54 replies to this topic

[DWF]

Quote

what is he suppose to do?

Bringing in Osama Bin Ladin would be a start, it's been two and a half years now, and he's still free to cause even more trouble.

[G1223]

LOL  yeah and have the Kerry supporters call it a political stunt.  Timed to get votes.  He is in Catch 22 yet again

[Gaiate]

Anastashia, on Mar 7 2004, 02:59 PM, said:

Gaiate, on Mar 7 2004, 04:02 AM, said:

Shal, Bush let the author of the Bush-praising "Bush at War" see the daily briefs he didn't let the commission see.  He's not protecting assets.

--Te

Of course he is Te! I was one of the people that prepared input that in many cases eventually went into those briefs. Where do you think the information those of us preparing them used comes from? Assets! Those assets need to be protected. I can't say anything more on the issue. I feel myself walking on the edge of a line I'm not legally allowed to cross already.

I also doubt the people who do campaign advertising saw the info either.

Edit - In addition there's the whole issue of calling the President to testify. I believe there is some legal presedent that must be taken into consideration on this issue also.

Ani

Respectfully, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Some of the things the commission has requested were already in the public domain, such as the PDB that Bush showed the author I mentioned.

http://www.cooperati...commission.html

The last quarter of that page lists the impediments the commission has faced.  

--Te

[Anastashia]

and if they are already in the public domain they are requesting them why?

I also find it telling that the portion of the website you reference that talks about the impotance of protecting assets is titled:  "Initial attempts to undermine the establishment of an independent commission". Somewhat biased IMO and makes me suspicious of the neutrality of said website.  Not that I'm saying it's meant to be neutral I don't know anything about the organization that produces it.

Remeber the words "We can neither confirm nor deny". They may also have importance here.

Again I find myself constrained from saying much more in support of the White House's position.

Ani

[Gaiate]

Anastashia, on Mar 7 2004, 08:37 PM, said:

I also find it telling that the portion of the website you reference that talks about the impotance of protecting assets is titled:  "Initial attempts to undermine the establishment of an independent commission". Somewhat biased IMO and makes me suspicious of the neutrality of said website.  Not that I'm saying it's meant to be neutral I don't know anything about the organization that produces it.

Well, that's exactly what those references show: attempts to undermine the establishment of the commission.  It's common knowledge the the White House didn't want the commission to happen, at least at first, so showing that isn't a value judgement one way or the other.  In fact, I think it would be highly suspicious if they *didn't* show that.  Without an understanding of the climate in which the commission was formed, we can't accurately determine what's happened with regard to it later on.

--Te

[Anastashia]

My point is how was discussion of the importance of protecting the assets interpreted as "attempts to undermine the establishment of the commission"?

[Gaiate]

Okay, maybe I'm not being clear.  In and of itself, the term "attempt to undermine the establishment of the commission" is not a value judgement.  It simply means that the White House tried to stop the commission from being formed.

However, considering that at least one of the documents the WH blocked the commission from seeing, on grounds that it would jeopardize assets, was allowed to be seen by a guy writing a book praising Bush, it makes the WH's argument flimsy.

--Te

[Anastashia]

Here is where we get into the necessity of things being reviewed. It's possible that such a viewing should never have taken place in the broader context of things.  Also again "we can neither confirm nor deny" becomes relevant. How do we know

1. how much of the document this person saw,
2. how correctly did they convey what they were allowed to see?

Ani

[Gaiate]

It's been a while since I read the article on this, but I believe he was given an edited version the PDB, while the commission was given nothing.  Eventually, they either subpenaed the author's notes or threatened to do so.  I'll see if I can find that article.

--Te

Edited by Gaiate, 07 March 2004 - 09:29 PM.

[Gaiate]

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4208768/

The one thing it doesn't mentioned is the subpoena of Bob Woodward's notes (the author of "Bush at War").

--Te

[Anastashia]

Interesting article, I actually think I could make an argument supporting either side from what is there.

In tems of reviewing all these things, I actually got to be one of the reviewers of material that might have been seen by an espionage suspect (later convicted) in the late '80s. Our task was to compile a list of what was at risk, if certain things were compromised. Not an easy task that, one that takes infinite patience and 'attention to detail' as they say. So perhaps I take with a grain of salt blanket statements that such review is stonewalling or an attempt to delay proceedings unnecessarily.

Ani

[Gaiate]

I might agree if that were the only issue, but it's not.

From the first site I linked:

Quote

d         Budget and timeframe.

i     Designated budget and timeframe.

(A)   Summary.

(1)     The independent commission was initially provided with only $3 million and given only until May 2004 to complete its work despite estimates that at least $14 million would be needed. [AP, 1/27/03; Time, 3/26/03; New York Times, 3/31/03; Washington Times 1/27/03] After the commission warned the White House that its funds would likely run out by August, the administration reluctantly provided it with an additional $9 million from an existing emergency fund. [Reuters, 4/4/03]

(B)    Other investigations by comparison.

(1)     A 1996 federal commission to study legalized gambling was given two years and $5 million. [AP, 1/27/03]

(2)     $40-50 million was allocated for the investigation of the Columbia shuttle disaster which killed 7 people. [New York Times, 3/31/03; Time, 3/26/03]

(3)     The commission established to investigate the Whitewater controversy took some $60 million from the wallets of U.S. taxpayers. [CNN, 9/20/2000]



ii     Requests for more funds.

(A)   Summary.

(1)     The 9/11 Independent Commission asked the White House for an additional $11 million. [Time, 3/26/03] The administration, which initially ignored the request, agreed to provide an additional $9 million instead.  [Reuters, 4/4/03]

(B)    Observations.

(1)     Before the White House agreed to the $9 million increase, a Republican member of the commission suggested that the decision would make it �look like they have something to hide.� [Time, 3/26/03]

(2)     Before the White House agreed to the $9 million increase, Stephen Push, a representative of the 9/11 victims' families, said administration�s behavior �suggests to me that they see this as a convenient way for allowing the commission to fail. They've never wanted the commission and I feel the White House has always been looking for a way to kill it without having their finger on the murder weapon.�  [Time, 3/26/03]

(3)     A New York Times editorial noted, �Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically fearless inquiry.� [New York Times, 3/31/03]

--Te

[Anastashia]

Certainly a relevant complaint, except I would rule out the reference to the shuttle investigation. That one's like comparing apples to oranges when you look at the need to collect and dig into the physical evidence which doesn't really exist in this case. Plus it remains a fact that the money was provided. I'd have to see the timeline on the provision of funds in the other two instances to be able to make an accurate and honest comparison.

Ani

[Shalamar]

Quote

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on our country, the families of those who perished on that day became forever linked through our shared anguish and grief. But "the 9/11 families" are not a monolithic group that speaks in one voice, and nothing has made that more clear than the controversy over the Bush campaign ads.

It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of "The Families of Sept. 11." They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.

from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page
BY DEBRA BURLINGAME
Monday, March 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
'
(Ms. Burlingame, a life-long Democrat, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. )

[Drew]

I was just coming in to post this. Thanks, Shal.