Administration Faces Supoenas From 9/11 Panel

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman - The emotional rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

CkG

Are you suggesting the White House is cooperating? Or that it is right for the White House to proceed with out full cooperation?
Or that the level of cooperation is consistent with prior Administrations and thereby in keeping with precedent? Or that they are doing the best they can under the circumstances? (What ever they may be)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman - The emotional rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

CkG

Are you suggesting the White House is cooperating? Or that it is right for the White House to proceed with out full cooperation?
Or that the level of cooperation is consistent with prior Administrations and thereby in keeping with precedent? Or that they are doing the best they can under the circumstances? (What ever they may be)

What I am suggesting by reading Bush's comments is that they will provide the information that the panel seems to think it wants from the reports. However security breifings shouldn't be used as political tools - and it would be a bad scenario if every tom dick and harry review panel could supeona these types of reports in the future which could be used as political tools.

It already has been used as a political tool to try to bash the President with - take a look at these threads - all anyone does is "speculate" and accuse Bush of "hiding" or delaying. It shouldn't be allowed to be further used - no matter WHO is president.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman - The emotional rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

CkG

Are you suggesting the White House is cooperating? Or that it is right for the White House to proceed with out full cooperation?
Or that the level of cooperation is consistent with prior Administrations and thereby in keeping with precedent? Or that they are doing the best they can under the circumstances? (What ever they may be)

What I am suggesting by reading Bush's comments is that they will provide the information that the panel seems to think it wants from the reports. However security breifings shouldn't be used as political tools - and it would be a bad scenario if every tom dick and harry review panel could supeona these types of reports in the future which could be used as political tools.

It already has been used as a political tool to try to bash the President with - take a look at these threads - all anyone does is "speculate" and accuse Bush of "hiding" or delaying. It shouldn't be allowed to be further used - no matter WHO is president.

CkG

Bush's comments thus far indicate that MAYBE he will provide the documents. He's putting on a pleasant face for the public - after all, it is the 9/11 Commission. How good would it look for the administration to hem and haw and stonewall? But privately, that's what they've been doing on some of the documents being requested.

My question though: How will we ever know what the president knew and when he knew it without some of these daily briefings? After all, that is the point of requesting them. And again I have to reiterate (for what seems like the millionth time) that the commission will internally review the documents, you're already acting like they're going to leak them for sure. That's very presumptuous.

 

[LunarRay]

CAD
What I am suggesting by reading Bush's comments is that they will provide the information that the panel seems to think it wants from the reports. However security breifings shouldn't be used as political tools - and it would be a bad scenario if every tom dick and harry review panel could supeona these types of reports in the future which could be used as political tools.

It already has been used as a political tool to try to bash the President with - take a look at these threads - all anyone does is "speculate" and accuse Bush of "hiding" or delaying. It shouldn't be allowed to be further used - no matter WHO is president.
****************

I don't think anything should be supeonable that reveals means and methods.. At the least they should be reviewed by a Federal Master before being handed over. I think precedent should hold regarding the 'privilege' unless someone is alleging criminal activity. I think they are doing the best they can given the other issues that are as important as the 9/11 findings (IMO). The ability to invade presidential communication should not be allowed, again, if there is no criminal activity involved. If Congressional hearings open regarding an impeachable offense then I'd not have to rethink only the Means and Methods portion since the Congress has access to it any how but, may the rest of it considering some criminality would or should be alleged.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah, Cad, you can tell it to the victims of 9/11 when they ask why the White House isn't fully cooperating.

Correction: "Conspiracy accusation by the left." That's what I meant to say you said.

Just like I told BOBD....I mean nowareman - The emotional rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

CkG

Are you suggesting the White House is cooperating? Or that it is right for the White House to proceed with out full cooperation?
Or that the level of cooperation is consistent with prior Administrations and thereby in keeping with precedent? Or that they are doing the best they can under the circumstances? (What ever they may be)

What I am suggesting by reading Bush's comments is that they will provide the information that the panel seems to think it wants from the reports. However security breifings shouldn't be used as political tools - and it would be a bad scenario if every tom dick and harry review panel could supeona these types of reports in the future which could be used as political tools.

It already has been used as a political tool to try to bash the President with - take a look at these threads - all anyone does is "speculate" and accuse Bush of "hiding" or delaying. It shouldn't be allowed to be further used - no matter WHO is president.

CkG

Bush's comments thus far indicate that MAYBE he will provide the documents. He's putting on a pleasant face for the public - after all, it is the 9/11 Commission. How good would it look for the administration to hem and haw and stonewall? But privately, that's what they've been doing on some of the documents being requested.

My question though: How will we ever know what the president knew and when he knew it without some of these daily briefings? After all, that is the point of requesting them. And again I have to reiterate (for what seems like the millionth time) that the commission will internally review the documents, you're already acting like they're going to leak them for sure. That's very presumptuous.

No - I'm not neccesarily saying the contents will be used as a political tool this time, but it could in future ones, or even something like this current situation where you and the press are going ape over a not even threatened yet - "threaten to supeona". You see, if any "panel" was allowed to supeona these sorts of documents - congress could appoint a counsel to do it again and again.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ] You see, if any "panel" was allowed to supeona these sorts of documents - congress could appoint a counsel to do it again and again.

So what? This is a public office. They are accountable to the public. If they insist on doing their business in private, then they have no business working in the public sector.

As far as national security is concerned, Bush and his minions aren't the only ones with security clearance. Congress is perfectly capable of staffing an inquiry appropriately. The President cannot hide behind "national security" or "presidential privilege" when there are legitmate matters of national concern.

This is doubly true when we're talking about something with the magnitude of 9/11. This isn't some witch hunt about sexual indiscretions. This is a big deal, one of the defining events of this nation's history. If Bush can't rise above his political agenda for a national tragedy like this, why should the public ever trust him for anything else? A responsible leader, anyone with even the tiniest hint of statesmanship would bend over backwards to clear the air. It would send a message to others that he is not above the law in this matter and that he will show by example that he demands everyone's full and unconditional cooperation. It would help restore his country's confidence in government.

Instead, Bush remains true to form, stonewalling and dodging and making excuses to avoid any possiblity of accountability. Even other Republicans are unhappy with his lack of cooperation. Bush's behavior is a disgrace to this country and a slap in the face to all of the families touched by 9/11 -- and so are the apologists who defend him.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ] You see, if any "panel" was allowed to supeona these sorts of documents - congress could appoint a counsel to do it again and again.

So what? This is a public office. They are accountable to the public. If they insist on doing their business in private, then they have no business working in the public sector.

As far as national security is concerned, Bush and his minions aren't the only ones with security clearance. Congress is perfectly capable of staffing an inquiry appropriately. The President cannot hide behind "national security" or "presidential privilege" when there are legitmate matters of national concern.

This is doubly true when we're talking about something with the magnitude of 9/11. This isn't some witch hunt about sexual indiscretions. This is a big deal, one of the defining events of this nation's history. If Bush can't rise above his political agenda for a national tragedy like this, why should the public ever trust him for anything else? A responsible leader, anyone with even the tiniest hint of statesmanship would bend over backwards to clear the air. It would send a message to others that he is not above the law in this matter and that he will show by example that he demands everyone's full and unconditional cooperation. It would help restore his country's confidence in government.

Instead, Bush remains true to form, stonewalling and dodging and making excuses to avoid any possiblity of accountability. Even other Republicans are unhappy with his lack of cooperation. Bush's behavior is a disgrace to this country and a slap in the face to all of the families touched by 9/11 -- and so are the apologists who defend him.

yeah he's acting like HE did it or something (sarcasm)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ] You see, if any "panel" was allowed to supeona these sorts of documents - congress could appoint a counsel to do it again and again.

So what? This is a public office. They are accountable to the public. If they insist on doing their business in private, then they have no business working in the public sector.

As far as national security is concerned, Bush and his minions aren't the only ones with security clearance. Congress is perfectly capable of staffing an inquiry appropriately. The President cannot hide behind "national security" or "presidential privilege" when there are legitmate matters of national concern.

This is doubly true when we're talking about something with the magnitude of 9/11. This isn't some witch hunt about sexual indiscretions. This is a big deal, one of the defining events of this nation's history. If Bush can't rise above his political agenda for a national tragedy like this, why should the public ever trust him for anything else? A responsible leader, anyone with even the tiniest hint of statesmanship would bend over backwards to clear the air. It would send a message to others that he is not above the law in this matter and that he will show by example that he demands everyone's full and unconditional cooperation. It would help restore his country's confidence in government.

Instead, Bush remains true to form, stonewalling and dodging and making excuses to avoid any possiblity of accountability. Even other Republicans are unhappy with his lack of cooperation. Bush's behavior is a disgrace to this country and a slap in the face to all of the families touched by 9/11 -- and so are the apologists who defend him.

Could somebody please call Orkin? The crickets seem to be spreading.