"IT hasn't happened again" So by this are you implying that it couldn't? That we're safe? Problem solved? Right... "3 Ring Circus" Again, you're blurring the distinction....you are confusing (intentionally, it seems) the work and eventual findings of the Committee with what others (not on, associated with, or directly related to the Committeee) may say about it one day. That's an important difference. The question before congress is whether or not to allow the Committee to finish the job that congress authorized it to do.....THere's nothing about sideshows or circuses or whatever at issue here. You say that you don't want the national tragedy exposed to the "circus"....for what purpose? As an altruistic gesture to the survivors? The survivors, if you read the initial article, are the ones who are actively lobbying for the investigation to continue and for the Administration to be less obstructive. You say that your only defending Bush because we criticize him so much, is that an admission that as a substantive matter you have no legitimate reason to object to the committee continuing its work?
I did not say "only." I said (previously) that I am willing to parry with the reckless criticism that appears here because Bush can't be all bad-- as so many here would have us believe.
But this is entirely divorced from that issue. Should the committees work continue in the abstract? The answer is unquestionably yes. Simply because you question if I or rimrocker or Howard Dean wants it to continue because of partisan reasons or genuine reasons; We have nothing to do with the decision, ultimately, so it doesn't change what is an easy, easy answer: Of course it should.
The <i>Washington Post</i> timeline has Starr picking up on what the Jones lawsuit first started. <i>........January 16, 1998 Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr receives formal approval to expand his inquiry to investigate the possibility of subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case; Linda R. Tripp, confidant of former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky, briefs Jones lawyers about an alleged sexual relationship betweeen Lewinsky and Clinton. (For more on the Lewinsky allegations, see the Clinton Accused special report and the Clinton Accused Time Line.) January 17, 1998 Clinton is questioned under oath by Jones's attorneys in the Washington office of his lawyer, Robert S. Bennett. January 29, 1998 U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright issues a ruling that excludes all evidence relating to former White House aide Monica S. Lewinsky from the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton because of the "inevitable effect of disrupting" Starr's investigation......... </i> Your point is that the Starr investigation brought the perjury issue into focus. My point is that the Jones v. Clinton lawsuit gave the opening & laid much of the groundwork for Starr. Without the Jones lawsuit, Starr might not have gotten the leads into that particular topic area.
It is actually a good thing that the Bush administration continues to do things like obstruct the 9/11 commission. And that Bush apologists continue to offer up the lamest of excuses and rationalizations for the Administration's most egregious acts. All of those swing voters out there are going to find it easier and easier to make up their minds.
I didn't really have a point, I was just clarifying. But otherwise we are d'accord., and I would even go further..without the Jones lawsuit, Starr would have had no grounds to investigate any of BC's sex life at all.
Let me clarify- I do not think the 9/11 commission should be interfered with, even if this led to Bush's downfall. I do however take hope from the fact that the Administration continues to shoot itself in the foot with actions like interfering with the 9/11 investigation.
Originally posted by Major Nothing's wrong with that picture. If you admit that you're defending someone not because you agree with him but because you don't like that lots of people are piling on, then you're going to have to reach and make up crappy arguments... and you're going to get called on it. <b>It's not that simplistic. I'm not anti-Bush making pro-Bush arguments. I agree with much/most of Bush's politics. I find it hard to believe that the man elected president of the US can do nothing right. That's the impression you get from people around here. That's what's wrong with this picture.</b> No, we have VERY little idea of what went wrong (if anything) on 9/11. If you think we do, you're simply delusional. "It hasn't happened again" - that's your argument? Wow. It hadn't happened before 9/11, yet it still happened on 9/11. <b>What do you mean we don't know what happened on 9/11? Nineeen different guys climbed aboard 4 different commercial flights, killed the crew with box-cutters, and drove the airplanes into oblivion. "It hasn't hapened again" is a rebuttal for the urgency to convene this investigation. It's been 2 and 1/2 years with recurrance. Do you really think that same kind of hijacking event will recur?</b> And you're willing to increase our risk of another terrorist attack, and many more people dying, in order to avoid a circus. Glad to see you have your priorities straight. <b>Exactly how am I increasing our risk? I think you overestimate the risk of that kind of attack recurring. My priority is not to waste national time, money, and energy on investigations that will tell us very little.</b>
It's not that simplistic. I'm not anti-Bush making pro-Bush arguments. I agree with much/most of Bush's politics. I find it hard to believe that the man elected president of the US can do nothing right. That's the impression you get from people around here. That's what's wrong with this picture. Perhaps if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you should make them on their merits. You complain about people who act like Bush can do nothing right - yet your posts make you look like someone who believes Bush can do nothing wrong. The people that are going to be taken most seriously here (or in any debate) are the ones that argue from reality - people such as basso who can say "I like these things about Bush, I don't like these". You come off as crazy as you believe the other side to be. What do you mean we don't know what happened on 9/11? Nineeen different guys climbed aboard 4 different commercial flights, killed the crew with box-cutters, and drove the airplanes into oblivion. "It hasn't hapened again" is a rebuttal for the urgency to convene this investigation. It's been 2 and 1/2 years with recurrance. Do you really think that same kind of hijacking event will recur? Wow, your world is very simple, isn't it? This investigation has nothing to do with box-cutters, airline security, or any of the other surface stuff that caused the problem. It's investigation into communications between government departments, things that allowed these people to roam around the U.S. undetected, etc. These things are still going on, and will certainly be relevent to any future attack on the U.S. If you really think we know everything that went wrong in U.S. policies, you're dumb (no offense). If you don't think that, then why the hell would you be against finding it out? The Pearl Harbor investigations weren't about how an airplane drops a bomb onto a ship. They were about what communications breakdowns led to us letting it get that far. They were public in order to force real change and provide the American people with the explanations they deserved. I can't believe I'm even having this conversation with someone. It's unfathomable to me that anyone would actually think that we don't need to learn what happened and how to better fix it.
My god, are you serious with this? It's been explained several times over in this thread, that the box cutter theory and most of the stuff you just said that we "know" is a proposed theory...nothing more. From an article in Slate: How do you know that the same kind of hijacking won't recur if you don't know what kind of hijacking it is?
Originally posted by Major Perhaps if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you should make them on their merits. You complain about people who act like Bush can do nothing right - yet your posts make you look like someone who believes Bush can do nothing wrong. The people that are going to be taken most seriously here (or in any debate) are the ones that argue from reality - people such as basso who can say "I like these things about Bush, I don't like these". You come off as crazy as you believe the other side to be. <b>Would it do some of you Bush-wackers to be likewise more fair-minded-- like you applaud basso for? You take me to the shed and you applaud basso yet you say nothing of your own predilictions (not just talking about you major) to continually find fault with President Bush. I am not so concerned that I represent here exactly how I feel about every single issue. I am more interested in pushing and prodding the arguments. Focus on the arguments not the persons involved.</b> Wow, your world is very simple, isn't it? This investigation has nothing to do with box-cutters, airline security, or any of the other surface stuff that caused the problem. It's investigation into communications between government departments, things that allowed these people to roam around the U.S. undetected, etc. These things are still going on, and will certainly be relevent to any future attack on the U.S. If you really think we know everything that went wrong in U.S. policies, you're dumb (no offense). If you don't think that, then why the hell would you be against finding it out? <b>Why do you think the Bush Administration is balking about opening up an investigation that will reach back at least 8 years before he took office and be focusing on someting that happened a mere 8 months after he took office?</b> I can't believe I'm even having this conversation with someone. It's unfathomable to me that anyone would actually think that we don't need to learn what happened and how to better fix it. <b>Again, so why do you think they are unwilling to participate? Some of the highest elected officials in the land would agree with me on this. I know you think you're better than that-- no offence intended!</b>
It doesn't matter if they used mace or box-cutters or shish-kebab sticks, as long as we keep people from bringing anything on board that could be used as a weapon this kind of hijacking won't be repeated. Was that so hard?
Wow giddy, I didn't know everything was so easy-- to alleviate my fears, please provide me with answers and clear and convincing evidence in support thereof to the following questions. How do you know how they got it on board? Did they smuggle it through airport security? Or was it planted in the aircraft beforehand? If they smuggled it through security was it in their carry on bag or on their person? Did they all go through the same checkpoint at the same time? Did they randomly pick different ones? Did they know anything about the various screeners on duty? Did they conspire with any of the screeners? What if they didn't bring any knife and just threatened that there was a bomb? Did they have a fake bomb that they threatened the pilots or crew with? Let me know when you can answer any of those questions in a non-speculative way.
Originally posted by SamFisher Wow giddy, I didn't know everything was so easy-- to alleviate my fears, please provide me with answers and clear and convincing evidence in support thereof to the following questions. How do you know how they got it on board? If they smuggled it through security was it in their carry on bag or on their person? Did they randomly pick different ones? Did they know anything about the various screeners on duty? What if they didn't bring any knife and just threatened that there was a bomb? Did they have a fake bomb that they threatened the pilots or crew with? <b>How in the world is this commission going to find these things out? There are no survivors. There is no new evidence nor will there be unless there is a confession. Law enforcement is already working the case, right? </b> Did they smuggle it through airport security? Or was it planted in the aircraft beforehand? Did they all go through the same checkpoint at the same time? Did they conspire with any of the screeners? <b>Law enforcement has worked and is working the case.</b> Let me know when you can answer any of those questions in a non-speculative way. <b>Nothing to report. I never promised anything because it's not my job. We already have professonals working on it.</b>
Mighty big words coming from someone who hasn't made yet a peep in effort towards refuting anything in this thread.
Of any of the other twenty in which he's been schooled in the last week. The parts of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia have been blacked out by the administration. What did they say and why were they censored? This is of much greater concern to me than whether or not they used box cutters. It is also of concern to the families of those who were killed. It should be a simple matter of respect to those families and to the dead that this investigation be allowed to continue. And we haven't even gotten into the WMD investigation yet. Boy howdy, that's gonna be the money shot.
What law enforcement is working on this? Who? how many people? Is it the Boston Police Department? New York? FBI? State Troopers? the Jedi Council? Who and what? And who are they going to report t heir findings to? The FAA? NTSB? CIA? DOJ? White House? Governor? The Galactic Federation? YOu say all the witnesses are dead...so they killed all of the security screeners and everybody else who was at the airport when they worked on the plane? Please advise. What about that 20th hijacker..thus far we have two men who the Government has said is the 20th hijacker....you sure we have the plot down? Again, what's your objection ot the continuation of the investigation? Do you have one or not? First you say its a witchhunt (even though it's not) then you say it has no value, then you say it has some value, then you say its useless anyway, then you say we already know, then you say somebody else is handling it, then you go in a circle and go back to the first thing or things you said and say them again..you are all over the map and I don't know what your position is here. You are right that we have pros working on it. The pros are called the 9-11 independent commission.. And the republicans are trying to stop them...for reasons of pure, naked self interest and making you and me be at risk.
