard in my life.:what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top