Bush to Name McCain to Intelligence Panel

[Gaard]

real quick before i have to run...

I found this, don't know if it's relevant to this discussion or if it sheds some light link

Its membership would be equally divided between appointees of Republican and Democratic officials.

Also, Fleischer said, with nine of the 10 commission members to be appointed by congressional leaders, Bush wants to appoint the chairman. The lawmakers had proposed presidential appointment of a co-chairman.

 

[UltraQuiet]

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?

My question would be, why hasn't Congress established a commission to investigate this issue? Aren't they resposible for oversight of the intelligence community? Could it be there already is investigations going on? Could it be because the Republicans are the majority and are cooperating with the White House? Could it be because the "loyal opposition" in this country is so worried about getting reelected that they absolutely refuse to do anything that might draw criticism. Where is Tom Daschle by the way? Did he die or is he hiding until he is reelected again? Or maybe his silence was bought with his wifes commission check. The lack of outrage from the Congress is disturbing on a scale measured in orders of magnitude.

 

[Moonbeam]

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?

I will shut up when he gets life from the Hague.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gaard
real quick before i have to run...

I found this, don't know if it's relevant to this discussion or if it sheds some light link

Its membership would be equally divided between appointees of Republican and Democratic officials.

Also, Fleischer said, with nine of the 10 commission members to be appointed by congressional leaders, Bush wants to appoint the chairman. The lawmakers had proposed presidential appointment of a co-chairman.

What will be quite interesting is the makeup of its members; after reading the above outline on member selection, you can see that the Chairman will be the gatekeeper...I, as I said before, suspect 1 maybe 2 token "no war for oil" members will make it on the panel...the rest will be Democrats who voted for the war...PM is you want some of this action via PayPal

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

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?

My question would be, why hasn't Congress established a commission to investigate this issue? Aren't they resposible for oversight of the intelligence community? Could it be there already is investigations going on? Could it be because the Republicans are the majority and are cooperating with the White House? Could it be because the "loyal opposition" in this country is so worried about getting reelected that they absolutely refuse to do anything that might draw criticism. Where is Tom Daschle by the way? Did he die or is he hiding until he is reelected again? Or maybe his silence was bought with his wifes commission check. The lack of outrage from the Congress is disturbing on a scale measured in orders of magnitude.

Congress rubber stamped the Iraq situation. Many had seen the same information and came to the same conclusion publicly

By not asking for an investigation, they can pass the blame if needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Any legislator voting for that war should be removed from office.

 

[tallest1]

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

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

I think that adding McCain to the panel is a good call. However, I still have issues with BUSH being the one to make the picks, just as I would if Clinton had picked panel members to investigate his affair.

On a side note: With Bush's far right leanings, is he even capable of creating a balanced panel? I'm sure there are a number of people- Democrat & Republican- that stand left of him.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Ah shucks", the panel determining what went wrong with Iraqi intelligence reported today. "Looks like we screwed up. We started an illegal war and murdered hundreds of our own soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis over a little mix up. We can assure you, though, that the war was a good idea even though the justification given was a fabulous fabrication of missed ques and crossed references stemming from myopic interdependence and strategery compounded gaffs that in all of history will never be repeated. It was just a confluence of rivers like the Tigress and Uflates that momentarily blinded our otherwise crystalline radar screen. The problems have been thoroughly vetted and you can go back to sleep. Bush did what was right. You know that in your feart."

 

[burnedout]

Other members include:

former Senator Charles Robb, LBJ's son-in-law
former Judge Laurence Silverman
Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton
former federal judge Patricia M. Wald
Yale University president Richard C. Levin
Adm. William O. Studeman, former deputy director of the CIA

Two more members TBA.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Other members include:

former Senator Charles Robb, LBJ's son-in-law
former Judge Laurence Silverman
Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton
former federal judge Patricia M. Wald
Yale University president Richard C. Levin
Adm. William O. Studeman, former deputy director of the CIA

Two more members TBA.

Now we need to see what power they have and the scope of allowed inquiry. Looks reasonable so far.

 

[Moonbeam]

We just need to put off any findings till after November. That's what counts.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Galt was wrong....never saw the President of Yale, Bush's Alma Mater, on the panel. Did he specialize in intelligence gatehring/security data or something? I am not sure where this guy fits in the big picture...aside from he might be pro-Bush.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We just need to put off any findings till after November. That's what counts.

I would find delay unacceptable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Long before this commitee publishes it's findings Dub 's Administration will be tried by the court of public opinion during the election campaign.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Long before this commitee publishes it's findings Dub 's Administration will be tried by the court of public opinion during the election campaign.

The public does not care Red. If they can get cheap gas, and grab a Bud Lite and watch horse farting commercials, Bush can do what he wants. Not like it affects us.

THAT is what I see around here.

I would wager that a great many who supported the war still don't know where Iraq is, and that at least as many don't know the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden. All just a bunch of towel heads.

Welcome to America.

 

[DealMonkey]

I would think the forming of this panel would be deferred to Congress in the same sort of compromise the 9/11 panel formation saw. Both sides of the aisle get to choose 1/2 the panel. That seems like the best way to make it bi-partisan, no? How does Bush naming all 9 members create a bi-partisan panel? That seems inherently impossible.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would think the forming of this panel would be deferred to Congress in the same sort of compromise the 9/11 panel formation saw. Both sides of the aisle get to choose 1/2 the panel. That seems like the best way to make it bi-partisan, no? How does Bush naming all 9 members create a bi-partisan panel? That seems inherently impossible.

Its bipartisan. Besides McCain you have,

Pat Wald, an appeals court judge apointed by Carter. She stepped down from that to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in Yugoslavia.

Lloyd Cutler, counsel to both Clinton and Carter.

William Studemen Deputy CIA Director under Clinton.

Chuck Robb, former Marine, former Lawyer, former Lt Gov of Virginia, former Gov of Virginia, former Senator who served on the Armed Services, Finance and Intelligence committees. Oh and hes a democrat, although a moderate, and married to the daugher of LBJ.

Richard Levin, President of Yale, respected in academia, among other things

the only true right winger is Laurence Silberman, hes about as partisan as they come. Hes from the Nixon and Ford admins, was appointed to his judgeship by Reagan

The other two are yet to be named.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would think the forming of this panel would be deferred to Congress in the same sort of compromise the 9/11 panel formation saw. Both sides of the aisle get to choose 1/2 the panel. That seems like the best way to make it bi-partisan, no? How does Bush naming all 9 members create a bi-partisan panel? That seems inherently impossible.

Its bipartisan. Besides McCain you have,

Pat Wald, an appeals court judge apointed by Carter. She stepped down from that to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in Yugoslavia.

Lloyd Cutler, counsel to both Clinton and Carter.

William Studemen Deputy CIA Director under Clinton.

Chuck Robb, former Marine, former Lawyer, former Lt Gov of Virginia, former Gov of Virginia, former Senator who served on the Armed Services, Finance and Intelligence committees. Oh and hes a democrat, although a moderate, and married to the daugher of LBJ.

Richard Levin, President of Yale, respected in academia, among other things

the only true right winger is Laurence Silberman, hes about as partisan as they come. Hes from the Nixon and Ford admins, was appointed to his judgeship by Reagan

The other two are yet to be named.

The problem is they are still named by Bush, and are likely seen as friendly by him. That creates instant bias. It cannot be helped. The other thing is that who gets to define the scope of the investigation, and what authority will they really have?

Think I'll hang back for now, and see what is going to be proposed.

Remember that judges will usually recuse themselves when there is the appearance of conflict of interest (or at least they should). Bush naming a panel gives that appearance, since he is selecting those who might be investigating him. Yeah, he isnt a judge and that hardly matters. He is selecting those who may (or may not) implicate him.

Better to have the whole thing insulated from all that.

 

[GrGr]

McCain Returns to New Hampshire to Stump for Bush
UPDATED - Monday January 26, 2004 9:48pm


MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Sen. John McCain, called into action by Vice President Dick Cheney, returned to the site of his greatest political triumph Monday and campaigned for the man who ended his dreams for the White House in 2000 - President Bush (website - news - bio) .

"I have some disagreements with him, but that doesn't mean that I think his overall record doesn't deserve re-election. I think he does," McCain said after being mobbed by voters while shaking hands in a downtown diner.

etc.

------------------

Moonie is right as ususal.

 

[GrGr]

POLITICS-U.S.:
Co-Chair of Bush Panel Part of Far Right Network

Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (IPS) - President George W. Bush's choice to co-chair his commission to investigate intelligence failures prior to the Iraq War is a long-time, right wing political activist closely tied to the neo-conservative network that led the pro-war propaganda campaign.

Federal appeals court Judge Laurence Silberman, who will share the chairmanship with former Virginia Democratic Senator Charles Robb, also has some history in covert operations.

In 1980, when he served as part of former Republican president Ronald Reagan's senior campaign staff, he played a key role in setting up secret contacts between the Reagan-Bush campaign and the Islamic government in Tehran, in what became known as the ''October Surprise'' controversy.

(Former president George HW Bush, the current president's father, was Reagan's vice-president for two terms, 1981-89).

Rewarded with his appeals court judgeship several years later, Silberman helped advise right-wing activists during the 1990s on strategies for pursuing allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Democratic president Bill Clinton, according to various accounts.

etc.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: GrGr
POLITICS-U.S.:
Co-Chair of Bush Panel Part of Far Right Network

Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (IPS) - President George W. Bush's choice to co-chair his commission to investigate intelligence failures prior to the Iraq War is a long-time, right wing political activist closely tied to the neo-conservative network that led the pro-war propaganda campaign.

Federal appeals court Judge Laurence Silberman, who will share the chairmanship with former Virginia Democratic Senator Charles Robb, also has some history in covert operations.

In 1980, when he served as part of former Republican president Ronald Reagan's senior campaign staff, he played a key role in setting up secret contacts between the Reagan-Bush campaign and the Islamic government in Tehran, in what became known as the ''October Surprise'' controversy.

(Former president George HW Bush, the current president's father, was Reagan's vice-president for two terms, 1981-89).

Rewarded with his appeals court judgeship several years later, Silberman helped advise right-wing activists during the 1990s on strategies for pursuing allegations of sexual misconduct by then-Democratic president Bill Clinton, according to various accounts.

etc.

Those are the ONLY TWO that a conservative. Only one is a true right winger. Silberman. McCain is more centrist than anyone on the board. As for Cutler and Wald, uh NO they wouldnt just let Bush slide. They are liberals in every sense of the word. Robb is more of a moderate democrat, but hes left of center and unlikely to give Bush a free ride. Studemen again was deputy CIA director under Clinton.

People can say they may friendly to Bush but 4 are not. Levin and McCain might be on this issue, and yes Silberman would be. Its not hand picked in Bushs favor.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would think the forming of this panel would be deferred to Congress in the same sort of compromise the 9/11 panel formation saw. Both sides of the aisle get to choose 1/2 the panel. That seems like the best way to make it bi-partisan, no? How does Bush naming all 9 members create a bi-partisan panel? That seems inherently impossible.

Its bipartisan. Besides McCain you have,

Pat Wald, an appeals court judge apointed by Carter. She stepped down from that to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in Yugoslavia.

Lloyd Cutler, counsel to both Clinton and Carter.

William Studemen Deputy CIA Director under Clinton.

Chuck Robb, former Marine, former Lawyer, former Lt Gov of Virginia, former Gov of Virginia, former Senator who served on the Armed Services, Finance and Intelligence committees. Oh and hes a democrat, although a moderate, and married to the daugher of LBJ.

Richard Levin, President of Yale, respected in academia, among other things

the only true right winger is Laurence Silberman, hes about as partisan as they come. Hes from the Nixon and Ford admins, was appointed to his judgeship by Reagan

The other two are yet to be named.

The problem is they are still named by Bush, and are likely seen as friendly by him. That creates instant bias. It cannot be helped. The other thing is that who gets to define the scope of the investigation, and what authority will they really have?

Think I'll hang back for now, and see what is going to be proposed.

Remember that judges will usually recuse themselves when there is the appearance of conflict of interest (or at least they should). Bush naming a panel gives that appearance, since he is selecting those who might be investigating him. Yeah, he isnt a judge and that hardly matters. He is selecting those who may (or may not) implicate him.

Better to have the whole thing insulated from all that.

If you actually think well respected people(Cutler, Wald, Levin, and Robb) are going to indanger their legacies by covering for someone they dont agree with you are wrong. These are some honest well respected people that are not right leaning. There are more left leaning people on the panel, some more so than others, than right leaning.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I would think the forming of this panel would be deferred to Congress in the same sort of compromise the 9/11 panel formation saw. Both sides of the aisle get to choose 1/2 the panel. That seems like the best way to make it bi-partisan, no? How does Bush naming all 9 members create a bi-partisan panel? That seems inherently impossible.

Its bipartisan. Besides McCain you have,

Pat Wald, an appeals court judge apointed by Carter. She stepped down from that to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in Yugoslavia.

Lloyd Cutler, counsel to both Clinton and Carter.

William Studemen Deputy CIA Director under Clinton.

Chuck Robb, former Marine, former Lawyer, former Lt Gov of Virginia, former Gov of Virginia, former Senator who served on the Armed Services, Finance and Intelligence committees. Oh and hes a democrat, although a moderate, and married to the daugher of LBJ.

Richard Levin, President of Yale, respected in academia, among other things

the only true right winger is Laurence Silberman, hes about as partisan as they come. Hes from the Nixon and Ford admins, was appointed to his judgeship by Reagan

The other two are yet to be named.

The problem is they are still named by Bush, and are likely seen as friendly by him. That creates instant bias. It cannot be helped. The other thing is that who gets to define the scope of the investigation, and what authority will they really have?

Think I'll hang back for now, and see what is going to be proposed.

Remember that judges will usually recuse themselves when there is the appearance of conflict of interest (or at least they should). Bush naming a panel gives that appearance, since he is selecting those who might be investigating him. Yeah, he isnt a judge and that hardly matters. He is selecting those who may (or may not) implicate him.

Better to have the whole thing insulated from all that.

If you actually think well respected people(Cutler, Wald, Levin, and Robb) are going to indanger their legacies by covering for someone they dont agree with you are wrong. These are some honest well respected people that are not right leaning. There are more left leaning people on the panel, some more so than others, than right leaning.

It has nothing to do with them. I am crediting them with being able to do the job. I am saying there is a conflict of interest when an individual names parties that may be investigating the named, or selecting people with a mandate that limits the scope of the investigation. If there were an investigation into something where you worked, and it involved significant implication about a project you headed, you probably would not be able to create an investigation, select those you want to head it, and be able to limit the investigation to others, which COULD happen here.

Why not allow them to be free to investigate where ever it leads, without the cloud of potential conflicts? If you think Bush is not responsible for what happened, then these folks are the ticket to clear him, but not under the direction of the executive branch?

I don't want another Warren commission. That leaves doubts to this day, although I don't share them.