Here we go again...9/11 Panel Threatens to Issue Subpoena for Bush's Briefings

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
link

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 ? Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks warned the White House on Monday that it could face a politically damaging subpoena this week if it refused to turn over information from the highly classified Oval Office intelligence reports given to President Bush before 9/11.

The panel's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and the former governor of New Jersey, said through a spokesman that he was hopeful an agreement would be worked out before the commission's next meeting, on Tuesday. Commission officials said that negotiations continued throughout the day on Monday and into the evening with the office of Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel.

But other members of the commission said that without an immediate resolution, they would call for a vote on Tuesday on issuing a subpoena to the White House for access to information in the documents. The papers are known as the President's Daily Brief, the intelligence summary prepared each morning for Mr. Bush by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Responding to earlier threats of a subpoena, the White House agreed last year to allow three members of the 10-member commission and the panel's Republican staff director to review portions of the daily briefings from before the Sept. 11 attacks that referred to intelligence warnings about Al Qaeda and its plans for terrorist attacks.

The commission has described the briefings as vital since they would show whether the White House had warnings of a catastrophic terrorist attack. The White House has acknowledged that one briefing Mr. Bush saw in August 2001 referred to the possibility of a Qaeda strike with commercial airplanes.

In recent weeks, however, the White House has refused to give permission for the four members of the delegation to share their handwritten and computerized notes ? which have been retained by the White House under the agreement ? with the full commission. That has outraged Democrats and Republicans on the panel and prompted the renewed threat of a subpoena.

"I'm determined to resolve this with a subpoena vote," said one of the Democrats, Timothy J. Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana. "We need to get access to the notes. There needs to be full information to all 10 commissioners. So far, the White House has vetoed that."

Another Democrat on the panel, Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, said he would be prepared to support the subpoena.

"This thing has dragged on for months," Mr. Ben-Veniste said Monday, adding that he was not convinced by repeated statements from the White House that it intended to cooperate fully with the commission.

"Saying that they have cooperated just doesn't get them over the finish line," he said.

The delegation that has reviewed the briefing reports is made up of Mr. Kean; Lee H. Hamilton, another former Democratic congressman from Indiana and the commission's vice chairman; Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration; and Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director.

The panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, was created by Congress over the initial objections of Mr. Bush.

It has made use of its subpoena authority three times: against the Defense Department, the Federal Aviation Administration and the City of New York. A subpoena to the White House could be politically damaging to Mr. Bush, because it would allow his Democratic opponents to suggest he was stonewalling the panel, and because it would raise the prospect of an extended election-year court fight between the commission and the White House.

A spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, said that Mr. Kean was involved Monday in the negotiations and that there had been "some positive action."

"It's fair to say that the governor is hopeful that things are going to move in a good direction," Mr. Felzenberg added, "that we will have access to everything we need."

The subpoena threat comes a week after the White House reversed itself and agreed to support the commission's request to Congress for an additional two months to complete its work, extending the deadline for a final report until July.

That is subject to approval by Congress, and spokesmen for the two crucial Senate authors of the bill creating the commission ? John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut ? said on Monday they were negotiating with the commission and victims' families over how much extra time the commission should get.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
That may be what it takes to raise public awareness of how diligently the Bush administration has obstructed the 9/11 investigation. People need to start asking why.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I know what you're thinking, "Did he serve five subpoenas or six?" Are you feeling lucky, punk?

;)
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
I can't believe the White House has balls enough to obfuscate on this one. I thought we were all so pissed about 9/11 that NOTHING would stand in the way of the "truth."
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
This is what I don't understand....maybe someone could explain it to me. The reason they've given for being so reluctant is something about how they don't want their intel sources/mathods jeopardized. I guess they want to keep the number of people who actually see these documents to a minumum, thereby reducing any possibility of intel getting out.
Now my question...and it might be a little OT but it is relevant. During his MtP interview, and in numerous other occasions, Bush stated that, regarding Iraq, Congress was privy to the exact info/intel that he was...that they used this exact same info/intel to base their decision to give Bush the power to push the button. Isn't Congress made up of a few hundred people? Do you see where I'm going with this? Is it possible for 100's of people to witness top secret info and not have it turn up somewhere? I guess I'm still focusing on that piece of solid evidence of WMD Bush stated to have back in December. You remember, that evidence that he couldn't share for fear of jeopardizing sources/methods.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is what I don't understand....maybe someone could explain it to me. The reason they've given for being so reluctant is something about how they don't want their intel sources/mathods jeopardized. I guess they want to keep the number of people who actually see these documents to a minumum, thereby reducing any possibility of intel getting out.
Now my question...and it might be a little OT but it is relevant. During his MtP interview, and in numerous other occasions, Bush stated that, regarding Iraq, Congress was privy to the exact info/intel that he was...that they used this exact same info/intel to base their decision to give Bush the power to push the button. Isn't Congress made up of a few hundred people? Do you see where I'm going with this? Is it possible for 100's of people to witness top secret info and not have it turn up somewhere? I guess I'm still focusing on that piece of solid evidence of WMD Bush stated to have back in December. You remember, that evidence that he couldn't share for fear of jeopardizing sources/methods.

I might be wrong here, but I thought that the real top-secret stuff was seen by a subset of congress. Something like the defense inteeligence commitee.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is what I don't understand....maybe someone could explain it to me. The reason they've given for being so reluctant is something about how they don't want their intel sources/mathods jeopardized. I guess they want to keep the number of people who actually see these documents to a minumum, thereby reducing any possibility of intel getting out.
Now my question...and it might be a little OT but it is relevant. During his MtP interview, and in numerous other occasions, Bush stated that, regarding Iraq, Congress was privy to the exact info/intel that he was...that they used this exact same info/intel to base their decision to give Bush the power to push the button. Isn't Congress made up of a few hundred people? Do you see where I'm going with this? Is it possible for 100's of people to witness top secret info and not have it turn up somewhere? I guess I'm still focusing on that piece of solid evidence of WMD Bush stated to have back in December. You remember, that evidence that he couldn't share for fear of jeopardizing sources/methods.

I might be wrong here, but I thought that the real top-secret stuff was seen by a subset of congress. Something like the defense inteeligence commitee.

I see. I was just under the impression they saw everything that Bush did. They all had to vote and everything. Hard to cast an informative vote knowing you aren't privy to all the facts.

I guess there'd be caveats either way.
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Gaard
This is what I don't understand....maybe someone could explain it to me. The reason they've given for being so reluctant is something about how they don't want their intel sources/mathods jeopardized. I guess they want to keep the number of people who actually see these documents to a minumum, thereby reducing any possibility of intel getting out.
Now my question...and it might be a little OT but it is relevant. During his MtP interview, and in numerous other occasions, Bush stated that, regarding Iraq, Congress was privy to the exact info/intel that he was...that they used this exact same info/intel to base their decision to give Bush the power to push the button. Isn't Congress made up of a few hundred people? Do you see where I'm going with this? Is it possible for 100's of people to witness top secret info and not have it turn up somewhere? I guess I'm still focusing on that piece of solid evidence of WMD Bush stated to have back in December. You remember, that evidence that he couldn't share for fear of jeopardizing sources/methods.

I might be wrong here, but I thought that the real top-secret stuff was seen by a subset of congress. Something like the defense inteeligence commitee.

I see. I was just under the impression they saw everything that Bush did. They all had to vote and everything. Hard to cast an informative vote knowing you aren't privy to all the facts.

I guess there'd be caveats either way.

Not for these guys, they vote in the blind all the time. My understanding is that some congressmen depend solely on staffers when it comes to knowing which way to vote.

True, but I have to think that considering the perks and pay, they should be a LOT more trustworthy.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Funny isn't it.. the Bush supporters avoid these threads like they were the plague.. hmmm :confused:
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
It's not easy to support Bush and what he's done. His supporters have to resort to blearly-eyed emotionalism, which burns out very quickly for most.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,099
5,639
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I can't believe the White House has balls enough to obfuscate on this one. I thought we were all so pissed about 9/11 that NOTHING would stand in the way of the "truth."

"The Truth"(TradeMark of Bush Admin) is that which proceeds from the mouth of Bush and his admin.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The briefings should be able to be released.

I think the concern is that some of the information contained can be twisted by after the fact knowledge (20/20 hindsight) by the Democrats.

Raw facts can be easily interpreted according to what one is looking for.

If there was info in a briefing presented in Aug 2001 regarding use of commercial airliners,
the current thingking would have been (based on experience and culture) that it would be a hijacking, not a suicide attempt.
Also, should the government shut down the complete air traffic system for an indefinite time. Remember the problems with a two day shutdown after 9/11.
A concern was more toward a threat originating from Europe.

The briefings may shed light on what was theorized and tidbits of info may be extracted.

As long as the panel focuses on the task at had (what was known when and how); to correct problems, rather that setting up blame and making political hay, there should be no concerns.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I rather suspect those briefing notes contain some extremely damaging material for the bushies- not necessarily in relation to 9/11, but concerning other matters, like Iraq.

The re-election of the President is a matter of National Security, don'tcha know?

They'll fight tooth and nail to prevent disclosure, and to avoid any kind of sworn public testimony by the principals... probably some really stinky stuff in those files, really stinky...

Having successfully dragged it out this far, it seems unlikely we'll see anything until after the election, if ever...