Yeah, I guess it would be a farce, wouldn't it. But then at least we'd have a whole new bunch of **** to bitch about.
I always wondered why they allow the President to appoint their own investigative teams to look into their own misdeeds. It should be congress or some other unrelated party that investigates the President.
I guess it can work out though. Look at the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons.
McGentrix wrote:Just out of curiosity, who should be responsible for appointing the commission?
Why you McGentrix, a concerned and non partisan citizen who is only interested in the truth and not helping bush cover up....I think you'd be perfect......yeah....perfect....that's the ticket......
McCain would have been on MY list as well.
Quote:I always wondered why they allow the President to appoint their own investigative teams to look into their own misdeeds. It should be congress or some other unrelated party that investigates the President.
I guess it can work out though. Look at the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons.
Please god, don't let this thread turn into another about the Clintons, BUT it should be pointed out that the Special Prosecutors were not appointed by Bill Clinton or even by the Attorney General nor by any member of the Justice Department. They were selected by a three judge panel of the judiciary.
Now that Bush has selected his token member. Mc.Cain. He is free to appoint his supporters to the commission.
Although IronLionZion is no fan of Bush, I am not sure I agree with "Bush Starts Phony Commission to Find Himself Blameless." The seven members of the commission that have been mentioned so far represent a relatively divirse set of Washington dignitaries - they are certainly not Bush cronies. My complaint is that Bush has conveniently given them a March 2004 deadline - just in time to avoid the elections. After all, if it was merely a "phony commission to find himself blameless" he would be eagre to get his name cleared.
IronLionZion wrote:Although IronLionZion is no fan of Bush, I am not sure I agree with "Bush Starts Phony Commission to Find Himself Blameless." The seven members of the commission that have been mentioned so far represent a relatively divirse set of Washington dignitaries - they are certainly not Bush cronies. My complaint is that Bush has conveniently given them a March 2004 deadline - just in time to avoid the elections. After all, if it was merely a "phony commission to find himself blameless" he would be eagre to get his name cleared.
even a dragged out phony commission is the plan...the more smoke he blows over his corrupt administration the better off he is........
The point being that it is not a phony commission - it is just a dragged out one.
From AP via Yahoo: the bipartisanship (and non-partisanship) of the persons making up the commission is beginning to sound a little better:
Quote:President Bush named seven people Friday to sit on an independent study commission to look into intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons, choosing former Democratic Sen. Charles S. Robb and retired judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, to head the panel.
Robb was a former U.S. senator and governor of Virginia and son-in-law of the late President Johnson. He is married to Lynda Baines Johnson and has been practicing law since leaving the Senate. Silberman is a conservative who served as deputy attorney general in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He was named to the appeals court by President Reagan in 1985.
Bush also named Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton; former federal judge Patricia M. Wald; Yale University president Richard C. Levin, and Adm. William O. Studeman, former deputy director of the CIA.
Wald, a respected former chief judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, served as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
The deadline does not:
Quote:Bush directed federal agencies to cooperate with the commission, which will report to the nation by March 2005.
Zion
Quote:The point being that it is not a phony commission - it is just a dragged out one.
That in itself makes it phony. First Bush was reluctant to investigate, Than when put in a position where he had to he will be appointing the members. And in order to assure that the findings would not impact upon his chances for reelection he made sure they would not be released until after the election.
The entire exercise is phony or rather in line with this duplicitous administrations modis operendi..
Well, is it about finding out the truth on the intelligence failures, or just about making the president look bad before the election?
Surely, you want the investigation to do it's best to find out all the details, right? Nah, probably not, you would rather just have the election tainted by the investigation...
McG, it's the other way around. The investigation will be tainted by the election.
McGentrix
I want the investigation to either clear him or condemn him prior to the election in order that people can make an intelligent choice. Is that too much to ask? Is the truth so damning that Bush wants to make sure it is not known before the election?
McGentrix wrote:Well, is it about finding out the truth on the intelligence failures, or just about making the president look bad before the election?
Surely, you want the investigation to do it's best to find out all the details, right? Nah, probably not, you would rather just have the election tainted by the investigation...
Why McGentrix, does this mean you think the investigation might make bush look bad? I
AM shocked.
The investigqation isn't about Bush though. It's about what happened in the intelligence agencies that made them have such faulty evidence. It is not about clear or condemning Bush at all.
I think you might be a bit confused as to what the inquiry is investigating...
then it can't possibly make bush look bad right? So what's your problem with having it done before the election?
What's the hurry? Government investigations have never been notoriously speedy. How long did Whitewater take?
McGentrix
It is also about finding out whether and how much this administration influenced and possibly distorted the information given to them by the intel community. What did the president or rather the powers behind the throne have to do in shaping that information? I would not say president Bush since I am still firmly convinced that he is not captaining the ship of state. He is just along for the ride.
au1929 wrote:Zion
Quote:The point being that it is not a phony commission - it is just a dragged out one.
That in itself makes it phony. First Bush was reluctant to investigate, Than when put in a position where he had to he will be appointing the members. And in order to assure that the findings would not impact upon his chances for reelection he made sure they would not be released until after the election.
The entire exercise is phony or rather in line with this duplicitous administrations modis operendi..
Oh, I do not disagree that the whole fiasco is duplicitous. I am merely trying to point out that the commission itself - that is to say, the seven members who have already been appointed - represents an unbiased group of high calibre experts. In other words, I have faith in the commission.
