Bush says no to 9/11 investigation deadline extension

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I don't see anyone in here saying we should quit looking for WMD and few (or none) saying we should pull out of Iraq. This investigation was started to find the truth (and in my already stated opinion it is done). The WMD in Iraq was stated as fact before hand and it should not take an indefinite search to find it. In other words not only is your argument disingenuous, it is trying to compare apples and oranges.

Try reading other threads and you'll see there are plenty of people here saying we should stop looking for WMD's. It has also been said that we knew of the 9/11 attacks prior to it occuring and it was said that we knew/thought there are/were WMD's before the attack, so if one should take an indefinite amount of time there is no reason the other shouldn't.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
This thread amuses me. All the people who want us to stop looking for WMD's and pull out of Iraq are here to say we should extend this investigation indefinitely. So we need to find the "truth" about 9/11, but we can't take indefinitely to find the "truth" about Iraq.

Go figure.

Wow! Who is backing away from the WMD hunt?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Gaard
9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline

A growing number of commission members had concluded that the panel needs more time to prepare a thorough and credible accounting of missteps leading to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the White House and leading Republicans have informed the panel that they oppose any delay, which raises the possibility that Sept. 11-related controversies could emerge during the heat of the presidential campaign, sources said.


Bush is quoted as saying, "No extension's. They have until the set deadline to comply or face serious consequences."

Serious consequences? Are we going to kill them too?

Hehe, I suspect we'll soon see an alternative definition of "serious consequences". Unlike the singular definition given to us a year ago.

 

[chess9]

So what are you saying dirtboy? Do you want to be consistent-as you define it-and "drag out" the commission's work for another 6 months? Or, better, do you think we should just give up the WMD search and end the commision now?

You've hoist yourself on your own petard, laddy.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Thomas Kean was quoted last month as saying the attacks were preventable and if it were up to him people in the White House would be fired. Evidently the report is very close to being done if Kean is running his mouth in this fashion and May is apparently more than enough time.

I don't think Kean was quite that harsh, though he was critical and obviously frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the White House.

In any case. if Bush & Co cooperate and the Commission consensus is they have had enough time, that's good enough for me. I just think it would be outrageous to deny them the time they need, especially given the five years we gave Ken Starr. This is too important to sweep under the rug.

 

[Gaard]

I think I should clarify. The 'serious consequences' statement was merely an attempt at humor on my part. Bush never said that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I don't see anyone in here saying we should quit looking for WMD and few (or none) saying we should pull out of Iraq. This investigation was started to find the truth (and in my already stated opinion it is done). The WMD in Iraq was stated as fact before hand and it should not take an indefinite search to find it. In other words not only is your argument disingenuous, it is trying to compare apples and oranges.

Try reading other threads and you'll see there are plenty of people here saying we should stop looking for WMD's. It has also been said that we knew of the 9/11 attacks prior to it occuring and it was said that we knew/thought there are/were WMD's before the attack, so if one should take an indefinite amount of time there is no reason the other shouldn't.

So what, exactly, is your point? Are you suggesting it's OK to obstruct the 9/11 Commission's investigation? Do you believe political considerations are more important than getting to the truth behind 9/11? Surely you aren't suggesting that covering Bush's butt is more important than fighting al Qaeda?

Of course not. I am confident you are also a loyal, patriotic, honorable American who will join us in setting aside petty politics to insist that the 9/11 Commission be given all the information and time it needs to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. Are you with us?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I should clarify. The 'serious consequences' statement was merely an attempt at humor on my part. Bush never said that.

It was funnier the other way. I wanted to see how long it would take someone to challenge your quote.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Thomas Kean was quoted last month as saying the attacks were preventable and if it were up to him people in the White House would be fired. Evidently the report is very close to being done if Kean is running his mouth in this fashion and May is apparently more than enough time.

I don't think Kean was quite that harsh, though he was critical and obviously frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the White House.

From here CBS

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

In any case. if Bush & Co cooperate and the Commission consensus is they have had enough time, that's good enough for me. I just think it would be outrageous to deny them the time they need, especially given the five years we gave Ken Starr. This is too important to sweep under the rug.

It is also way too imporant to drag out forever or have it purposely politicized. If Kean is ready to make those kinds of statements then the report is obviously ready. Publish it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Thomas Kean was quoted last month as saying the attacks were preventable and if it were up to him people in the White House would be fired. Evidently the report is very close to being done if Kean is running his mouth in this fashion and May is apparently more than enough time.

I don't think Kean was quite that harsh, though he was critical and obviously frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the White House.

From here CBS

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."
Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.
"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

In any case. if Bush & Co cooperate and the Commission consensus is they have had enough time, that's good enough for me. I just think it would be outrageous to deny them the time they need, especially given the five years we gave Ken Starr. This is too important to sweep under the rug.

It is also way too imporant to drag out forever or have it purposely politicized. If Kean is ready to make those kinds of statements then the report is obviously ready. Publish it.

1. I stand corrected re. Kean's comments. I didn't remember him being that blunt.

2. I agree 100% it is too important to drag out forever or have it purposely politicized. We have too much politics and too little truth in D.C. already, and that applies to both parties.

3. I'm not as confident that Kean's comments show they are ready to publish. I took them as a shot across the bow to the Bush administration that they needed to cooperate. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I should clarify. The 'serious consequences' statement was merely an attempt at humor on my part. Bush never said that.

Doh! Ok, thanks for the heads up.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: chess9
So what are you saying dirtboy? Do you want to be consistent-as you define it-and "drag out" the commission's work for another 6 months? Or, better, do you think we should just give up the WMD search and end the commision now?

I've moved on and perhaps other people should as well. We know terrorists attacked us on 9/11 and we know there was a big intelligence SNAFU in Iraq.

I say we should help them get a government up and running like we are trying to do. I hope the UN will get and help out. I could care less about the WMD's, I could care less if we made a mistake or not. The fact is that we are there and what is done has been done, so let's move forward instead of digging up dirt (on both accounts) that is only going to waste more money and time.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

So what, exactly, is your point? Are you suggesting it's OK to obstruct the 9/11 Commission's investigation? Do you believe political considerations are more important than getting to the truth behind 9/11? Surely you aren't suggesting that covering Bush's butt is more important than fighting al Qaeda?

Of course not. I am confident you are also a loyal, patriotic, honorable American who will join us in setting aside petty politics to insist that the 9/11 Commission be given all the information and time it needs to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. Are you with us?

No, I don't think it's okay to obstruct anything. I don't think we need to spend an indefinte amount of time digging into this. Let's gather what information we can, make adjustments to prevent such future attacks and then move on with life.

I have nothing against finding out the "truth," but you and I both know that there will be attempts made by both political parties to blame each other or somehow try to prove that it was a conspiracy or whatever bs people will make up to further their own personal interests.

 

[Gaard]

I could care less if we made a mistake or not.

wow

 

[arsbanned]

Hmm, what happened to that heart surgeon fellow?

 

[chess9]

Dirtboy:

Are you sure you don't mean "I could NOT care less?" If you could care less, well, er, maybe we won't go there....

I'm glad you've moved on though. Were you so forgiving about Clinton's blowjobs?

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gaard

I could care less if we made a mistake or not.

wow

Isn't that sad?

I will say though, it is a more honest response than some of the people who twist through unimaginable contortions to rationalize why it wasn't a mistake. Dirtboy is honest about his disinterest.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Hmm, what happened to that heart surgeon fellow?

He's out washing my car. After that, I need my living room vacuumed. Anyone want to borrow him later?

 

[heartsurgeon]

the goal of the Dems to drag out any investigation about 9/11 as long as possible,facts don't really matter, only accusations, in an effort to extract maximal political damage to the President. this is the very same goal outlined in the Rockefeller report about pre-war Iraw intelligence findings....

this is coordinated effort to try make make Bush look bad on the handling of "Homeland" defense and terrorism, and the War in Iraq all folded into the same political package..discredit Bush..call him a liar (This actually harkens back to a pre 9/11 goal of Clinton to get Bush labled a "liar" in an effort to make clinton's perjury look less offensive when the history books are written)

besides, what about Lee Hamilton's assertion "..former representative Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) -- said the panel would have enough time to complete its work..."

the problem for the Dems is that if the report comes on time (it was mandated to be produced by a May i believe), this gives Bush time to respond..hence looking Presidential by "fixing" the problem.

 

[Gaard]

heartsurgeon-

the Rockefeller Memo proves that the Dems only agenda in this investigation is to generate a political smear during an election year...they have documented their untrustworthyness and insincerity about investigating 9/11.

Still stand by this statement?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Try reading other threads and you'll see there are plenty of people here saying we should stop looking for WMD's. It has also been said that we knew of the 9/11 attacks prior to it occuring and it was said that we knew/thought there are/were WMD's before the attack, so if one should take an indefinite amount of time there is no reason the other shouldn't.

For all intensive purposes, the Bush administration has deserted WMD as the true causus belli so what's the point of continuing the charade? The IAEA/UNSCOM are partially funded by US tax dollars so why not turn over the task to them?! There are materials that need to be accounted for but since we cannot secure the borders and have trouble enough with conventional attacks from insurgents . . . why bother wasting our limited military/intelligence resources on WMD when no one cares?! Bush doesn't care. Blair doesn't care. Bush supporters don't care. War opponents definitely don't care since the presence of WMD was not sufficient causus belli. Not finding WMD just means the war was REAL wrong instead of just plain wrong.

But your inference is a non sequitur. The search for WMD by the UN was given a definitive deadline by the Bush administration and the search for truth in the 9/11 inquiry has been given a definitive deadline by the Bush administration. The only time Bushies endorse indefinite amounts of time is when it comes to controlling deficit spending and US efforts to find WMD in Iraq. If I didn't know better, I might be inclined to believe there's a hypocrite or two in the Bush Regime.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gaard

I could care less if we made a mistake or not.

wow

Isn't that sad?

I will say though, it is a more honest response than some of the people who twist through unimaginable contortions to rationalize why it wasn't a mistake. Dirtboy is honest about his disinterest.

Yes, because making a big deal out of something we've already done is worth our time. Why don't we focus on cleaning up the problem and helping the Iraqi's rather than sit around here and point fingers. Of course that comes easy for you guys, since you don't actually have any solutions, but would rather just find flaws in every little thing that you can.

Like I said, crying over spilled milk isn't going to clean it up. You guys want to sit there and cry like babies, I'd rather just wipe it up on go forward. Too each their own...

You guys want to sit around, point fingers and cry about Iraq. Funny how you'd rather do that then actually entertain an intelligent discussion about how to get them self governing again and our men and women home. But that would require intelligent thought.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: chess9
Dirtboy:

Are you sure you don't mean "I could NOT care less?" If you could care less, well, er, maybe we won't go there....

I'm glad you've moved on though. Were you so forgiving about Clinton's blowjobs?

-Robert

Yep. He lied and everyone knew it. He could have been a man and just admitted it. Regardless, I moved on way before the masses of people who have nothing better to do with their lives than sit in front of the TV all evening and soak up this crap and then talk about it all day at the office instead of working.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gaard

I could care less if we made a mistake or not.

wow

Isn't that sad?

I will say though, it is a more honest response than some of the people who twist through unimaginable contortions to rationalize why it wasn't a mistake. Dirtboy is honest about his disinterest.

Yes, because making a big deal out of something we've already done is worth our time. Why don't we focus on cleaning up the problem and helping the Iraqi's rather than sit around here and point fingers. Of course that comes easy for you guys, since you don't actually have any solutions, but would rather just find flaws in every little thing that you can.

Like I said, crying over spilled milk isn't going to clean it up. You guys want to sit there and cry like babies, I'd rather just wipe it up on go forward. Too each their own...

You guys want to sit around, point fingers and cry about Iraq. Funny how you'd rather do that then actually entertain an intelligent discussion about how to get them self governing again and our men and women home. But that would require intelligent thought.

"Spilled milk"?

 

[DealMonkey]

Why are you guys mixing up the 9/11 commission and Iraq? I wonder if the commission's final report will be entitled, "How George Bush cleared brush in Crawford instead of paying attention to national security and failed the country miserably?" I'm sure that's what heartsurgeon is hoping for too.