Bush to Name McCain to Intelligence Panel

[alchemize]

Wash Post: Bush to Name McCain to Intelligence Panel

Very interesting. Although a difficult man to discredit, I'm sure some will try


Edit: More on members:

The panel will be co-chaired by a Democrat and a Republican: Former Sen. and former Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, and former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Other members include:

? Lloyd Cutler, who served as White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton;

? Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona;

? Former appellate court judge Pat Wald, a Democrat;

? Rick Levin, president of Yale University, Bush's alma mater; and

? Ret. Adm. Bill Studeman, a former deputy director of the CIA.

So McCain won't chair it. Chuck Robb and Laurence Silberman will Co-Chair.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Very nice pick.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can live with McCain. He will be marginally in the Bush camp. Now we need people from the other party.

Also, what is the scope of the investigation?

The Warren Commission leaves contraversy to this day, over far less.

Best to pick from both sides and let THEM determine what they will be investigating, and make it known publically BEFORE it starts.

Bush has framed this as something he wants to know. Wrong perspective. He ought to be out of this loop. Americans have questions, and it is their issues that should be addressed.

I want to know who knew what and when, and how they knew it. I want the panel to have subpoena powers, and the ability to give immunity if required.

 

[Witling]

Assuming this is actually true -- and the Washington Post is usually a very creditable source -- I was very impressed with the McCain pick. I think he is a person with a lot of integrity and is not as partisan as many. Although I can't speakfor the whole left, this gave me a little faith that this wasn't going to be a pre-cooked inquiry.

 

[Red Dawn]

McCain is a great start. Unfortunately the conclusion of the investigation won't be done until after the election.

 

[smashp]

Since the republicans are Loving using Clinton as justification,


I feel they should add a former president or two to the panel.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: smashp
Since the republicans are Loving using Clinton as justification,


I feel they should add a former president or two to the panel.

Problem: Clinton will be called to testify

 

[Moonbeam]

I love McCain too. He serves as the apparent Republican critic of the Pres who will pat him on the back at critical times to deflect criticism. McCain is a Republican patsy whose function is to create a sense of fake diversity of viewpoint All part of a traveling hypnotic circus act, no?

 

[alchemize]

Waiting for everyone's opinions on this. Here, I'll refresh your memories:


Dealmonkey:
Can we investigate ourselves? Oh brother . . .


Tripleshot:
Good heavens. This jerk wants to pick who investigates, and then dictate what they investigate. All this only because of falling poll numbers and the realization that the issue of his false statements about WMD's and his personal war with Saddam at tax payers and soldiers and civilian lives at stake are now geniune campaign issues he is vulnarable about. Anyone who thinks he is doing this because of a contrite spirit and a desire t o"come clean" is absolutly bonkers or blind and dumb.


Tallest1:
I wonder what progress would have been made if Clinton approinted an 'independent' and 'private' investigation of his affair.


Moonbeam:
Caution! Farce in progress!


Fausto:
Naive much?


lozina:
Wow, I'm just- apalled... you see nothing wrong with this? Are you so partisan that you go out of your way to and block out common sense to support someone who just happens to be wearing the same team jersey as you?


Chess9:
This will prove to be more politically divisive and embarassing than the 911 Commission. Perhaps he should just give them all the docs, lock them in a room, and require them to produce a report in 24 hours that he can review before he decides whether to release it.

freegeeks:
it reminds me a bit how the hardline Council of Guardians chooses who can be a candidate for parliamentary elections in Iran



CaptnKirk:
I nominate to the panel: Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Gingrich, Rumsfeld, Frist, Lott, Scalia, and Thomas.
Fair and balanced, lets add FOX NEWS to document the findi

Elp:
I want know how all you neo-cons can defend this, seriously. He wants an independent investigation but he will be the one to appoint the members. What part of 'independent' does he not understand?


Phokus:
This is almost as ridiculous as Arnold Schwartzenegger investigating himself on those sex harassment charges. You neo-con morons are the biggest government loving whores i've ever had the displeasure of knowing.



Gaard:
Genesys, would you mind answering the question posed to you...you see nothing wrong with this?


Bowfinger:
How does the government put together a panel or commission that can be accepted as both non-partisan and well-qualified? Can we let the Republicans and Democrats each pick half? What happens if either or both sides tries to load the panel with partisan ringers? What happens if one side selects a person who cannot pass security requirements? Does each side get veto authority? And, if each picks half, how do avoid partisan deadlock?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The problem is that Bush is getting to pick people who will be investigating something he had a hand in. Certainly it is being billed by many as an investigation into intel failures. That presupposes that the root cause of the difference between what was stated before the war and what came to light WAS an intel error. It could also be that the intel was not at fault, but those who used it were. That would be Bush and Co. of course.


Suppose I was involved in an auto accident with you, and I make a statement that we need to investigate why you caused it, and then appointed a grand jury to look into why you hit me. I don't think you would like that, especially if it was I who hit YOU. My manupulation would prevent that from becoming an issue. I can get the best, fairest, and brightest people and tell them that they are investigation YOU. If I were at fault, then their help would not go far in uncovering the truth.

As has been said by LunarRay, limit the scope and you limit the findings.

Out of curiousity, do you not see a conflict of interest here? Would not a bipartisian congressional investigation be better? True there would be hay making by both sides, but hey this is a serious thing, and while both sides may play games, at least there ARE two sides to real each other in.

 

[Gaard]

Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

 

[Red Dawn]

He's considered a Maverick who has no qualms about critisizing the Dub and his handlers when he thinks they are wrong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

He is not a lap dog of Bush
Has political experience.
Military background.

Not a Bush yes man (repeated for emphisis)

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

McCain is considered a good pick because many people think that, based on his position on one hot button issue - campaign finance, he is somehow a "moderate" or an oblective vice subjective participant. The truth of the matter is he is every bit as big a parisan hack as every other politician.


The question I raised to the red raced ranters in the other thread still stands - - Who should pick the panel so that it is "non- partisan"? In other words what will damper the ranting?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

McCain is considered a good pick because many people think that, based on his position on one hot button issue - campaign finance, he is somehow a "moderate" or an oblective vice subjective participant. The truth of the matter is he is every bit as big a parisan hack as every other politician.


The question I raised to the red raced ranters in the other thread still stands - - Who should pick the panel so that it is "non- partisan"? In other words what will damper the ranting?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

McCain is considered a good pick because many people think that, based on his position on one hot button issue - campaign finance, he is somehow a "moderate" or an oblective vice subjective participant. The truth of the matter is he is every bit as big a parisan hack as every other politician.


The question I raised to the red raced ranters in the other thread still stands - - Who should pick the panel so that it is "non- partisan"? In other words what will damper the ranting?

Congress should probably pick the panel. The agencies being investigated are all part of the executive branch, so IMHO it is only logical that the other branch of government picks the investigative panel.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Excuse my ignorance...why is McCain considered a good pick? I'm not saying it is or isn't, I'm just asking why people consider it to be good.

McCain is considered a good pick because many people think that, based on his position on one hot button issue - campaign finance, he is somehow a "moderate" or an oblective vice subjective participant. The truth of the matter is he is every bit as big a parisan hack as every other politician.


The question I raised to the red raced ranters in the other thread still stands - - Who should pick the panel so that it is "non- partisan"? In other words what will damper the ranting?

How did they determine how to investigate Watergate?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

It has been suggested here in the 'district' that Lieberman might be the ranking (D) on the other side of the fence...would also be a good pick, but you start to see a pattern, though...both were for the war. Though I have no problems with either of them, I think it would be wise (strategically speaking), to pick a couple token "NO WAR FOR OIL" people, too.

 

[BurnItDwn]

hmm ... Bush actually did something smart it appears.

 

[Gaard]

this is from the 'Bush grants 9/11 commission extension' thead...

link

The 9/11 panel ? known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ? was established by Congress to study the nation?s preparedness before Sept. 11, 2001, and its response to the attacks, and to make recommendations for guarding against similar disasters.

So my question would be...why was the 9/11 comission established by congress but now the WMD investigation members are picked by the President? Or am I not understanding correctly?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gaard

So my question would be...why was the 9/11 comission established by congress but now the WMD investigation members are picked by the President? Or am I not understanding correctly?

Who launched the respective 'comissions'? Seek, and thou shall find your answer.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gaard
this is from the 'Bush grants 9/11 commission extension' thead...

link

The 9/11 panel ? known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ? was established by Congress to study the nation?s preparedness before Sept. 11, 2001, and its response to the attacks, and to make recommendations for guarding against similar disasters.

So my question would be...why was the 9/11 comission established by congress but now the WMD investigation members are picked by the President? Or am I not understanding correctly?

I guess the difference is that Congress chose to establish the first. In theory, they could establish this one too (or also), but have not done so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Gaard

So my question would be...why was the 9/11 comission established by congress but now the WMD investigation members are picked by the President? Or am I not understanding correctly?

Who launched the respective 'comissions'? Seek, and thou shall find your answer.

Did the one who lauch them select the members? Serious question. I am not into the 9/11 thing, and for various reasons give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this, so I didn't see who selected who.

 

[Gaard]

Did the one who lauch them select the members? Serious question. I am not into the 9/11 thing, and for various reasons give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this, so I didn't see who selected who.

I don't know either. Do you know Dave? Or Galt? Seriously, established doesn't mean they chose the members?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Did the one who lauch them select the members? Serious question. I am not into the 9/11 thing, and for various reasons give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this, so I didn't see who selected who.

I don't know either. Do you know Dave? Or Galt? Seriously, established doesn't mean they chose the members?

Naturally the branch that launches the investigation would select its members. Do you think the Congress, in pursuit of the truth, would want, ugh, Karl to pick the members? Analogously, do you think President Bush would want, say, John Kerry or Ted "pour me a drink" Kennedy to select the members? nine-times-out-of-ten, these are little more than dog and pony shows. They know the answers they seek--the secret is to pick members who likewise have the same answers.