A bad deal. Congressional Commission agrees to let White House edit papers.

[Hayabusa Rider]

While I believe there is more smoke than fire to the accusations of purposeful wrongdoing by some in regards to 9/11, many people want answers as to what went on. I also understand that politic ans also love to make hay out of the other party when they get a chance, and that Bush suspects this to be the case. Regardless, this administration has an extreme love of censoring documents, not just to protect intel, but to avoid criticism. Witness the unPhotochopped version of a report critical of the Ashcroft Boys. What was blacked out was only those sections that were critical of how things are being handled, not protecting "sensitive sources".

What do I expect will NOT be shown? Anything relevant.

Oh

obligatory link

 

[smashp]

Isnt it a fundamental IRony to Have a conservative President that Favors Secrative Big Government.


I thought thats The kind of Commie thing the right fears?

 

[UltraQuiet]

I am all in favor of as much transparency in goverment as possible. However, when it comes to national security there is a very fine line that has to be walked. For anyone who thinks objectively it is perfectly understandable that the White House doesn't want to release the PDB and it is equally understandable, based on past peformance, the concern that this admin. may be hiding something. Personally, if it were up to me I would let them see the docs. under supervision and make notes that I would check before they left the room, all under the caveat that if a single piece of the PDB's ended up in the press they would all be executed on the front lawn of the White House.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bushies are like any other administration. They want to emphasize the positive and obfuscate everything else. Although it is unreasonable to blame Bush for 9/11, it's not hard to imagine there's something in the PDB that makes the administration look bad (hindsight being 20/20 and all).

The problem with arguments about Venezula or Chile is that this administration claims failed states are breeding grounds for terrorism and technically any terrorist group with global reach is fair game for this administrations war on terror. If you put that argument aside, the embarassing truth is that Bushies were cheering for the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected head of state (Venezula) b/c they disliked his socialist leanings. It's kind of hard to argue the "Defender of Democracy" BS if that's the case.

 

[GrGr]

We know that the White House had plenty of warnings about potential Al Qai'da attacks against the US. To quote the Observer :"The administration had plenty of advice about Al-Qaeda. In January 2001, the outgoing National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally briefs Condeleeza Rice, his replacement, on a plan to stop Al Qaeda. Rice merely starts a slow process of policy review. Meanwhile various parts of the intelligence community are pushing the ideas of attacks with aircraft and terrorists engaging in flight training in the US. These include the plan foiled by the French to fly a hijacked jet into the Eiffel Tower and the plot in the Philippines to hijack 11 passenger planes simultaneously over the Pacific as well as the now famous 'Phoenix memo' from an FBI agent warning of terrorist flight training. In response to these pushes, there is no equivalent 'pull' from the top of the administration looking for and drawing in this intelligence. The US Congress decided last week to appoint an independent commission looking into failures leading up to 9/11."

Moreover we now know that the Bush on Aug. 6 2001 received a memo called 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US'. Condaleeza Rice, the National Security Adviser, publically stated that during the summer of 2001 the Bush Administration believed the " al Qaeda might hijack an aircraft and use it to bargain for the release of prisoner- I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center" ( Financial Times 5/18-19 2002, p.6 ). This statement is cleary a lie, especially in the light of the failed Al Qai'da plan to fly a hijacked yet into the Eiffel Tower. Rice also claimed that "We only expected a traditional hijacking." The Bush Administration ignored warnings from at least France and Israel (and possibly Egypt and England) that a terrorist action was imminent; it ignored warnings from FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota of possible airplane hijackings by terrorists training as airline pilots, and it ignored the CIA briefing to President Bush on August 6, 2001 (the 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' memo) stating that al Qaeda was planning a strike against the US.

I think the American people deserves to know exactly what was going on. Did the Bush administration actually expect Al Qai'da to hijack airplanes and did not warn the public? To hide behind "security reasons" as a means to cover up the facts is even more dangerous to the American people than the protection of a tiny bit (relatively speaking) of classified information.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I am all in favor of as much transparency in goverment as possible. However, when it comes to national security there is a very fine line that has to be walked. For anyone who thinks objectively it is perfectly understandable that the White House doesn't want to release the PDB and it is equally understandable, based on past peformance, the concern that this admin. may be hiding something. Personally, if it were up to me I would let them see the docs. under supervision and make notes that I would check before they left the room, all under the caveat that if a single piece of the PDB's ended up in the press they would all be executed on the front lawn of the White House.

Fair enough, but with one caveat. Since Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and equally accountable, they get to shoot anyone hiding documents or obfuscating. I am for equal opportunity execution in this case.

 

[SuperTool]

It's no suprise that a GOP congress is not an effective means of checks and balances on a GOP president.