Sorry for the strong language, but I can't think of any other way to parse this. The way it works when you become a public servant, a politician in particular, is that everything you do on the public's dime is open to criticism and review, both by the public and the opposing party. A politician must be able to validate everything he does in office to the public. Without this validation, there is no accountability. If there is no accountability, no proof for a particular course of action, then citizens' faith in that particular individual, and government in general, is undermined. In this particular instance, without accountability, our country's ability to properly prepare for terror attacks is hurt.
I'm not saying compromising details of our fight in the WoT necessarily have to be given. What Bush should do is put himself on record in front of the committee, then if they ask something which he feels can't be revealed due to national security, he should, on the record, say that he can't reveal that bit of information. Easy. No sweat.
There is NO reason other than political cowardice or duplicity for Bush to not go on public record as to his role in the events surrounding 9/11, and neither one of those reasons should be sufficient for anyone to accept his refusal to appear on record before the panel.
posted
Sure there are. But there aren't any you wouldn't call cowardly or deceitful.
Example: How often would people inclined to think he's cowardly and deceiftful think he WASN'T being either of those things when he said, "No comment. National security."?
posted
O.K, if he has the flu or something.... But, given that he can invoke national security in his particular responses, what other reasons are there for not appearing on record in front of the panel? And are they more important than accountability?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if I'd put myself down like that, FG. I'm sure you can change your mind if you really want to. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I don't think I've ever started a thread where I had an out and out negative comment about a particular act of Bush. So, you people who are going to jump on the 'he's just a bush hater' thing can just can it right now.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you're a Bush-hater (and that term is stupid, I agree). I do, however, think you started this thread already thinking he was a coward and a liar, or one of the two. *shrug* I ain't a fan of his, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be kinda suprised to find out why every president after Nixon *didn't* do something like this, for purely political/re-election reasons.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The decision, following a practice President Ronald Reagan used in 1987 when appearing before a commission probing the Iran-Contra matter, removes the possibility the transcript would become a political issue and prevents any subpoena of it.
Well, that's an association that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the administration's motives.
*still amazed that Oliver North gets to be a respected public commentator*
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: One commission staffer will be allowed to take notes.
quote: removes the possibility the transcript would become a political issue and prevents any subpoena of it.
Don't they have really good shorthand takers in DC? The way I figure it, if a court reporter can put out a "transcript," I don't see why a decent stenographer couldn't. I mean, they'll be using a "staffer" to take "notes" but it wouldn't be a very big lie. I mean, after some of the whoppers Bush has told, do you really think he'd be upset?
sndrake, Ollie is a patriot, you goof ball. He's a hero, don't ya know. And what about Bush Sr. and Reagan? I mean, Bush Sr. was elected President, for Pete's Sake and Reagan is hailed as one of the best leaders we've ever had! Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush may want to rethink this plan. If the person taking notes doesn't like what he hears, the following could leak out. They may not be accurate, but we'll have no proof that they aren't.
quote:Wise and all knowing Committee Chief: Mr. President, what do you know about the attack of September 11th, 2001?
Bush: We were attacked on September 11th? I thougth it was 9/11?
later.
The cute and cudley Committee Chief: Did you or did you not know that Al Queda was planning to attack the US.
Bush Jr.: Well, yes and know. We knew that they planned to attack New York, but hey, that's a strong bed of pro-abortion liberal christian haters. I don't see why that should get in my way of invading Iraq. Then they surprised us and tried to attack me, God's choice if rulers for the world, by attacking New Jerusalem--er Washington DC. Well that was going to far.
The dynamic and oh so sexy committee Chair: What did you do to stop the attacks.
Baby Bush: I left DC. Old Man Cheney: And I went into Hiding. Gotta protect the old man behind the thrown. Bush: You are not the old man behind the thrown you wimp. CHeney: Am too. Bush: Are not.....
quote: The White House had originally placed a one-hour time limit on the meeting, which will be attended by all 10 members of the commission, but that time limit has been informally waived. McClellan said Bush was prepared to answer any questions the commissioners might ask
He's willing to answer any questions that they want to ask. That doesn't sound cowardly to me. Perhaps he doesn't want to just say "sorry, can't say anything because of national security", and instead he wants to tell this commision of trustworthy officials whatever they want to hear without fearing that the information will be leaked.
I'm not him and I can't speak for his motives, but I can see NO reason why he should feel cowardly or a need to lie about this. Have you guys read the memo?
This says that Al Qaeda was a threat and has been hoping to attack the US since 1997 . How was this new or in any way meaningful? Heck, I knew that before August 2001. Its incredibly vague and I certainly can't think of any real action to have implemented from that. If there was something specific to act on, I have full faith that it would have been acted upon. I mean, why would Bush, or any leader, intentionally ignore a specific threat that could be easily responded to? This was not at all specific and there was no available response.
This was not Bush's fault. This wasn't Clinton's fault. Before 9-11, Americans didn't want to face terrorism and so there was no reason for our presidents to be as agressive against terrorism as Bush is now. The fault lies solely with Bin Ladun and the terrorists who attacked.
No more finger pointing for political gain.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I've said repeatedly that I would be more than happy to see Clinton in the hot seat. There have been several high ranking members of the Clinton administration that have already been in front of the panel. I honestly do not know why they haven't called them. If they do, and he tries to weasel out of it, I will be the first to denounce Mr. Clinton.
I salute George Bush for extending the time period in front of the panel, but I think this just points to the inherent weakness of government investigating itself. The panel should be telling George Bush, Clinton, etc. how much time it needs, not the other way around.
I don't get why the memo is important in this thread.
The thing to remember is that this panel represents part of the process of fixing the problem. There are political ramifications to what it does and says, yes. That's good because it's both carrot and stick to motivate politicians to do what needs to be done(no political consequences, who cares?), and bad because it makes people on both sides of the aisle suspicious of the whole process. I don't know what the answer is. I firmly believe it's not just to let sleeping dogs lie. Sorry.
posted
I have a question. Would the people who think the commission is just an excuse to burn Bush feel better about the whole process if they made Clinton and Gore appear as well? Or would you still think that the whole panel was just a waste of time and we should, as some people have opined, 'just fix the problem' and trust our various elected officials to do the right thing?
After thinking about it, I can completely understand why the panel's failure to call the former president and vice president gives the panel an appearance of partisanship. Does anyone have any links or whatever that have any insight as to why this hasn't been done?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the commission is a waste of time, but it is certainly being used for partisan purposes. The reason why they haven't called Clinton, and I doubt that they will, is because there is no reason to. All of the info they would question him about they can obtain through lesser officials whose time is less valuable. Calling him before the commission would hold him personally responsible and thus blame him to a large degree for 9-11. This is exactly the same case with Bush. Yet, the partisan efforts are succeeding and the media has blackmailed him into going before the commission or forever appearing as though he has something to hide. In such an environment, is it really a surprise that he doesn't want a pubilc reccord that the media will undoubtedly distort and use against him? If you don't believe that this would happen, look at the memo. It says nothing of consequence and the media acts like it's proof that Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing to stop it.
The commission needs to focus on how to improve things so that another 9-11 could never happen. It does not need to interrogate our president or past president in order to place blame that doesn't go there.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the former President did appear before the commission, behind closed doors, without a transcript made. I guess that's because he's a coward or a liar . . . Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brian: Link? If it's true, then of course he is. Isn't it great when people use non-partisan standards for their elected officials? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Brian, thanks for the info. I found the story here . Boy do I feel silly.
I suppose that if Clinton went before them, it is only fair that Bush go as well. Yet, I still see no reason for it to be made part of a public record.
quote: I don't think that the commission is a waste of time, but it is certainly being used for partisan purposes. The reason why they haven't called Clinton, and I doubt that they will, is because there is no reason to. All of the info they would question him about they can obtain through lesser officials whose time is less valuable.
I sincerely doubt that is the case. "The buck stops here." If the president doesn't know about and approve of most, if not everything, in their administration, then I would guess something is wrong. A president is more than just a titular figurehead. If htere are rogue elements in a president's administrtion, then I think the president can say so and that will be something the commission, panel, whatever can recommend as part of the problem leading up to 9/11.
quote: Calling him before the commission would hold him personally responsible and thus blame him to a large degree for 9-11. This is exactly the same case with Bush.
Possibly. It would depend on what was said, wouldn't you say? As I've mentioned before, Rice did a good job of defending hte administration's actions leading up to 9/11. She did a good job of defending the Clinton administration, too. Ha. I think Rice has come out looking better after the hearings than before.
This is just another reason why it seems to me like a great idea to have a public hearing. Everyone sees the questions that are asked. Their applicability can be discussed by the general public. If they're obviously partisan or stupid, people will see that. On the other hand, if they're relevant and the person stumbles or has 'bad' answers, we can determine that, too.
quote: Yet, the partisan efforts are succeeding and the media has blackmailed him into going before the commission or forever appearing as though he has something to hide.
It would be a shame if he didn't appear before them because he understands it's his civic duty and not because he was blackmailed.
quote: In such an environment, is it really a surprise that he doesn't want a pubilc reccord that the media will undoubtedly distort and use against him? If you don't believe that this would happen, look at the memo. It says nothing of consequence and the media acts like it's proof that Bush knew about 9-11 and did nothing to stop it.
Some media does. Some media doesn't. There is no such thing as a general 'the media'. In any case, your link to the memo is just more proof that a public, open system works. Everyone here on this board can determine the relevancy of the memo. People can provide links and counter-links, arguments and counter-arguments so that we can all make up our own mind.
quote: The commission needs to focus on how to improve things so that another 9-11 could never happen. It does not need to interrogate our president or past president in order to place blame that doesn't go there.
I disagree for reasons already stated in this and other threads. In order to fix the problem, the actions of those in charge before, during and after the problem must be reviewed to see how things can be improved. The system MUST be political, with blame, or else why would elected officials care? Without it being open, and our elected officials accountable, no one knows whether or not these people were and are doing their job. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm- you've convinced me of a couple of things, but I still don't see any need for a public hearing.
We both seem to agree that the purpose of the commission is to find things that could be improved upon to prevent another 9-11. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) This seems like a good idea and then the government can fix the problems and everone is safer.
But why does this need to be completely public? Certainly the president is going to have some priviledged information that the committee could find useful, but would not be appropriate for the general public. Furthermore, making it public leads to partisan squables which discourages complete upfrontness. Keeping it private furthers the cause of the commision on multiple levels. The benefits outweigh the costs.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. National security is a huge headache for accountability. Obviously, you can't reveal things that would compromise it beyond a certain point. I don't have a good answer right now. Tired.
posted
I think that it boils down to one of the most terrible modes of work in the political realm that has developed into policy in the last 20 years...
Politics as a profession now operates on the policy of "Plausible Deniability" and "CYA -- Cover Your A**". Do what work you need to do, but never put your foot down on anything long enough to get caught up in it.
It's sad, but it comes back down to the men in the grey suits with the dodgy scruples running everything nowadays.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, given that he can invoke national security in his particular responses, what other reasons are there for not appearing on record in front of the panel? And are they more important than accountability?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
