What a surprise! Looks like Bush is going to appoint the members of the "independent" investigation on intel.

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Oh, my GOD! LOL!! And this man is the leader of the free world? Are we sure he hasn't gone off the wagon? Scary and too funny.....

CaptK:

No, No, No. What can you be thinking? Here's the panel that will get real CREDIBILITY:

1. Clarabell;
2. Tonto;
3. Gary Larsen;
4. Gary Trudeau;
5. Mickey Mouse;
6. Marmaduke;
7. Doogie Howser (Heartsurgeon as a backup);
8. CAD;
9. Duke Nukem.

That's 9. Sort of like the Supremes, but oh so much better.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Genesys
cynical much?

no crap. This forum should win the Cynics of the year award.

Well when the President addresses the nation and uses a bunch of Baloney to garner support for his Excellent Adventure in Iraq people tend to be skeptical.

Thank you for reiterating what I said in a more colorful way.

Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

 

[Mean MrMustard]

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?

You can not say with straight face, that this is just fine.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Genesys
cynical much?

no crap. This forum should win the Cynics of the year award.

Well when the President addresses the nation and uses a bunch of Baloney to garner support for his Excellent Adventure in Iraq people tend to be skeptical.

Thank you for reiterating what I said in a more colorful way.

Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

Being Happy has nothing ton do about it, being one of those fooled by Bushes BS does infuriate me. I should have known better but unfortunately I never would have thought that the Bush Administration would use the patriotic feelings to buffalo us into supporting his and the Neocons agenda. IMO it was the most underhanded ploy by a leader in my lifetime

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Genesys
cynical much?

no crap. This forum should win the Cynics of the year award.

Well when the President addresses the nation and uses a bunch of Baloney to garner support for his Excellent Adventure in Iraq people tend to be skeptical.

Thank you for reiterating what I said in a more colorful way.

Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

Being Happy has nothing ton do about it, being one of those fooled by Bushes BS does infuriate me. I should have known better but unfortunately I never would have thought that the Bush Administration would use the patriotic feelings to buffalo us into supporting his and the Neocons agenda. IMO it was the most underhanded ploy by a leader in my lifetime

Same here. I won't making that mistake again.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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?

You can not say with straight face, that this is just fine.

Perhaps Bush doesn't know what "independent" means? I think you hit it on the head.

 

[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.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Genesys
cynical much?

Naive much?

nope.

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?

Please allow me to illustrate this issue in a non-partisan light: Would you support defendants in trial to choose their own jurors? Or would you support Iran's Ayatollah appointing his own team in determining if Iran is working on or has nuclear weapons?

Maybe we should have let Bin Laden appoint the team investigating the 9-11 attacks, I'm sure he'd pick some reliable, trustworthy sources.

well, if I belonged to a party, I just might be a partisan fanatic. But since I dont affiliate myself with one party or another, no, im not partisan at all.

Im a little apalled at you too. You have such little faith in your fellow man, to think that he would be blinded and bound by party lines so as not to damn the President if he is in fact guilty of any of the riddiculous charges you silly libs are making? Conservatives arent like Liberals, we dont blindly protect and follow our kind. If there is some reason or some act that we believe we should criticize our leadership for, then we do it. I've criticized the President for his stance on many issues [and the big Conservative names have (and still do) criticize the President on many issues as well]. I dont ever remember Liberal leaders condemning Clinton for any of the mistakes he made in office. All I heard was "cant we just move on?" and other equally lame excuses.

Go shine your 'non-partisan light' somewhere else.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

Not that you're partisan or anything, but it sure seems that you aren't happy unless you have something to whine/complain/bitch at Dean about. It works both ways, and you're a major participant in whining/complaining/bitching about the left.

For the record.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genesys
well, if I belonged to a party, I just might be a partisan fanatic. But since I dont affiliate myself with one party or another, no, im not partisan at all.
[ ... ]
Conservatives arent like Liberals, we dont blindly protect and follow our kind. ...

Right. Just as long as you aren't partisan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

Not that you're partisan or anything, but it sure seems that you aren't happy unless you have something to whine/complain/bitch at Dean about. It works both ways, and you're a major participant in whining/complaining/bitching about the left.

For the record.

That's fine for you to believe that, but I'm still happy even if I don't have something to bring up about the left(or dean).

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys
well, if I belonged to a party, I just might be a partisan fanatic. But since I dont affiliate myself with one party or another, no, im not partisan at all.
[ ... ]
Conservatives arent like Liberals, we dont blindly protect and follow our kind. ...

Right. Just as long as you aren't partisan.

hey, if theres a conservative party, point me towords it and ill gladly join. but as it stands right now, i hate the left and i hate the right. i just happen to hate the right a little less since SOME of their views and values coincide with mine.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said in the other thread about this subject:
"It seems like some people just aren't happy unless they have something to whine/complain/bitch at Bush about."

CkG

Not that you're partisan or anything, but it sure seems that you aren't happy unless you have something to whine/complain/bitch at Dean about. It works both ways, and you're a major participant in whining/complaining/bitching about the left.

For the record.

That's fine for you to believe that, but I'm still happy even if I don't have something to bring up about the left(or dean).

CkG

You're 90% there. You only have to take that to it's logical conclusion, and you'll have my point.

 

[UltraQuiet]

So, if we can tune out all the shrill, red-faced, Bush hating ranters would someone tell me who should appoint the members of the investigating panel?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Genesys
cynical much?

Naive much?

nope.

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?

Please allow me to illustrate this issue in a non-partisan light: Would you support defendants in trial to choose their own jurors? Or would you support Iran's Ayatollah appointing his own team in determining if Iran is working on or has nuclear weapons?

Maybe we should have let Bin Laden appoint the team investigating the 9-11 attacks, I'm sure he'd pick some reliable, trustworthy sources.

well, if I belonged to a party, I just might be a partisan fanatic. But since I dont affiliate myself with one party or another, no, im not partisan at all.

Im a little apalled at you too. You have such little faith in your fellow man, to think that he would be blinded and bound by party lines so as not to damn the President if he is in fact guilty of any of the riddiculous charges you silly libs are making? Conservatives arent like Liberals, we dont blindly protect and follow our kind. If there is some reason or some act that we believe we should criticize our leadership for, then we do it. I've criticized the President for his stance on many issues [and the big Conservative names have (and still do) criticize the President on many issues as well]. I dont ever remember Liberal leaders condemning Clinton for any of the mistakes he made in office. All I heard was "cant we just move on?" and other equally lame excuses.

Go shine your 'non-partisan light' somewhere else.

Screw liberal leaders and conservative ones too. That "Conservatives aren't like liberals" superiority crap too. I wanted Clintons head in a noose for lying. Not the BJ. That's between Bill and Hillary, but if you are caught, you have to take the consequences of your actions. Now conservatives arent blindly following? Well not all, but a hell of a lot and I don't recall you being one who demanded an investigation about how the main reason for going to war wasnt. I dont recall conservatives being outraged and wanting to know why a thing that was said to exist didnt. No curiousity at all? BS. Its all about protecting "my guy". In fact the only one I recall mentioning wanting a serious investigation was Ultra Quiet. He gained quite a bit of respect from me by at least mentioning it. We went into a goddam war over this, and all I see in effect is "can't we just move on?" Where is your outrage on being either misled or having an incompetent leader. THere is no third choice with WMDs.

So the conservative game is now to say things like "We liberated Iraq from Saddam, and that in itself was worth the war." Well, that wasn't the line, and it isnt the question.

Where are the weapons we were told existed? We knew what and where they were. Where are they? Where has your call for looking into this been? Nowhere.

Conservatives DO NOT WANT this investigated, unless it can be controlled. A hand picked commission will address carefully culled questions. Intel will be investigated, but the administration will be hands off, at least in any serious manner.

Want to convince me I am wrong? Have Bush stand up and admit he either lied or made a bad judgement call. When Hell freezes over perhaps.

 

[Gaard]

If there is some reason or some act that we believe we should criticize our leadership for, then we do it.

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

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genesys
well, if I belonged to a party, I just might be a partisan fanatic. But since I dont affiliate myself with one party or another, no, im not partisan at all.
[ ... ]
Conservatives arent like Liberals, we dont blindly protect and follow our kind. ...

Right. Just as long as you aren't partisan.

hey, if theres a conservative party, point me towords it and ill gladly join. but as it stands right now, i hate the left and i hate the right. i just happen to hate the right a little less since SOME of their views and values coincide with mine.

Given that you don't believe in science, and that you apparently cannot or will not comprehend written proof, direct from Bush, that clearly shows he suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11, this is undoubtedly a waste of electrons. Nonetheless, lest you confuse a naive passer-by, let me make a couple of points:

1. Right == Conservative. That's what being on the right signifies. It is not necessarily a sign of party affiliation. Hating the right means you hate conservatives. Perhaps what you meant is you hate both Democrats and Republicans.

2. Partisan is not limited to blindly supporting a political party. Don't let the "parti" in "partisan" confuse you. It is broader than that: "A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."

 

[SNC]

Do you really think Bush locked himself in a room one night and typed up a bunch of docs that showed that there were WMDs over there? All by himself? And no one questioned where he got them? What about all the dems that voted for the war. Did they too lye to the people? All of Pres. BJ's ranting about the need for Saudam should be removed. It was OK then?

Or is it that you Dems are just pissed that there is someone in the White House that is not woried about what you have to say. He does what he knows to be the right thing.

If you are so sure there is no problem with the way things are over there. Move. Take your wife, and your kids and go on over. Try and live there like you live here. Let us know how things are in a couple months. Or are the people over there not good enough to enjoy the same freedoms you do. And Reps are mean and heartless.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So, if we can tune out all the shrill, red-faced, Bush hating ranters would someone tell me who should appoint the members of the investigating panel?

Ignoring the part about shrill, red-faced, etc., that's a really good question. Instead of turning this into yet another Bush vs. !Bush debate, can we look at the question objectively?

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?

I'm sure there are good precedents for this. How was the 9/11 Commission selected? Would that work in this case? Thoughts?


Edit: typo

 

[Gaard]

link

Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to Bush on Monday, urging him to support a truly independent commission.

The panel should not be appointed by and report to the White House, the senators told Bush, especially since "even some of your own statements and those of Vice President (Dick) Cheney need independent scrutiny."

...

With the election nine months away, the White House must strike a delicate balance in appointing commission members. The panel will need individuals who understand intelligence operations, but critics are sure to suggest former intelligence officials might not be objective about work done on their watch.

Appointees close to Bush might well bring Democratic complaints of partiality. But a truly independent commission could demand interviews and material that the White House is reluctant to provide. While the White House insists it has cooperated with the Sept. 11 commission's request for access, the commission has criticized the administration for restricting its access to secret presidential intelligence briefings.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
link

Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to Bush on Monday, urging him to support a truly independent commission.

The panel should not be appointed by and report to the White House, the senators told Bush, especially since "even some of your own statements and those of Vice President (Dick) Cheney need independent scrutiny."

...

With the election nine months away, the White House must strike a delicate balance in appointing commission members. The panel will need individuals who understand intelligence operations, but critics are sure to suggest former intelligence officials might not be objective about work done on their watch.

Appointees close to Bush might well bring Democratic complaints of partiality. But a truly independent commission could demand interviews and material that the White House is reluctant to provide. While the White House insists it has cooperated with the Sept. 11 commission's request for access, the commission has criticized the administration for restricting its access to secret presidential intelligence briefings.

Doesn't answer the question though does it.

I'll tell you what though. Since I was branded a "conservative" earlier in this thread I will nominate two Democrats that I think should head up the investigation.

Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
link

Democratic congressional leaders sent a letter to Bush on Monday, urging him to support a truly independent commission.

The panel should not be appointed by and report to the White House, the senators told Bush, especially since "even some of your own statements and those of Vice President (Dick) Cheney need independent scrutiny."

...

With the election nine months away, the White House must strike a delicate balance in appointing commission members. The panel will need individuals who understand intelligence operations, but critics are sure to suggest former intelligence officials might not be objective about work done on their watch.

Appointees close to Bush might well bring Democratic complaints of partiality. But a truly independent commission could demand interviews and material that the White House is reluctant to provide. While the White House insists it has cooperated with the Sept. 11 commission's request for access, the commission has criticized the administration for restricting its access to secret presidential intelligence briefings.

Doesn't answer the question though does it.

I'll tell you what though. Since I was branded a "conservative" earlier in this thread I will nominate two Democrats that I think should head up the investigation.

Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller

What? No one's gonna second my nomination?

Sissy's

 

[Dari]

Unless this is a truly independent investigative committee, this investigation could blow up in his face. I think Bush will make the right choice and let Congress setup the investigative committee. The worst case scenerio would be that the President took advantage of the post-September 11 anxiety among Americans, the vagrant habits of the despotic tyrant Hussein who was intransigient about his obligations to the 16 Article VII Security Council resolutions, and the potential for marriages between Terror Lords and their protean organizations and outlawed regimes in the new world. In short, Bush was eager to get rid of a cancer before he became more of a threat, unbeknownst to everyone that Hussein was really shadowboxing. At best, for Bush, the September 11 commission and the Iraqi Intelligence commission could come to the same startling, but obvious conclusion, that the CIA was dicking around in the 1990s and had no clue what was going on. I'm betting on the latter.

I would have no problem, as far-fetched as this might sound, for George Tenet to be put on trial for doing absolutely nothing during his tenure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari
Unless this is a truly independent investigative committee, this investigation could blow up in his face. I think Bush will make the right choice and let Congress setup the investigative committee. The worst case scenerio would be that the President took advantage of the post-September 11 anxiety among Americans, the vagrant habits of the despotic tyrant Hussein who was intransigient about his obligations to the 16 Article VII Security Council resolutions, and the potential for marriages between Terror Lords and their protean organizations and outlawed regimes in the new world. In short, Bush was eager to get rid of a cancer before he became more of a threat, unbeknownst to everyone that Hussein was really shadowboxing. At best, for Bush, the September 11 commission and the Iraqi Intelligence commission could come to the same startling, but obvious conclusion, that the CIA was dicking around in the 1990s and had no clue what was going on. I'm betting on the latter.

I would have no problem, as far-fetched as this might sound, for George Tenet to be put on trial for doing absolutely nothing during his tenure.

And what if they found Bush lied to get support and ordered Tenet to provide information that was "acceptable" and that does not mean truthful.

Now that would be worse for Bush.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari
Unless this is a truly independent investigative committee, this investigation could blow up in his face. I think Bush will make the right choice and let Congress setup the investigative committee. The worst case scenerio would be that the President took advantage of the post-September 11 anxiety among Americans, the vagrant habits of the despotic tyrant Hussein who was intransigient about his obligations to the 16 Article VII Security Council resolutions, and the potential for marriages between Terror Lords and their protean organizations and outlawed regimes in the new world. In short, Bush was eager to get rid of a cancer before he became more of a threat, unbeknownst to everyone that Hussein was really shadowboxing. At best, for Bush, the September 11 commission and the Iraqi Intelligence commission could come to the same startling, but obvious conclusion, that the CIA was dicking around in the 1990s and had no clue what was going on. I'm betting on the latter.

I would have no problem, as far-fetched as this might sound, for George Tenet to be put on trial for doing absolutely nothing during his tenure.

And what if they found Bush lied to get support and ordered Tenet to provide information that was "acceptable" and that does not mean truthful.

Now that would be worse for Bush.

They won't. I don't think anyone would believe that considering that Bill Clinton signed into law the approval of regime change in Iraq. Also, most of the globe's intelligence agencies thought, like the CIA, that Iraq had WMDs.

I expect the commission, like Kay did, to come to the right conclusion.