|
 Clean
the lense
 
Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,373
|
 Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission 
#2618404 - 04/29/04 10:03 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So they "testified" today.
They were not under oath.
No one was allowed to record their comments in any way shape or form.
Only one of the 10 member commission was allowed to take notes.
What are they trying to hide?
If you don't think that the White House's refusal to allow their remarks to be recorded in any way is outrageous, i'd like to hear why.
|
 phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
 Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Clean]
#2618653 - 04/29/04 10:45 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Bush's the president.
He doesn't have to testify at all. Same goes for Cheney.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: phi1618]
#2618831 - 04/29/04 11:21 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
How do you justify that Phi...the job of our President is to protect the american populace. This commission, whether you agree with how it's set up/is being conducted or not, has the job of finding out how the government failed to protect the people and offer suggestions to correct it. I felt it was imperative that the President take part in this.
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
Edited by Ancalagon (04/29/04 11:21 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Clean]
#2619062 - 04/30/04 12:20 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Was Clinton under oath when he testified behind closed doors to the same commission?
I don't understand the problem. Bush answered every question he was asked. None of the members of the Commission expressed any dissatisfaction whatsoever with the session. You consider this bad because....?
pinky
--------------------
|
Xochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Phred]
#2619176 - 04/30/04 12:46 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
are you serious?
--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.
-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Phred]
#2619400 - 04/30/04 01:39 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry Pinky, but your faith in the good intentions of those who seek power and seek to keep their machinations secrete while seeking to strip the citizens (THEIR EMPLOYERS) of their privacy reminds me of stories of naive trusting children with molesting parents.
Who picked the commission members?
If Bush and Cheney had nothing to hide, why did they not swear to tell the truth?
Why was no recording of their testimony allowed?
Why were all note pads confiscated from the commission by federal agents after their testimony?
For a government to be accountable, there must be transparency. We the citizens of the United States are the employers of the federal government workers, they are delegated by us to perform their constitutional duties as our representatives. A government that cannot trust it's citizens, cannot itself be trusted and this is a sign that it is time for the people to dispense with the current system and to institute a new government that will recognize it's proper place as being the servant of the people, NOT THEIR MASTER.
If the likes of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were as naive of the dangers of such a government as you appear to be, the great experiment in liberty which they gave us would never have materialized.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: phi1618]
#2619604 - 04/30/04 02:32 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
Bush's the president.
He doesn't have to testify at all. Same goes for Cheney.
Sorry, did you just say "president"? For a second there it sounded like you said "Emperor."
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Xochitl]
#2619608 - 04/30/04 02:33 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xochitl said:
are you serious?
Sadly, he is.
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 1 year, 17 days
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Clean]
#2619625 - 04/30/04 02:38 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What are they trying to hide?
Maybe that they shot down the 4th plane.
|
trendal
King of Asides
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,047
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Last seen: 1 hour, 52 minutes
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Clean]
#2619680 - 04/30/04 03:03 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
They were not under oath.
No one was allowed to record their comments in any way shape or form.
Only one of the 10 member commission was allowed to take notes.
Sounds more like a light chat than a "testimony" 
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Evolving]
#2619726 - 04/30/04 03:33 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving, if you have a problem with the way the Constitution is set up, I can sympathize. There are parts of it I disagree with as well. But as phi1618 pointed out, neither Bush nor Cheney had to testify at all.
As for who picked the members of the commission, I presume you are implying that since they were chosen by the administration, they will be nothing other than tame lapdogs of the administration. The reports of the behavior of the commission members to date certainly doesn't indicate this is the case.
As for why no recordings were allowed, I would imagine one word applies -- "leaks".
pinky
--------------------
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Ancalagon]
#2620407 - 04/30/04 10:27 AM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not really happy about the state of the 9/11 comission, but I agree with pinksharkmark on this one.
Executive priviledge is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution (to my knowledge), but it is an important and time honored principle of government. One of my main objections to this administration are the attempts to weaken the checks and ballances that are there to prevent any one branch of government from becoming the de facto rulers of the land. The provisions of the PATRIOT act allowing the FBI to seize records and citizens without judicial oversight are intollerable for this reason. The ACLU is presently trying to challenge them in court, allthough it is not clear that is possible to do so.
However, this sword cuts both ways. It is imperative that the Judiciary (or legislature) not be able to interfere in the business of the executive branch by forcing the President to testify. In theory, the president knows things that should not be widely known, and has more important things to do than testify. (without executive priviledge, a hostile legislature or judiciary could endlessly supeona the president, effectively interfering or stopping the important work of the government.)
Now, in this particular case, I wish Bush had been more forthcoming. But my views of the principle of the matter are clear: Bush (and Cheney) have the right to refuse any testimony, and this is the way it should be. I don't think executive privaledge extends to Rice.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: phi1618]
#2620935 - 04/30/04 12:39 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Your argument in defense of the separation of powers is thoughtful and well put, but I just have a couple of points:
First, nobody in this thread has claimed that Bush is bound by law to testify in this particular case.
Second, Bush was not subpoenaed by a "hostile" legislature or judiciary. He was requested to share information with an independent, bipartisan committee that he himself appointed. The commission was chartered by Congress but it is emphatically not a part of either the legislature or judiciary, so where exactly does separation of powers come into play?
He resisted any kind of meeting until public pressure made further resistance impossible, and even then only relented with a plethora of ridiculous pre-conditions, including the one about him appearing with Cheney in tow.
Any reasonable person would have some serious doubts about Bush's desire to help the commission based on the following questions:
Why did Bush resist from the beginning even though the commission never even asked him to appear under oath?
Why was it necessary for Bush and Cheney (and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzaeles to boot) to appear together?
Why was a complete transcript of the proceedings denied? "National security" arguments just don't cut it: any such transcript would be for the Commission's eyes only. Clinton and Gore each met with the commission separately and their meetings were recorded in full.
Those of us who find Bush's attitude toward an issue of such weight unacceptable are justified in thinking so. The separation of powers argument is not really applicable in this case; even if it were, executive "privilege" does not mean the same thing as executive "immunity", executive "sanctity," or executive "infallibility." In my opinion the executive branch is already too powerful as it is: no Prime Minister or President in any of the other democracies of the world wields as much power in his own country as the US President. Despite the fact that monarchical authority was precisely the thing they were trying to escape, the Founding Fathers were still unable to think enough outside of the conceptual boxes of their time to create a presidency whose occupant had limited powers and was easily replaced, creating instead an almost monarchical presidency. Before WWII we didn't even have term limits, for Christ's sake.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: EchoVortex]
#2621879 - 04/30/04 04:11 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: Phred]
#2621979 - 04/30/04 04:29 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Was Clinton under oath when he testified behind closed doors to the same commission?
what was Clinton testifying about again?
was it the largest failure of american government to protect it's citizens?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#2622009 - 04/30/04 04:35 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
who's telling the truth, newsmax or cnn?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/index.html
Former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have also met with the commission. Their sessions were also private and, like Bush and Cheney, they were not under oath. However, Clinton and Gore appeared separately before the panel, and their sessions were recorded.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#2622027 - 04/30/04 04:37 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
ps. that article says that clinton was accompanied by
legal counsel and sandy berger, not Gore.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: afoaf]
#2622035 - 04/30/04 04:38 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
who can read and who can not?
It says Clinton and Gore testified separately. I see no mention of then testifying ALONE.
Unless I missed it and you can point it out to me?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,214
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: afoaf]
#2622064 - 04/30/04 04:42 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Not me I guess. I re-read Echo's post and he did use the word seperate. However, in the context of his post I'm left with the impression he thinks Bush should have spoken ALONE. I happen to agree with that. Clinton should have also which his post implys he did. IMO.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#2622108 - 04/30/04 04:49 PM (13 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
edit: you see what I mean.
Edited by afoaf (04/30/04 04:51 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
