Reply
Thu 8 Apr, 2004 05:15 am
The Bush White House fought for a year to prevent the very idea of a commission to investigate the 9/11 terror attacks, and even after he was forced to bow to public pressure George W. Bush has tried to hamstring it -- from trying to put it under the leadership of Captain Truth himself, Henry Kissinger, to setting unreasonable deadlines for it to close down.
So, as Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and the President each have their days of testimony before the nation, remember this: When Republicans were after Bill Clinton, they saw fit to allocate $70 million to look into this one man's business dealings and sexual escapades; the 9/11 commission, by contrast, has had to beg and scrape from the Administration to gather a budget of $15 million.
And the story told by Starr was way more interesting. It had everything, sex, lies, and audio tape.
Is that true? What are the sources? if true, that is sick...
Ken Starr was an independent counsel who incidentally was appointed by Democrats. All independent counsels have substantial budgets to complete whatever investigation they are investigating including those who went after Ronald Reagan and George Bush the first. Independent counsels investigate potentially criminal matters.
The 9/11 commission is a fact finding body, not a criminal investigation body, and it receives the same funding all such fact finding commissions receive.
"The 9/11 commission is a fact finding body, not a criminal investigation body, and it receives the same funding all such fact finding commissions receive." foxfyre
If Bush raped his niece, a Bush loyalist would surface to explain it away, probably trying to blame Clinton.[/color]
dlowan:
Yes, it's true alright.
The Grand Inquisitor ultimately squandered $70 miilion dollars of taxpayer money to investigate a failed land deal, and later, oral sex.
The 9/11 Commission has had to struggle to investigate the largest terrorist attack on the USA (after much stonewalling by Bush) with a paltry $15 million dollar budget.
I wasn't blaming anybody of anything in my post, Titus. I was stating a pure fact. Now if you can show me where other non-Congressional fact finding commissions investigating something that happened in a Democrat administration received more money than the 9/11 committee, I will be glad to look at your evidence.
Comparing an Independent Counsel investigation with a non-congressional fact finding committee is comparing apples with oranges.
And it is not helpful to the debate to put words in my mouth or accuse me just because you don't like the information I put out there.
Eventually I do believe we will have a Special Prosecutor over the energy, Iraq, and 9/11 issues. I think Congress did not renew the act and will have to pass another one or the President would have to issue and Executive Order (EO).
Joanne:
Unfortunately, the Special Prosecutor law was allowed to expire, so the Congress would have to raise it.
Since there was so much salt in the nation's wound over the out-of-control Grand Inquisitor, AKA, Ken Starr, and his ties to the Arkansas Project, Richard Sciaffe, and the Wyle Brothers of Ft. Worth, I am loathed to expect to see another one anytime soon.
Bush and Cheney will pass through the system unscathed and all the wealthier for it.
What a shame.
Well I will continue to hope that some men and women in Congress will rise above the politics of it all.
The 9/11 Commission is very reminiscent of the Watergate inquiry. Or am I imagining things.
foxfyre:
Speaking of the "debate," I don't recall putting words, or anything else for that matter, in your mouth. And, I don't recall "blaming" you for anything.
I must conclude that as someone who is apologetically partisan for the right, and in light of the myriad problems currently confronting your boy, some degree of defensiveness is only to be expected.
Titus quoted my line
"The 9/11 commission is a fact finding body, not a criminal investigation body, and it receives the same funding all such fact finding commissions receive." foxfyre
and then said
Quote:If Bush raped his niece, a Bush loyalist would surface to explain it away, probably trying to blame Clinton.
and now says
Quote:foxfyre:
Speaking of the "debate," I don't recall putting words, or anything else for that matter, in your mouth. And, I don't recall "blaming" you for anything.
I must conclude that as someone who is apologetically partisan for the right, and in light of the myriad problems currently confronting your boy, some degree of defensiveness is only to be expected.
Gee Titus, I must have really misinterpreted your intention.
"Gee Titus, I must have really misinterpreted your intention." foxfyre
I just call em' as I see em' and your professed commitment to "the debate" has as many holes in it as Rice's testimony. :wink: [/color]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace