Bush Sabotaging 9-11 Commission

[subgenius]

Is the Bush White House trying to put the brakes on the congressional panel created last fall to investigate 9-11 attacks? Sources tell TIME that the White House brushed off a request quietly made last week by the 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, the Republican former governor of New Jersey, to boost his budget by $11 million. Kean had sought the funding as part of the $75 billion supplemental spending bill that the president just requested to pay for war with Iraq. Bush's recent move has miffed some members of the 9-11 panel.
...
"This is very counterproductive if the White House's intention is to prevent the commission from being politicized, because it will look like they have something to hide," said a Republican member of the commission.
...
The latest effort to curtail funding has angered victims of the attacks. Stephen Push, a leader of the 9/11 victims' families, who are closely monitoring the commission, said the White House decision was another in a long line of efforts to water down or shrink the panel's role. "I think the fact that they didn't include it—didn't warn Gov. Kean that they weren't going to include it, didn't return my phone call—suggests to me that they see this as a convenient way for allowing the commission to fail," said Push. "They've never wanted the commission and I feel the White House has always been looking for a way to kill it without having their finger on the murder weapon." Push said the White House has ignored his phone calls and emails for weeks.
...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html

The administration never wanted the commission in the first place.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Why should the White House add money for the Congressional 9/11 investigation in the war supplemental? It doesn't need it. It can be funded, like all Congressional operations and investigations, in the regular appropriation process. This is not something to pile on tangentially related funding which can be funded other ways.

[jj]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Why should the White House add money for the Congressional 9/11 investigation in the war supplemental? It doesn't need it. It can be funded, like all Congressional operations and investigations, in the regular appropriation process. This is not something to pile on tangentially related funding which can be funded other ways.

IF it needs to operate, it needs funds from somewhere.

The 9-11 affair was a direct, proximate cause of this war, so the war funding doesn't seem so farfetched to me. (You can argue all you want to claim it isn't, but then you'll have to account for the Shrub's words...)

It's interesting. Tom Kean is a moderate, fairminded sort for a Republican (at least mostly, I have no idea where he's been since he stopped being gov. of NJ), and I wouldn't be surprised if the Shrub white house is scared excrementless of him.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Why should the White House add money for the Congressional 9/11 investigation in the war supplemental? It doesn't need it. It can be funded, like all Congressional operations and investigations, in the regular appropriation process. This is not something to pile on tangentially related funding which can be funded other ways.

Bush had specifically requested that no unrelated spending be attached to the war supplemental bill. I don't see the "brush off" as anything more than that, based on what's been presented.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by jj


IF it needs to operate, it needs funds from somewhere.

The 9-11 affair was a direct, proximate cause of this war, so the war funding doesn't seem so farfetched to me. (You can argue all you want to claim it isn't, but then you'll have to account for the Shrub's words...)

It's interesting. Tom Kean is a moderate, fairminded sort for a Republican (at least mostly, I have no idea where he's been since he stopped being gov. of NJ), and I wouldn't be surprised if the Shrub white house is scared excrementless of him.

Yes, it has to be funded, but why from THIS request? This is to fight the war and start the rebuilding of Iraq. The committee is already funded from normal sources and doesn't need this. It can wait until appropriations are voted on for Congressional operations and investigations. Mr. Kean is mistaken.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Jocko


Bush had specifically requested that no unrelated spending be attached to the war supplemental bill. I don't see the "brush off" as anything more than that, based on what's been presented.

Exactly.

[subgenius]

MADISON, N.J., Oct. 25 — The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said that the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks.
.....

The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, also said in an interview that he believed the bipartisan 10-member commission would soon be forced to issue subpoenas to other executive branch agencies because of continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel.


"Any document that has to do with this investigation cannot be beyond our reach," Mr. Kean said on Friday in his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, including Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush (news - web sites)'s desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I will not stand for it," Mr. Kean said in the interview in his offices here at Drew University, where he has been president since 1990.
...
"Anything that has to do with 9/11, we have to see it — anything. There are a lot of theories about 9/11, and as long as there is any document out there that bears on any of those theories, we're going to leave questions unanswered. And we cannot leave questions unanswered."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&u=/nyt/20031025/ts_nyt/administrationfacessupoenasfrom911panel&printer=1

If we do not learn from history, they will have died in vain.

[subgenius]

After Mr. Kean's comments on Friday, several prominent lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, joined in urging the White House to make the documents available to the panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was created by Congress last year over initial objections by the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/politics/28TERR.html?th

They never wanted the commission at all, even to give them edited information.

They're afraid that their chosen commissioner, Republican Tom Kean is going to breach national security?
There is apparently embarrassing material there. At the least.
Funny to use concern over national security as an excuse when you leak the name of a CIA agent.

These issues aren't going away.

[subgenius]

In a statement announcing the Defense Department subpoena, the commission said, "In several cases we were assured that all requested records had been produced, but we then discovered, through investigation, that these assurances were mistaken."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031107/D7UM305G0.html

Its one thing to object on some basis, its another thing to lie.

[corplinx]

I Can't Stand It I Know You Planned It
I'm Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate
I Can't Stand Rocking When I'm In Here
Because Your Crystal Ball Ain't So Crystal Clear
So While You Sit Back and Wonder Why
I Got This F#cking Thorn In My Side
Oh My, It's A Mirage
I'm Tellin' Y'all It's Sabotage

Lyrics from "Sabotage"
by the Beastie Boys


Keep fighting the power Sub.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
I Can't Stand It I Know You Planned It
I'm Gonna Set It Straight, This Watergate
I Can't Stand Rocking When I'm In Here
Because Your Crystal Ball Ain't So Crystal Clear
So While You Sit Back and Wonder Why
I Got This F#cking Thorn In My Side
Oh My, It's A Mirage
I'm Tellin' Y'all It's Sabotage

Lyrics from "Sabotage"
by the Beastie Boys


Keep fighting the power Sub.
I love the Beastie Boys. The first two albums especially.
Weren't the Beastie Boys in "The Lord of the Flies"?
In any event could you be less opaque? To poop on?

[subgenius]

The White House, which opposed the commission's formation for more than a year, successfully fought to impose a deadline that is five months before the November elections. Commission officials and members of Congress expect the administration to oppose a request for an extension.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16614-2003Nov26.html

Neat trick. Oppose the formation of the commission. Then impose a deadline. Then refuse to cooperate. Then oppose an extension. Definitely a great search for the truth.
If we don't learn all we can those people will have died in vain.

[subgenius]

For all those here, and elsewhere that said we didn't need an investigation, we knew all we needed to know about what happenned:

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"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.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.
......
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

Let's learn from history for a change.

[crackmonkey]

Bush is afraid, probably correctly, that the panel will say "We should have been prepared for hijackers to crash planes into buildings", and the Dems will us this as a weapon against him.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by subgenius
For all those here, and elsewhere that said we didn't need an investigation, we knew all we needed to know about what happenned:

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable


No it wasn't! Kean is a Bush-hater! Clinton's fault! Political hate speech! Assoured insina-ation! Blowjob! Traitor! Liberal media! Saddam and Atta! Politicizing!

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Bush is afraid, probably correctly, that the panel will say "We should have been prepared for hijackers to crash planes into buildings", and the Dems will us this as a weapon against him.

That's very, very dangerous political territory. They might try to use it against him, but I doubt they will ever refer to it directly.

By the way, the article isn't very clear. Is the report publicly available yet, or do we have to wait until next month as the last paragraph suggests?

(edit) Oops, nevermind. Found this in the Guardian:

His full report is not due to be published before May

Bah.

[subgenius]

President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, virtually guaranteeing that the panel will have to complete its work by the end of May, officials said last week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer
Even though the Petagon and White House intentionally caused delays.
Oh well, its not like the victims will have died in vain if we don't learn something and avoid repeating history.

[subgenius]

White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said, "The administration has given them an unprecedented amount of cooperation . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer

That's not exactly what Tom Kean thinks.
I guess by "cooperation" he means "obstruction", a common alternate definition of the word.

[davefoc]

Interesting,
Who took the brunt of the blame for the 9/11 disaster? The baggage inspectors, who had absolutely nothing to do with the disaster.

Apparently their main failure was to be the least politically connected of anybody associated with the disaster and they became the butt of talk show jokes for weeks taking shots at the minimum wage baggage inspector. The Republicans thought this shifting of blame was so cool that they decided that nationalizing airline security was a good idea because, I guess, when nationalizing an industry helps cover your butt it's a good idea.

Somehow, almost everybody at the FAA, the airlines, the CIA or the FBI dodged even the slightest tinge of blame. Somehow it was politically incorrect after the disaster to assign blame unless of course you were a minimum wage baggage inspector with nothing to do with the disaster. Then you were fair game.

The chairman of United Airlines even walked away with 20 million dollars or so of freebies from his generous and appreciative board. Maybe if UA had three airplanes crash instead of two they would have given him $30 million. Of course not to worry for the board, the US government was going to bail UA out anyway so the money wasn't really UA's anyway.

So now the Bush administration is fighting tooth and nail to prevent a thorough inquiry. Maybe there's something really rotten here

[Clancie]

They spent $50 million to investigate the problem with Columbia? :eek:

$11 million...(is) to pay for a staff of about sixty and their resources. Kean plans to field a separate task force for each of nine areas that the law establishing the commission requires it to investigate. The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003
If you think of $11 million as the annual budget for a company with 60 employees (no benefits paid from it), with all of them doing some form of "intellectual work"....well, it seems like an awful lot of money to spend on this kind of task.

After all, what can be learned that isn't already known--or relatively obvious to research--that could possibly justify this kind of expense?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
They spent $50 million to investigate the problem with Columbia? :eek:


If you think of $11 million as the annual budget for a company with 60 employees (no benefits paid from it), with all of them doing some form of "intellectual work"....well, it seems like an awful lot of money to spend on this kind of task.

After all, what can be learned that isn't already known--or relatively obvious to research--that could possibly justify this kind of expense?

I agree Clancie and I'm surprised more people haven't asked first of all what the money is needed for.

It happens a lot in the UK, we set up inquiries, royal commissions etc. with it seems no regard to the costs, and then later on buried under all the detail we hear things like "the inquiry cost an estimated £10,000,000".

So my first question is why the, apparent, massive overspend?

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks announced on Tuesday that it was seeking an extension of its deadline to complete the investigation until at least July, raising the prospect of a public fight with the White House and a final report delivered in the heat of the presidential campaign.

The White House and Republican Congressional leaders have said they see no need to extend the congressionally mandated deadline, now set for May 27, and a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that Mr. Hastert would oppose any legislation to grant the extension.

But commission officials said there was no way to finish their work on time, a situation they attribute in part to delays by the Bush administration in turning over documents and other evidence.

The commission said Tuesday that it had not yet received a commitment from the administration for public testimony from prominent White House officials, including Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser. The panel said it was still in negotiations over the possibility of testimony from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"We are telling the Congress and the president what we need to do the best possible job," said the panel's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was formerly governor of New Jersey, in announcing the panel's decision to seek an extension of at least two months. "Much work remains, and some hard work in finalizing our report."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TERR.html?ei=5062&en=6f6d24ae738db297&ex=1075870800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

The administration still hasn't cooperated and yet they will oppose an extension. That sounds reasonable.
Keep in mind it is a hand-picked Republican heading the Commission, and asking for the extension.
The White House will probably say (ala Paul O'Neill) he was no damn good in the first place.

[subgenius]

The administration initially opposed creation of the 10-member independent commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Administration officials have acknowledged concern that Democrats, particularly the Democratic nominee for president, will try to make use of the report's findings to embarrass Mr. Bush, especially if the report contains any suggestion that the White House failed to act before Sept. 11 on intelligence suggesting that a catastrophic attack might be imminent.

The White House confirmed news reports last year that an Oval Office intelligence summary presented to Mr. Bush shortly before the attacks suggested that terrorists might be planning an attack using passenger planes.

"It smacks of politics to put out a report like this in the middle of a presidential campaign," said a senior Republican Congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Democrats will spin and spin."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/national/28TERR.html?ei=5062&en=6f6d24ae738db297&ex=1075870800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

But if they would have cooperated in the first place there wouldn't be the need for the extension.

[fishbob]

SubG - Thanks for resurrecting this and other polotical threads as new info becomes available. These show the history of the discussions and allow easy checking to see who should eat some crow.

As davefoc says:Maybe there's something really rotten here. And getting smellier every day.

[subgenius]

We live in interesting times and I'm dying to find out how its going to turn out.
Too much is being done on the assumption that the public has a short attention span.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This goes far, FAR deeper then you think. Stuff like this goes all the way to the top, and it has been that way for centuries. Not only is Bush responsible for 9/11, but he is a reptilian. Yes I said it, a lizard man who shape shifts.

To quote leading conspiracy theorist, noted activist and leading political analyst Dr. David Icke (who's been persecuted for his beliefs by the mainstream media):

The reptilian and other entities, which are manipulating our world by possessing "human" bodies, operate in frequencies between the Third and Fourth densities. These are referred to as "hidden spaces and planes unknown to man", in the apparently ancient Emerald Tablets, which I quote from in "Children of the Matrix". For simplicity, I refer to this "between world" in my books as the lower fourth dimension.

It is from here that they police our vibrational prison - the Matrix - and seek to addict and restrict us to the dense physical senses. This world was once far less dense than it is today and the "fall" down the frequencies, caused by the manipulation of incarnate consciousness and DNA infiltration, has made it so much more difficult to maintain a multi-dimensional connection while in physical form. We are now in a cycle of change when the vibration of this "world" will be raised out of dense physicality and return to where it once was. In doing so, the reptilians' ability to manipulate our physical form will be removed and this is why they are in such a panic at this time to prevent this shift from opening the vibrational prison door.

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/obsessed.html



To quote him on events surrounding 9/11:

TOLD YOU SO....

THEY HAVE NOTHING TO CONNECT BIN LADEN WITH SEPTEMBER 11TH THAT WOULD NOT BE LAUGHED OUT OF ANY COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE WORLD IN TEN MINUTES.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU...THEY ARE LYING TO THE WORLD...THEY HAVE NO "CLASSIFIED" INFORMATION, THEY HAVE ONLY WHAT YOU READ HERE AND THAT IS...


NOTHING!

ARE WE GOING TO LET THESE KILLERS, LIARS, AND CHEATS GO TO WAR IN OUR NAME ON THE BASIS OF THIS??


http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/toldya.html

A man ahead of his times.......

Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England's Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline - the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes and all that. So, George Bush is related to Charlemagne and Alfred the Great. He is related to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


.........


Anyway, I looked down the references and found reptiles. Kathy talks about the fact that George Bush had told her that they were an extraterrestrial race, who had taken over the planet and no one realizes it, and that they came from deep far-off space. She said that he just changed in front of her face into a reptile.


http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/biggestsecret.html




http://www.laurasnyctales.com/boysagas/iguana.jpg

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/images/300-p25695-23.jpg

[subgenius]

One possible exit strategy could come in the form of a proposal from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who said in an interview yesterday that he will sponsor legislation giving the commission until January 2005 to complete a report. The delay would lessen the possibility that the panel and its work would become a major issue in the presidential race, McCain said.

"Surely the speaker of the House and the White House would want the best job to be done," said McCain, who co-wrote the bill that created the commission after months of White House opposition. "I would rather see a complete job done, and I think most Americans would, too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58200-2004Jan28?language=printer

[LFTKBS]

"Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes."

Weird. Why were descendents of royalty living like trailer trash? (Q.v. Clinton's stepfather, family poverty, etc.)

[subgenius]

Hijack alert!
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
Hijack alert!
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

You should have foreseen it, and prevented it.

[subgenius]

Another great analogy.
Does that mean you oppose the request by the Republican appointed Republican chair for an extension?
(P.S. I did have advance knowledge that something like this could happen, I just lied when I said I didn't. Not that it could have been prevented, but I just don't like to tell the truth.)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
Another great analogy.
Does that mean you oppose the request by the Republican appointed Republican chair for an extension?

My analogy was quite apt. There wasn't a thing you could have done to prevent it, even though you might have been able to foresee it.

I would not want to see this investigation to go the way that every "independent counsel" investigation seems to go. Years and years, and millions upon millions of dollars, go by with neglible results, and twists and turns into areas that have nothing to do with the original intent of the investigation. Diminishing returns.

I have no idea if this is where the investigation is now, but I do agree with those who have pointed out that the funding should come from a congressional appropriation specifically for the investigation.

No matter how it turns out, each side will spin it any way they want.

For those who think 9/11 was preventable, I would like to hear what should have been done prior to 9/11 to prevent it. Even now, it could happen again. And that ain't the President's, or anyone's, fault, unless you want to live in an oppressive environment.

[davefoc]

Hi Luke,
I thought your quip was great and if we had a quip of the month thread I'd be nominating it.

Still, I am beginning to suspect that, in fact, the Bush administration did make significant mistakes prior to 9-11 that another administration might not have that allowed the attack to succeed.

My thinking on this is a little complicated and perhaps not as informed as it might be, but there are basically four elements to it:

1. Somehow after 9-11 the agency which was the most culpable for the disaster in my view, the FAA, was bypassed for any significant blame. I say it was the most culpable because there were at least two incidents in the world prior to 9-11 that suggested the possibility of suicide attacks and yet the FAA did nothing to abandon their policy of cooperating with hijackers. The FAA also acceeded to the airlines' desires to not introduce the expense of bullet resistant doors to the airplanes. In addition to the FAA being passed over for blame, the airlines, the FBI and the CIA were passed over for any blame despite the fact that it looked to me like these organizations shared significant blame with regards to the success of the 9-11 attacks. So instead of attempting to apportion blame based on real culpability the Bush administration seems to have gone along with or even created a plan to blame the baggage inspectors, a group almost completely without blame with regard to this tragedy. Why did it do this? I don't know, but one possibility is that it was an attempt by them to cover up their own mistakes by not targeting groups that could shed some of the blame back on the Bush administration.

2. Al Franken outlines a case that the Bush administration did in fact make a number of mistakes that might have contributed to the success of the 9-11 attacks. Admittedly, Franken is a highly biased source that is unlikely to provide a balanced account. None the less, I think the case he makes deserves to be listened to. He says a number of things. From memory a few of them:
A. The Bush administration was so enamored of star wars programs that it was funding these instead of anti-terrorist programs that had been initiated by the Clinton administration.
B. There were clear cut feuds going on between the CIA and the FBI and the Bush administration was not stepping in to moderate these and get everybody working on the same page.

3. The Bush administration, right from the start has not cooperated willingly with any legitimate investigations into the tragedy.

4. The Bush administration recompensed everybody associated with the tragedy at far higher rates than might have been reasonable. Perhaps this was an emotional response to the terrible tragedy, but perhaps also it was buying the silence of potential critics.

[Luke T.]

Hey, dave.

The news that baggage handlers were being blamed for 9/11 is new to me. I admit I have not read all of the links in this topic. Is that where this information is found, or did you hear this from somewhere else?

It was not policy prior to 9/11 to disallow pocket knives and such from aircraft. And I think it is stupid to make it policy now.

As for the FAA, what was wrong with the policy of cooperating with hijackers? Think about it. On the one hand, you had the majority of real cases of hijackings where cooperation definitely paid off. On the other hand, you had the idea that "suggested the possibility of suicide attacks."

And if I was a passenger on one of those aircraft that day, my thinking would have been that I was probably going to end up in Algeria or someplace like that when it was all over. I would have stayed put. After all, the terrorists claimed they had bombs, too.

Exactly what kind of "anti-terrorist program" would have prevented 9/11? Don't forget, we didn't have a Patriot Act at the time.

[subgenius]

And in a somewhat related (in that someone appears to not want to learn from history) story:

President Bush said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040130/D80D92U80.html

Maybe a new thread: Ignorance is bliss.

And Luke, I learned my lesson from you: take your hijack elsewhere or I'll report you to you.

[davefoc]

Hi Luke, I said baggage inspectors not baggage handlers. And there was a highly publicized attempt to criticize the baggage inspectors and their companies for laziness, stupidity and poor procedures.

It is true that buried in the small type were disclaimers that this didn't really have anything to do with 9-11. But I'm not sure how many people read the small type. It was completely buried that the poor performance of baggage inspectors was completely the responsibility of the FAA who contracted with the baggage inspection companies and oversaw the program.

And yes, I think it is reasonable to blame the FAA for its policy of cooperating with the hijackers. There had already been one attempt by a hijacker to fly an airplane into the eiffel tower that had been thwarted and there was an airplane that went down off the coast of Africa that probably was the result of a suicide hijacker. These weren't common knowledge in the US but presumably somebody in the FAA knew about them.

In addition, there were ongoing debates about whether to secure cockpit doors during flight and to reinforce cockpit doors. The FAA clearly took the wrong side of this issue before 9-11. If the FAA was an independent safety agency my temptation would be to give them a pass on this because all safety decisions need to be balanced with regards to the cost of the proposed safety improvement and they just made a good faith, disinterested party mistake. But the FAA is not an independent safety orgainization, it is airline industry cheerleader that has a safety oversight responsibilty. So, what went on, it looks to me, was that the FAA listened to the whining of the airlines about the cost of reinforcing the doors and decided that the expense wasn't justified. Would an independent safety organization that was looking at the staggering costs of suicide attacks versus the cost of installing secure cockpit doors have made the same decision? I don't think so.

On the baggage handler/inspector thing, maybe I edited handler to inspector and maybe you read my post just before I made the edit. Sorry if that was the case.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


My analogy was quite apt. There wasn't a thing you could have done to prevent it, even though you might have been able to foresee it.

I would not want to see this investigation to go the way that every "independent counsel" investigation seems to go. Years and years, and millions upon millions of dollars, go by with neglible results, and twists and turns into areas that have nothing to do with the original intent of the investigation. Diminishing returns.

I have no idea if this is where the investigation is now, but I do agree with those who have pointed out that the funding should come from a congressional appropriation specifically for the investigation.

No matter how it turns out, each side will spin it any way they want.

For those who think 9/11 was preventable, I would like to hear what should have been done prior to 9/11 to prevent it. Even now, it could happen again. And that ain't the President's, or anyone's, fault, unless you want to live in an oppressive environment.

How do you know you couldn't have prevented it without the commission being allowed to complete its work?
This is a republican appointed republican asking for an extension to fulfill his duties, after being obstructed by the administration.
The issue is of sabotaging of the commission, not what they might or might not find (third hijack warning). I understand you have reached a conclusion already. But others disagreed and appointed the commission. Should they be allowed to finish, or not? Oh, that's right you know the conclusion already so you think they should not.
Your opinion is duly noted.

[subgenius]

Interesting that he doesn't have a deadline for the weapons inspectors (that is now, not before the invasion):


Bush said he wants to be able to compare the administration's prewar intelligence with what will be learned by inspectors who are now searching for weapons in Iraq. There is no deadline for those inspectors, the Iraq Survey Group, to complete their work.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040130/D80D92U80.html

Deadlines are a b*tch.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
And in a somewhat related (in that someone appears to not want to learn from history) story:

President Bush said Friday "I want to know the facts" about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040130/D80D92U80.html

Maybe a new thread: Ignorance is bliss.

And Luke, I learned my lesson from you: take your hijack elsewhere or I'll report you to you.

:D

We get reports of thread hijackings all the time. And we do nothing about it most of the time. Seriously. It would kill the forum for sure.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius


How do you know you couldn't have prevented it without the commission being allowed to complete its work?
This is a republican appointed republican asking for an extension to fulfill his duties, after being obstructed by the administration.
The issue is of sabotaging of the commission, not what they might or might not find (third hijack warning). I understand you have reached a conclusion already. But others disagreed and appointed the commission. Should they be allowed to finish, or not? Oh, that's right you know the conclusion already so you think they should not.
Your opinion is duly noted.

I actually have not reached a conclusion. I don't think I posted anything that says I have. I have no idea if the investigation has gotten all the data they need or not, or if they have gotten sidetracked into unrelated areas as some independent investigations have in the past.

I also have no idea what kind of documents they claim they need from the White House or if they are even pertinent to the investigation, or necessary. We only have their word they are necessary. We are talking about the larger issue of executive privelege, which has been substantially eroded ever since Watergate.

The only opinion I am fairly firm on is the funding. Why should it come out of the money for Iraq? I thought you guys have been saying Iraq is unrelated to 9/11.

Are these guys going off the track of the causes of 9/11 and getting into the causes of the war in Iraq? I don't know. Do you?

As for what this investigation might find, my imagination must not be as great as yours. This seems to be the real focus of your topic since you have given me a third hijack warning about it. :D

So what do you think they might find? That Bush paid Israel to arrange 9/11, and that the Jews in the WTC were warned not to come to work that day?

That Bush got a phone call from Sylvia Browne warning him that the planes were going to be hijacked and rammed into the WTC?

Just because the White House is being "uncooperative" according to this "republican," doesn't mean they are hiding something. It may be they feel it is a waste of time as there is nothing there.

[Luke T.]

If you want to know my true feelings, subgenius, I am of the opinion that Bush should give the investigators whatever they want. Otherwise, Bush starts to look like Hussein.

If you believe Bush is hiding something because he won't cooperate, then you must understand why we thought Hussein was hiding something. Yes?

Edited to add: And since there were no WMDs (oopsie!), then maybe there is nothing in the White House, either. Something to consider. This could all be about pride and politics.

[Chaos]

Luke T. (and others)

I think the investigation is very important - regardless of wether or not 9/11 could have been prevented - for one simple reason:

It might point out things that could be fixed to prevent the next 9/11.


Therefore, in hindering the work of the commission, the Bush Administration might very well make the next big attack a lot easier.

[davefoc]

Just a thought on how this thing might have gone if the Bush administration was interested in a thorough investigation of what went wrong and what we might do about it in the future.

The Bush administration would have created their own investigation committee. Admittedly it would have been criticized as not being impartial. That doesn't matter. The Bush administration could have supported this committee with the full backing and authority of the President. People that don't cooperate are fired kind of thing. The President would then have been in the position to give the nation an overview of the mistakes that were made and what is being done to correct them.

Then the detailed report would be turned over to congress, who would of course attempt to politicize it, but if a genuine good faith effort was made to get at the truth by the writers of the report and the Bush administration, the congress would have difficulty making their claims stick.

As it is, an independent committee run by congress is far less likely to produce a full and accurate report than a committee working for a president interested in getting a detailed impartial version of what happened. But in the absence of a president interested in getting such a report, the country will have to rely on a report from a congress run investigation that can be stymied by an administration that can throw up need for secrecy and national security at every turn.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I actually have not reached a conclusion. I don't think I posted anything that says I have. I have no idea if the investigation has gotten all the data they need or not, or if they have gotten sidetracked into unrelated areas as some independent investigations have in the past.

I also have no idea what kind of documents they claim they need from the White House or if they are even pertinent to the investigation, or necessary. We only have their word they are necessary. We are talking about the larger issue of executive privelege, which has been substantially eroded ever since Watergate.
____
*The White House has not invoked executive privilege, but I'm sure they thank you for trying.*
____

The only opinion I am fairly firm on is the funding. Why should it come out of the money for Iraq? I thought you guys have been saying Iraq is unrelated to 9/11.
______
*Because you disagree with the funding, what does that have to do with getting the job done now? Its a moot point. Otherwise anytime there's an investigation the subject could refuse to comply by questioning the funding. Grasping for straws there.*
_____

Are these guys going off the track of the causes of 9/11 and getting into the causes of the war in Iraq? I don't know. Do you?
_____
*No. Yes. But once again they thank you for attempting to justify their obstructionism.*
_____
As for what this investigation might find, my imagination must not be as great as yours. This seems to be the real focus of your topic since you have given me a third hijack warning about it. :D
______
*This is absolutely not the focus of the thread. I don't care what, if anything, they find. They were given a job to do, by the president (he appointed the chair). They should be allowed to do it.*
____
So what do you think they might find? That Bush paid Israel to arrange 9/11, and that the Jews in the WTC were warned not to come to work that day?

That Bush got a phone call from Sylvia Browne warning him that the planes were going to be hijacked and rammed into the WTC?

Just because the White House is being "uncooperative" according to this "republican," doesn't mean they are hiding something. It may be they feel it is a waste of time as there is nothing there.

Once again, I don't know, or care, what they might find.
The fact they are being uncooperative doesn't mean they are hiding something, you are absolutely correct. The fact that they were uncooperative and now oppose an extension, is obnoxious.
Its not OK to be uncooperative to a commision duly constituted with a mission just because you believe its a waste of time.
Otherwise everyone would be immune from any oversight.

Do you respect the opinions of the dead's survivors who would like some answers so they would not have died in vain.
If the conclusion is that nothing could have been done, that, in fact will provide a great deal of closure.
If we can learn one thing that could have been done better, even though of course nothing could absolutely prevent it, that's a good thing. No?

Edited to add: Posted this before I saw your last. Glad to see that as usual, we agree on more than we disagree.
Interesting convergence on the implications of finding no negligence/wrongdoing.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Chaos
Luke T. (and others)

I think the investigation is very important - regardless of wether or not 9/11 could have been prevented - for one simple reason:

It might point out things that could be fixed to prevent the next 9/11.


Therefore, in hindering the work of the commission, the Bush Administration might very well make the next big attack a lot easier.
Like opposing, then agreeing to an independent counse for the CIA agent outing, its worse politically, and leads to an inference that you're hiding something.
Hoisting oneself on one's own petard.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius

Edited to add: Posted this before I saw your last. Glad to see that as usual, we agree on more than we disagree.
Interesting convergence on the implications of finding no negligence/wrongdoing.

;)

[subgenius]

Sen. Kerrey tells Ms. Sheehy that the commission is scheduled to meet privately with Condoleezza Rice on Saturday, Feb. 7. Her testimony will not be sworn or made public;
http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm


There must be a good reason that she doesn't want to be subject to the penalties for perjury.
Someone help me on this one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also have no idea what kind of documents they claim they need from the White House or if they are even pertinent to the investigation, or necessary. We only have their word they are necessary. We are talking about the larger issue of executive privelege, which has been substantially eroded ever since Watergate.

Originally posted by subgenius
*The White House has not invoked executive privilege, but I'm sure they thank you for trying.*


Also this by subgenius:

One possible exit strategy could come in the form of a proposal from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who said in an interview yesterday that he will sponsor legislation giving the commission until January 2005 to complete a report. The delay would lessen the possibility that the panel and its work would become a major issue in the presidential race, McCain said.


Bush, in Reversal, Supports More Time for 9/11 Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/politics/05PANE.html?ex=1076562000&en=528827e56cc964e7&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

The White House reversed itself on Wednesday and said it would support a request from the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks to extend its deadline until late July, even though that would mean the panel's final report would be released closer to the height of the presidential campaign.

The commission threatened last year to subpoena the daily intelligence reports, but an agreement was struck then allowing three members to review them. The renewed threat of a subpoena results from the White House's refusal to let those three members share their notes on the information with the seven others. The White House has cited executive privilege.

[subgenius]

Mr. T, I sit most humbly corrected.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
Mr. T, I sit most humbly corrected.

I hate it when a politician doesn't play into my negative expectations, too. :D

I still agree with you on the issue of disclosure. Whatever Bush knew prior to 9/11, he should share it. He can say, "I don't have to show this to you, but I will." That way, executive privelege is unchallenged, and he gets to look like a good guy. He needs to put the truth above himself.

The article I linked, or maybe it was another one I read, said that Bush may have been warned in August 2001 about terrorists hijacking and crashing airplanes. That would have given Bush one month to do something about it. I think the American people would favorably view the possibility there was nothing he could have done in that little time and he should trust them to reach the right conclusions, even if they conclusions hurt him. We are a forgiving nation, if nothing else.

[subgenius]

And its not just about what he could have done, but what everybody in the system might have done better.
I just hate repeating history. I like to make new mistakes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
And its not just about what he could have done, but what everybody in the system might have done better.
I just hate repeating history. I like to make new mistakes.

What if they decide the mistake was that we didn't have a Patriot Act? :eek:

That would fall under the category of "new mistakes," I guess.

[subgenius]

Yes, they originally claimed executive privilege. Then they made a deal. Now they're reneging on it.
They didn't want the commission in the first place. They are obstructing it at every turn.

The White House: A New Fight Over Secret 9/11 Docs

Feb. 16 issue - The White House is facing a new battle with the federal panel investigating 9/11. To mollify the panel chair, former governor Thomas Kean, President George W. Bush last week reversed course and agreed to a two-month extension that is supposed to ensure a final 9/11 report by July. But that might not be enough. Commission sources tell NEWSWEEK that panel members are fed up with what one calls "maddening" restrictions by White House lawyers on their access to key documents. Unless the panel gets to see the docs, the report "will not withstand the laugh test," a commission official says. The panel is threatening to force a showdown soon—by voting to subpoena the White House.

The documents at the heart of the dispute are the so-called presidential daily briefs, or PDBs—the daily intelligence brief given to Bush by a senior intelligence official, usually the CIA director or his deputy. White House lawyers have guarded the documents as the "crown jewels" of executive privilege. But last year Kean and other commissioners complained they couldn't write their report without seeing exactly what Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had been told about the threat of Al Qaeda. The White House then agreed to a complex deal that would allow four panel officials to review the PDBs and then brief the full 10-member panel. But the arrangement hasn't stopped the wrangling. The four-member team asked to look at 360 PDBs dating back to 1998; White House counsel Alberto Gonzales permitted them to see just 24, arguing that only those that specifically mentioned possible domestic attacks or airplane hijackings were relevant. (One panel member was allowed to read all 360—but couldn't share the contents with colleagues.) The team was permitted to write brief summaries of the PDBs they did read. But White House lawyers objected to some of the wording. The bickering has meant the full panel has yet to be told anything about the PDBs—even while it was conducting interviews with top officials, like last Saturday's with national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice. The restrictions are especially infuriating, one source notes, because at least some of the PDBs appear to have been selectively shared by the White House two years ago with author Bob Woodward for his sympathetic book "Bush at War."
.........
While the commission's work has uncovered no smoking gun, sources say, the cumulative impact of the intelligence documents and other material is damning—showing far more screw-ups by both Clinton and Bush officials than the public has yet to learn.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4208768/

[subgenius]

On Meet the Press:

President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton. As you know, we made an agreement on what's called "Presidential Daily Briefs," and they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have provided what's called the PDB, because...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

[scribble]

The obvious move for Bush is to want to delay the results of the inquisition until after the election. It wouldn't be too hard. Instead, the push is in the opposite direction, to get it over with in too short an amount of time.

Now, it's possible this is just because if they fail, they can fall back to the long push, but I'm going to just make a guess here.

There's some smoking gun in the data out there that is so bad, it would ruin Bush even if it were to come out once he's safely in his next term.

[subgenius]

Hastert Tells W.House He Won't Extend 9/11 Panel
Wed Feb 25, 2004 02:45 PM ET

By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a blow to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has told the White House and fellow Republicans that he will not bring up legislation to extend its May 27 deadline, officials said on Wednesday.

President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, personally had appealed to Speaker Dennis Hastert to reconsider, and the Illinois Republican met on Wednesday with Bush at the White House.

But the speaker's spokesman, John Feehery, said Hastert told the White House and members of the House Republican conference that "it's a bad idea to extend the commission and ... that we're not going to bring any legislation up."

The commission wants a 60-day extension through July 26 to complete its final report on the attacks. Despite initial objections, Bush backed the extension and the Senate is moving forward with legislation.

But Hastert cast serious doubt on its prospects for passage in the Republican-controlled House. "He thinks the (commission's) report is overdue and we need to get the recommendations as soon as possible. He is also concerned it will become a political football if this thing is extended and it is released in the middle of the presidential campaign," Feehery said.

The commission says it needs the extra 60 days to complete hundreds of interviews and review millions of documents.
...
Administration officials including Rice said there was no advance indication that terrorists were planning suicide airline hijackings.

But the White House revealed later that Bush had received a briefing one month before the attacks warning of the possibility of a plot to hijack airplanes.
...
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4437913

The commission is headed by a Republican (thus some credibility to the request for an extension). The administration clearly refused to cooperate (they opposed the commission in the first place).
They don't want to rush the WMD commission but they want to push this one to completion.
I think they out-thunk themselves on this one. It would be to their political advantage to put it over until after the election.
The victims' survivors, and all of us deseve to learn any lessons we can.
Especially after the WMD intelligence fiasco.

[JesFine]

President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, personally had appealed to Speaker Dennis Hastert to reconsider, and the Illinois Republican met on Wednesday with Bush at the White House. :rolleyes:
So, the chief of staff, presumably with the approval of the President of the United States, asked him to reconsider and he flat turned him down?

Who writes for these guys?

[JesFine]

Well this is fun, now Hastert OKs 9/11 panel extension (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4401034/) .

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What if they decide the mistake was that we didn't have a Patriot Act? :eek:

That would fall under the category of "new mistakes," I guess. That would be Bush's fault, actually, since the Department of Homeland Security was proposed under Clinton, I believe as part of the anti-terrorist report that was given to the White House as part of the transition.

[varwoche]

"He (Hastert) thinks the (commission's) report is overdue and we need to get the recommendations as soon as possible. He is also concerned it will become a political football if this thing is extended and it is released in the middle of the presidential campaign," Feehery said.
In short, Hastert blocks it based on political calculation (admittedly) so that the commission won't be used for political calculation.

varwoche

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
That would be Bush's fault, actually, since the Department of Homeland Security was proposed under Clinton, I believe as part of the anti-terrorist report that was given to the White House as part of the transition.

Congratulations for falling for a meme based on a discredited report by Time magazine.

[davefoc]

corplinx said:Congratulations for falling for a meme based on a discredited report by Time magazine.

Al Franken, has a fleshed out story along this line in his book. As I recall the Bush administration kept the guy that was in charge of putting the program together under the Clinton administration on. He lobbied long and hard in the administration for action on his plan. The Bush administration was basically putting off any action until 9-11 occurred.

Is this whole story a crock manufactured by Bush bashers, a corruption of the real facts manufactured by Democratic partisans or the truth?

I don't know.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by davefoc
corplinx said:

Al Franken, has a fleshed out story along this line in his book. As I recall the Bush administration kept the guy that was in charge of putting the program together under the Clinton administration on. He lobbied long and hard in the administration for action on his plan. The Bush administration was basically putting off any action until 9-11 occurred.

Is this whole story a crock manufactured by Bush bashers, a corruption of the real facts manufactured by Democratic partisans or the truth?

I don't know.

TIME magazine ran this story with an undersupported claim that the Bush admin was given some plan by the Clinton administration and the implication was that the plan would have prevented 9/11. However, the "plan" the TIME article referred to was actually an abstract on dealing with terror done in powerpoint.

[subgenius]

"The commission wants to go back in the court of public opinion and appeal to the administration for them to reconsider their first stand," said commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "If we don't get that kind of cooperation, compelling Dr. Rice to come before us is an option."


The White House said Tuesday that Rice's testimony was a constitutional issue of separation of powers. "As a matter of law and practice, White House staff have not testified before legislative bodies," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "This is not a matter of Dr. Rice's preferences."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=519&u=/ap/20040302/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission_4&printer=1

Funny how seperation of powers was no issue when compelling Clinton to testify on a personal lawsuit while he was president.
Here's its an issue with respect to a legally constituted body investigating things of great public interest.

[subgenius]

Attaboy:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday it was possible President Bush could be questioned longer than an hour he agreed to by a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an apparent concession that came after criticism from Democrat John Kerry.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/380018|top|03-09-2004::12:08|reuters.html

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON -- Shortly after a passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers raced back to the military headquarters from a meeting on Capitol Hill. The four-star general, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that day, went directly to the Pentagon's command center. With smoke spreading into the cavernous room, he ordered the officer in charge, Maj. Gen. W. Montague Winfield, to raise the military's alert status to Defcon III, the highest state of readiness since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

That account is based on interviews with Gen. Winfield and a former White House official. In the months after Sept. 11, President Bush had a different public explanation about who put the military on high alert. The president said publicly at least twice that he gave the order. During a town-hall meeting in Orlando on Dec. 4, 2001, Mr. Bush said that after the attacks, "one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert."
....
At the Dec. 4, 2001, town-hall meeting in Orlando, Mr. Bush said, "I was sitting outside the classroom, waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, 'Well, there's one terrible pilot.' " Several weeks later, he said essentially the same thing at another public event in Ontario, Calif.

Actually, no scenes of the first plane hitting the Trade Center were broadcast on television until late that night, when amateur video footage became available. The TV in the room where Mr. Bush waited wasn't even plugged in, according Ms. Rigell, the principal. "It's just a mistaken recollection" on the president's part, his spokesman, Mr. Bartlett, said in an interview. "There were lots of things going on fast at the time."
....

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB107991342102561383-IJjgoNjlaF3oJ2rZnuIaKeBm4,00.html