Why Bush Won't Answer the 911 Commission Questions

Stalled and Stonewalled
The Dems should put more pressure on him to testify for as long as it takes under oath. Also, the Liar VP. They aren't kings. They are America's servants.

Sorry Pistoff but your wrong. They are kings in every since of the word. They answer to no one because they control our police force and our congress and our courts. They are answerable to no one but the voters every four years. And by the time they get done brainwashing the voters with thier 60 sec. soundbites they will be back in for another 4 years. Im beginning to think the advice "if you dont like it here leave" is sound advice. I wonder how hard it is to emigrate to Canada?

Some things in Canada are just as bad as in the U.S. rabel22. At least the leader of your country can only stay for 8 years. That doesn't happen in Canada. The current government (Liberals) need to go, but the "other" party is just as bad. I'd like to see the NDP in power...to see what would happen. They've never led the country before, so it would be interesting to see if they would hold up their ideals, or turn into typical political weasels.

As for Bush and the 911 Commission, he and his government should be answering those questions. It's funny how the government feels accountable to the citizens it represents, only when it's convenient.

Is Ross right?
Listening to the testimony of Richard Clark in front of the 911 Commission has sparked a possible new angle in my attempts to understand the Bush / Cheney rationale in attacking Iraq. Clark testified that essentially nothing was done in furthering his anti-terrorist policy between Jan. 2001 and Sept. 2001, and that the Intelligence/Defense/National Security briefings (from which he was omitted) centered around Saddam and Iraq. In fact, Saddam and Iraq were not even a contributing factor in Clark's anti-terrorism strategy.

We've previously heard that in January, 2001, DOD awarded multi-billion dollar "sole-source" contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel for contract support in the Iraq War (as yet undeclared). Is it possible that Bush & Cheney (along with Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and the rest of his conservative cohorts) actually USED the 911 attack to CREATE a unilateral war against Saddam Hussein not for mere revenge or any of the declared "threat" reasons, but instead as a mechanism for allocating these billions of dollars in financial support expenditures to Halliburton and Bechtel????

This is somewhat of a different perspective than giving Bush & Cheney any credit whatsoever for stamping out weapons of mass destruction, fulfilling UN resolution threats, overthrowing an evil dictator, freeing the Iraqi people, eliminating the Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, or any other confounding excuse put forth from this administration. Could it be, as stated so often by Ross Perot, that if we just "follow the money" the answer lies in the same old "military-industrial-complex" that proliferated so many of our previous "wars" with "good-ol-boy" corporate sponsors profiteering at the expense of taxpayers and the increase in our National deficit????