Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pseudobrit, Jul 14, 2003.
Interesting op/ed piece.
Anyone else find this really bizarre?
I seem to remember another country that provided "minders" whenever somebody wanted to interview one of thier scientists. Oh yah, that was Iraq (Saddam). I guess somebody has to fill those shoes
Might as well be the administration that took out the Iraq (Saddam) administration for hiding information. If it weren't so damn horrifieing(sp), the irony is almost funny.
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of information that you can't see, and will probably never see. Certain information has to be 'hidden' for the security of our country.
Every president hides things. If everybody knew about everything that went on in the white house and the pentagon, we would have no way of keeping our nation secure.
Nobody is taking about revealing "everthing that went on it the White House." Further, we're talking about Congress being sandbagged, not the general public. The Bush administration established this pattern of excessively secretive behavior before 9-11, so this is just more of the same.
We're not talking about revealing everything. We're talking about getting to the bottom of 9/11, a national tragedy of epic proportions and consequences.
The investigation to discover the president had recieved oral sex was funded with an exponentially higher amount of money than the WTC collapse investigation has been.
Something is very strange here. The fish stinks, and it stinks from the head.
Perhaps it's a simple as "if everyone knows the truth, we can't paint it to be _____'s fault." Fill in the blanks with al Qaeda/Iraq/whomever else we feel the need to use an excuse to invade. Last week I heard a pundit trying to tie Liberia to al Qaeda. Ridiculous.
LOL. Like there's a difference?
Of course there is. They are more educated, nicer, less criminal, truthful, and well behaived. I am talking about the public, not Congress
Sorry, I don't understand the relevance of either of the last two posts. Was any intended?
The surest way to put something on the front pages of the newspapers on Monday is to have someone testify about it before a secret congressional committee on Friday.
Not only do I believe you to be entirely incorrect about this as a factual matter (a great deal secret congressional testimony clearly does not make it into the pages of any newspaper), you are also taking a completely cynical view of democracy. It is a view that has gotten this country in trouble time and again.
Quit being dodgy. Do you think that it is a good move to obfuscate the truth from the public?
I think you're asking the wrong question. As informed people are already aware, Congress has already investigated the issues arond 9/11, and this commission is a second investigation. While there may be plenty of politics in it from all sides, there are also legitimate national security concerns about what information should be released and what should not be released. These things must be balanced against each other, and it is foolish to whine about the public's right to know this or that without taking into account the need for people not to know this or that. When sensitive information is made public, the wrong people die.
Of course not everything leaks, but enough does to make Congressional testimony a major security risk.
My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the first commission to investigate 9/11, is either not yet complete because the Admin is dragging their feet, or did not get sufficient answers because of "National Security."
I of course am way outside the system, as most of the public is, and I am greatly concerned with the current adminstration's tendency toward secrecy. Even before 9/11, I saw this tendancy, when the Admin refused to release a list of names that helped form the current Energy Protocal. The accusations were that little or no attention was paid to envriomental/conservaton conserns, that many of us have. We, the people, have to take Bush's word that he got the right people to help form this Protocal.
All I am saying is that the current administration scares me like no other political force on earth. I am sure that they mean well, but I don't believe in the end justifying the means. And I believe that the Bush Admin is the opposite. I see this in the "Pre-emptive" strike policy, the National Security policy, Foreign relations, and most importantly, our civil rights.
This is why I for one have, and will continue to question every action/speach/policy that the current adminstration puts forth. And I am happy that Congress is also actively persuing this as well.
According to the linked op/ed on the first post of this thread, a congressional report on these issues was completed last December, making this commission the second investigation, and, it would seem, somewhat redundant.
This is a familiar, and tragic, excuse for an imperial presidency. No sale.
And that's why it's a good thing that those who want all information made public are not in charge. These things require balance, and we don't get balance by releasing all information gathered and internal workings of the intelligence services to the public. I seem to recall a court forcing the revalation that the intelligence services of the US were able to listen in to sat phones. Once this was public, those phones were no longer considered secure.
A straw man argument. Nobody suggested that "all information" be made public. Just so we are clear, you are arguing that vital national security information be withheld from congress.
Sounds like an argument from Nixon's lawyer.
Well, I'd rather be Nixon's laywer than Saddam's.
That's right, there are times when Congress should not be given certain information. The classic example of this, of course, is the Ultra project during WWII. More to the point in this instance, appropriate caution should be taken to ensure that information that should not be released will not be released. We have already heard about various intelligence failures before 9/11, it's not like this is being ignored by Congress or the administration.
Maybe you should ask the families of some of the people who died on 9/11 if they are satisfied with the congressional report.
Right now there is no comprehensive independent report available to the public about 9/11. We have seen how such reports, like the Warren Commision's report on the Kennedy assasination, are necessary to the public well-being. Another lesson learned from the Warren Commision's report is that it is important that the commision be independent and above reproach. Do we really want to live with the conspiracy theories for the next 40 years? What about an Oliver Stone movie about 9/11?
Bush originally appointed Henry Kissenger, the man partly responsible for secret Cambodian bombings, to head the 9/11 commision. What a laughable choice completely revealing the Bush administration's Nixonian like secrecy.
Basic constitutional lesson #1.
There are 3 branches to the government.
The executive branch;
The legislative branch; and
The judicial branch.
They are designed to be checks and balances on each other.
To suggest that the executive branch runs things, and is entitled to tell the other branches what information it can see (barring major explained national security issues - which are still disclosed to a select panel), which issues they can investigate, or how they do their jobs is suggesting that this country be run like a dictatorship.
The mere fact that someone here would suggest that is very, very sad.
I think we should all copy this, and email/snail mail/fax to every Senator, Representative, Judicial Apointee, and the entire Executive branch.
[SARCASM]The Warren Commission really set the record straight for the public on the whole Kennedy assassination thing. After that report, there was not more controversy or debate![/SARCASM]
Rather, what we have seen is that it doesn't matter if you have commission after commission, there are going to be conspiracy theories, including those which claim that Jews were warned not to go to work or that there really wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Hell, if there weren't pictures of of the planes at the WTC, there would be people saying that the building was hit by a missile fired from a grassy knoll someplace.
wwworry, no report or commission is going to make the victims and their families feel better.
Stop the histrionics. No one is suggesting that the country be run like a dictatorship. I am just pointing out that there are good reason not to release every little bit of information.
Just a thought
what I might say might offend certain people here but I just want to say it. These are just speculations and looking from a different point of view.
Ok here it goes what if......
The Bush administation is trigger happy...
ok Pre 9/11 remember the US spy crashing into China? the sort of accidentally on purpose thing. Ooops can I have my plane back please or we are going to invade..
What if.... The Bush administation knew about 9/11 but sort of let it slip through, another accidentally on purpose thing. Therefore resulting in the war in Afganistan and Iraq? I mean no terrorist group has ever admitted to 9/11. 9/11 was such a huge statement that who ever did it never really came forward, it was all speculated.
Sorry guys, just thoughts that been sitting with me for a while and wondered what others think? I like to apologise to friends in New York for making such assumptions but something doesnt add up....
Re: Just a thought
You seem to be ignorant of a nuber of facts, including that fact that the US has flown along the China coast for generations, and includig the fact that Al Qeada was, in fact, shown to be responsible for 9/11 and boasted of it. Your assumptions do not add up. They are based on lies, and your conclusions are likewise unfounded.
Like I said, there's going to be conspiracy theories. These are often offered by people motivated either by political hatred, simple mental imbalance, or both.