We deserve more than one hour, Mr. President!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the 9/11 commission and the President's continued stonewalling of it. I hope that word lodges in the throat of all Bush cheerleaders and those who refuse to think the President has ever done anything wrong. Well, he's ****ed up on a grand scale for everyone to see. An article in the New York Times says the President opposed the creation of the commission from the beginning. In other words, he OPPOSED even CREATING an independent investigation to examine one of the biggest intelligence failures, if not the biggest, in U.S. history. How do you justify that? The President then OPPOSED extending the deadline, despite objections from the committee on the grounds that it was not yet finished. How do you justify that? Finally, the President has agreed not to testify but only to "answer questions" from the commission. But that's not even the egregious part. The President will only answer questions for ONE HOUR- and only from the top two officials. Why the strict limits? How do you justify that?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    He's a decisive leader in times of change.



    9/11, 9/11, 9/11.



    That's how they seem to handle everything.
  • Reply 2 of 44
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Look, another Bush-bashing thread! We don't have enough of those here.



    I'll admit he's no genius and he's made mistakes during his presidency, but come on folks! Must we have yet ANOTHER new thread every other day that's bashing this guy?
  • Reply 3 of 44
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Look, another Bush-bashing thread! We don't have enough of those here.



    I'll admit he's no genius and he's made mistakes during his presidency, but come on folks! Must we have yet ANOTHER new thread every other day that's bashing this guy?




    I'm not satisfied with some nebulous "he's made some mistakes" cop-out. The President's continued stonewalling of the 9/11 commission is a concrete example of one of his mistakes, and one I consider worthy to discuss.
  • Reply 4 of 44
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Maybe he's a little embarrassed people might ask why, after only 6 months in office, he took the entire month of August 2001 for vacation, then returned to preside over the greatest security failure in US history.



    I'd love a job where I got a month off after only working for 6 months.

    If I'd been busting my hoop and accomplished enough to coast for a while it might be OK.

    But if things went south immediately thereafter, I'd expect to get grilled over absenteeism.



    Maybe the Bin Laden family's meetings with Bush Sr. before and during the morning of 9/11 emits some odour that the admin doesn't want people sniffing around.



    Maybe the fact that Saudis were somehow exempted from the 'all planes grounded' after 9/11 and that relatives of Bin Laden were allowed to exit through US customs and fly home (after Osama claimed credit, IIRC) while everybody else had to wait on the ground might raise uncomfortable questions.



    Or maybe he just doesn't like being called on the carpet to explain himself.
  • Reply 5 of 44
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Look, another Bush-bashing thread! We don't have enough of those here.



    I'll admit he's no genius and he's made mistakes during his presidency, but come on folks! Must we have yet ANOTHER new thread every other day that's bashing this guy?




    Any chance of getting you to actually address the subject and not just cry about it?



    I think every non fanatically-partisan American should be for a clean and thorough investigation of one the the most transcendental events in our nation's history. Democrats want it, Republicans want it, and most Americans want it. What's the big deal? Why don't some want it?
  • Reply 6 of 44
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    My one comment will be this.



    Bush wants to own 9/11... his and only his to exploit.



    But guess what... he owns 9/10 too... even if he doesn't want it.
  • Reply 7 of 44
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    How do you justify that?



    He's busy at the rodeo.
  • Reply 8 of 44
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Here's the article:



    Quote:

    Bush Will Answer All Questions From 9/11 Panel, Aide Says

    By KIRK SEMPLE



    Published: March 9, 2004







    resident Bush will answer all the questions of a federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House spokesman said today, suggesting that the president will be more flexible in his approach to the commission.



    Commission members said late last month that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the commission, saying that they would meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush would submit to only a single hour of questioning.



    The apparent shift in the president's position today followed accusations by Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, that Mr. Bush was hindering the commission's investigation by not agreeing to more than an hour of questioning about intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the 2001 attacks.



    "He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters today. When pressed, Mr. McClellan repeated this statement but did not clarify whether the time restriction had been dropped.



    "That's what it's scheduled for, an hour, but look, he's going to answer all the questions that they want to raise," Mr. McClellan said.



    "Nobody's watching the clock," the spokesman said in another press briefing later in the day. "But again, there is a reasonable period of time that has been set aside for this meeting."



    The spokesman said the president still planned to meet only with the panel's top two officials.



    Democratic members of the commission, which has 10 members and is bipartisan, had said that the strict terms of the White House raised doubts about the president's willingness to cooperate. The commission decided earlier this month to reject the conditions.



    "If the president of the United States can find time to go to a rodeo, he can find the time to do more than one hour in front of a commission that is investigating what happened to America's intelligence," Mr. Kerry said on Monday at a campaign rally in West Palm Beach, Fla.



    The White House has never appeared to be a big proponent of the commission, initially opposing the panel's creation and, later, opposing its request for a two-month extension. Republican Congressional leaders have criticized the investigation's pace.



    Mr. McClellan said today that the administration had not obstructed the commission's investigation.



    "This administration has provided unprecedented cooperation to the 9/11 commission," he said. "It provided access to every single bit of information that they have requested."



    The commission has also been pressing the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to reconsider her refusal to testify at a public hearing. Ms. Rice has already submitted to several hours of questioning at a private session.



    Her spokesman, Sean McCormack, has said that the decision against public testimony was made at the recommendation of administration lawyers who warned of separation-of-powers issues.



    "Based on law and practice, White House staff members have not testified before legislative bodies," Mr. McCormack said earlier this month, "and this is considered a legislative body."



    Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are expected to be asked about how they had reacted to intelligence reports before Sept. 11 suggesting that Al Qaeda might be planning a large attack. Panel members want to ask Ms. Rice the same questions in public.



    Timothy J. Roemer, a former Indiana congressman who is one of five Democrats on the 10-member commission, has said that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had agreed to meet privately with the full bipartisan commission, and that Samuel R. Berger, Ms. Rice's predecessor, would testify in public.



    In recent interviews, Democratic members of the commission have been openly critical of the limits that the administration was trying to place on the interviews and of Ms. Rice's decision not to testify in public.



    Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor and a Democrat on the commission, had said that the the commission believed that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney needed to meet with all 10 members and that it might consider a subpoena for Ms. Rice if she refused to testify in public.



    Republicans on the panel had said that while the White House should allow Ms. Rice to testify publicly and place fewer restrictions on the interviews with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, that was not meant to suggest criticism of the White House.



  • Reply 9 of 44
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I read the transcript... McClellan never once says that Bush would stay longer than an hour. He probably will after all the bad press though.
  • Reply 10 of 44
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Tomorrow Salon.com will post an article about the Saudi flights out if the country . . . or is it the next day?!?!



    keep an eye out for it.
  • Reply 11 of 44
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I don't see the conspiracy with the Saudi thing. It does not seem like a big deal to me.



    The administration knows after an hour George will completely lose his training and start mumbling incoherently, probably breaking into tears by hour two.



    And careful what kind of time you ask for, for every 2 hours of actual work Bush gets a day's vacation in Crawford.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    pfflam, how do you know about the salon article?
  • Reply 13 of 44
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Here is a good one on neocons distorting intelligence:



    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/
  • Reply 14 of 44
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    <removed at the request of the White House>
  • Reply 15 of 44
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    I'm not satisfied with some nebulous "he's made some mistakes" cop-out. The President's continued stonewalling of the 9/11 commission is a concrete example of one of his mistakes, and one I consider worthy to discuss.



    Vhee Must DESTROY Hivm! It's zee FINAL SOLUTION!



    When a personal rage for a public official meets a discussion board... here we are.



    I agree. We need another seven threads on how much he sucks. Did we get this many for Clinton? Hmmmm...



    I love you guys.



    The Hegelian Dialectic



    Just like every president since Washington himself: problem, reaction, solution. Nader is right. There IS little difference between R and D. Bush should have to testify as long as Clinton did during the Lewinski depostition. Whatever works. But no matter what, we will never get to the bottom of it. We are all WAY out of out league here, folks.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I thought this was about Bush and the 9/11 Commission.
  • Reply 17 of 44
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat



    The administration knows after an hour George will completely lose his training and start mumbling incoherently, probably breaking into tears by hour two.





    That's priceless.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I think it's funny too.
  • Reply 19 of 44
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Any chance of getting you to actually address the subject and not just cry about it?



    No thanks. I'll just wait for the next Bush-bashing thread. It should be along any time now. I can't respond to all of them now, can I? I'd get a terrible cramp in my fingers!



  • Reply 20 of 44
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    No thanks. I'll just wait for the next Bush-bashing thread. It should be along any time now. I can't respond to all of them now, can I? I'd get a terrible cramp in my fingers!





    HYPOCRITE. "ohh i hate close mindedness....wahhh"
Sign In or Register to comment.