Sep.11 Independant Enquiry Deadline...

bonkey

I see in various papers today that Mr. Bush has once again decided that it is more important to prematurely conclude an investigation into an important issue rather than allowing the investigators the time they say they need in order to be able to do their job.

As he did with the UN weapons inspectors, Bush is now opposing giving the Sep.11 independant investigation additional time which it says it needs to conclude its work, and is instead insisting that they finish by May.

I must say that I have to question the logic behind this. Other than being afraid of the truth, there isn't a single valid reason that I can see to stop short of finding the truth, finding what was done wrong, and finding what can be done better to protect the US in future.

The only possible reason (though not a valid one to my mind) is if Bush wants to force the bad news he already knows about to come out at a specific time - any later and it could perhaps seriously damage his re-election chances.

I'm wondering though if the American people will be so blase about this as they were about the rush to invade Iraq. Cutting the weapons inspectors short was sold as being arguably good because of Saddam's un-cooperation, the fact that he was iredeemably bad, etc. etc. etc. In short, the WI teams could be removed because the Iraqi's would never let them get to the truth.

So I'm wondering what it will take to get the same people to swallow that the US administration doesn't think the September 11 disaster is worthy of the attention it requires to get to the bottom of that as well.

Or maybe, like the recent finds in Texas, this is something the US population at large will not kick up a fuss about because no-one will really make any noise over it....

Time will tell.

In the meantime, I'm just waiting for Geromino to come in and explain why the US people will support this action by the administration because they don't really want to know what happened, or that we Europeans just don't understand how American investigations work.

jc

I'd say the main (conspiracy free) reason why Bush wants this investigation over by May would be so that the Democrats wouldn't be able to use it in their campaign.

Hobbes

At least fox are reporting on it...

http://www.turnitdown.com/kw/KyleonFOX.mov

Geromino

Originally posted by utility_
I'd say the main (conspiracy free) reason why Bush wants this investigation over by May would be so that the Democrats wouldn't be able to use it in their campaign.

Bingo! However, we don't want to follow the three seperate commissions that dealt with the JFK assassination and proved basically nothing but conspiracy theories.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
The only possible reason (though not a valid one to my mind) is if Bush wants to force the bad news he already knows about to come out at a specific time - any later and it could perhaps seriously damage his re-election chances.

I'm wondering though if the American people will be so blase about this as they were about the rush to invade Iraq. Cutting the weapons inspectors short was sold as being arguably good because of Saddam's un-cooperation, the fact that he was iredeemably bad, etc. etc. etc. In short, the WI teams could be removed because the Iraqi's would never let them get to the truth.

So I'm wondering what it will take to get the same people to swallow that the US administration doesn't think the September 11 disaster is worthy of the attention it requires to get to the bottom of that as well.

Or maybe, like the recent finds in Texas, this is something the US population at large will not kick up a fuss about because no-one will really make any noise over it....

Time will tell.

However, what happens if the news does not fit your political idealogy Bonkey? I smell conspiracy theory here! So, which is it Bonkey? Will you accept the findings of the commission or will you accept only the answers you have already made up and want the commission to make the same regardless of facts?

dahamsta

You seem to have missed the last paragraph in bonkey's post there Geronimo. Here, I'll quote it for you, save you having to scroll up:

In the meantime, I'm just waiting for Geromino to come in and explain why the US people will support this action by the administration because they don't really want to know what happened, or that we Europeans just don't understand how American investigations work.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Bingo! However, we don't want to follow the three seperate commissions that dealt with the JFK assassination and proved basically nothing but conspiracy theories.

So you've just gone and proven bonkey right... ie we shouldn't investigate 9/11 because it'll just produce conspiracy theories.
Of course this doesn't answer the fact the White Houses' repeated stalling on calling a committee, repeated stalling on handing over information to the committee, the Bush family has many business dealings with the Bin Laden family and the royal family, highly dedacted information that was finally turned over regarding Bin Ladens and Saudi royal family, that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi (not one Afghani or Iraqi)... as documented fact. No theory to it.

Hobbes

Joking aside you have to wonder WTF was Bush thinking?

Seriously, this is like shooting puppies on live TV.

Unless he has something to hide (which TBH if he did this would be the worst way to hide it) there is no point, it would be better say that the committee was doing everything it could to find out who was responsible.

I guess this would have nothing to do with it.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-preventable.htm

"This was not something that had to happen. They simply failed." — Thomas H. Kean, Chair of the independent commission investigating 9/11. Kean is a Republican appointed by Bush

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
Joking aside you have to wonder WTF was Bush thinking?

Seriously, this is like shooting puppies on live TV.

Unless he has something to hide (which TBH if he did this would be the worst way to hide it) there is no point, it would be better say that the committee was doing everything it could to find out who was responsible.

I guess this would have nothing to do with it.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-preventable.htm

Yes it's quite stunning that a former business partner of OBL brother-in-law, Khalid bin Mahfouz, is saying this.

Sand

However, what happens if the news does not fit your political idealogy Bonkey? I smell conspiracy theory here! So, which is it Bonkey? Will you accept the findings of the commission or will you accept only the answers you have already made up and want the commission to make the same regardless of facts?

All Bonkey is saying - and its a fair enough point - is that there is no good reason for placing a time limit on the 9/11 investigation. If a deadline is imposed it cannot lead to a more complete understanding of what happened on 9/11 and how and why, in my opinion anyway. It can help limit damage to Bushes re-election campaign however.

If the worst youre fearing is conspiracy theories then placing a deadline wont do anything to prevent them being thought up and besides standdown.net is already out there doing its bit for the lunatic fringe.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Who wants to hear about magic bullets anyway?


I wonder in what areas of the inquirey is additional time need to finish?

dahamsta

Originally posted by sovtek
Yes it's quite stunning that a former business partner of OBL brother-in-law, Khalid bin Mahfouz, is saying this.

Isn't that the chap that bought an Irish passport and a nice big gaff in Meath?

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Will you accept the findings of the commission or will you accept only the answers you have already made up and want the commission to make the same regardless of facts?

I will accept the findings of a comission who was given the time it said it needed in order to reach a conclusion.

Anything less, and I will treat the findings of the comittion as - at best - probable or possible. Inconclusive, for lack of a better word.

Its generally the stance I take with anything which is incomplete.

But I was wondering more about how much in the interest of the American people this is, as opposed to myself. 9-11 (or whatever the current mot-du-jour for it is) had a far greater psychological impact on Americans than anyone else (understandably) and I feel that it is they who are being done a disservice by this latest action of the Bush Administration.

Maybe I'm just grossly overestimating how much significance Americans actually put in the tragedy of that day. Maybe they don't really care to find out what really happened. Because like you I was of the opinion that this was Bush manipulating timelines to help his re-election chances, and if I was an American I would be damned outraged that he would do such a thing at the expense of properly concluding an investigation of the events of such a recent, national tragedy.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
So you've just gone and proven bonkey right... ie we shouldn't investigate 9/11 because it'll just produce conspiracy theories.

No, thats not what he said. What he said is that it shouldn't be done wrong....as was done with the JFK affair.

I agree fully....but there doesn't seem to be any argument that the wrong thing is being done here. Bush isn't saying he doesn't want the findings at all...he's just saying he wants the team to produce them before they are ready to....which to me is tantamount to insisting that they do get it wrong.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by sovtek
Yes it's quite stunning that a former business partner of OBL brother-in-law, Khalid bin Mahfouz, is saying this.

Unless your getting into that whole guilty by association thing (OBL family long since disowned him) your also going to have to add Bush and his family as list of business partners.

Bonky

I will accept the findings of a comission who was given the time it said it needed in order to reach a conclusion.

Heh, this is Iraq and WMD and the UN all over again.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
However, what happens if the news does not fit your political idealogy Bonkey? I smell conspiracy theory here! So, which is it Bonkey? Will you accept the findings of the commission or will you accept only the answers you have already made up and want the commission to make the same regardless of facts?

You know you are back to Boards.ie when.....

all political igeologies opposing the one a poster holds get called conspiracy theorists if they refuse to accept the findings of what will probably be bull**** in a nice dress.

Anyway, I won't accept the findings of the commission because I have no faith in the system of government in America. This government has too effective a propaganda machine to be trusted - and this is not a vindication of any conspiracy theory, it is a simple statement that either way, we will never know what went on behind the scenes of the attacks.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Heh, this is Iraq and WMD and the UN all over again.

Yes, except there (in hindsight) it was clearly in the vested interest of the US to get the inspectors out.

I can see no vested interest in trying to block the 9-11 investigations from reaching a conclusion, except possibly the election-timeframe, and that one only works if you assume the populace will accept being told "no, you don't really need to know what happened".

jc

Victor

Originally posted by dahamsta
Isn't that the chap that bought an Irish passport and a nice big gaff in Meath?

With the "Trespassers will be shot" sign on the boundary? No, thats not him and lots of people have paid lots of money in libel suits for stating that.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-preventable.htm http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/mueller.jpg

Isn't that from Jack McCoy from Law and Order (Sam Waterston)? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001832/

dahamsta

Originally posted by Victor
With the "Trespassers will be shot" sign on the boundary? No, thats not him and lots of people have paid lots of money in libel suits for stating that.

Dunno anyfing about the sign, I just seem to remember the name mentioned quite a few times in the Phoenix in relation to the two items I mentioned earlier. In fact I seem to remember quite a long piece discussing a lot of bin Laden / Bush connections and the like.

adam

dahamsta

Presumably by John Young.

19 January 2004
Benefits of Terrorism

Now, 28 months after 9-11, not a single government, military, or intelligence official has been punished for failing to protect the US, and not a single officeholder, building code official, architect, engineer or builder has been penalized for the collapse of WTC.

All senior federal, state and local officials serving on 9-11 remain in office (or have left for unrelated reasons); all leading congressional members, especially those on the intelligence, defense and government oversight committees, remain in office; all contractors, lobbyists and financial supportors of these remain in place; and all these appear to have increased their power, wealth and position as a result of 9-11: in Washington the mil-intel committee members, the President, intelligence agencies and military departments, the Justice Department, FBI and law enforcement; in New York Governor Pataki, ex-mayor Guiliani, the Port Authority, celebrated architects, engineers and builders, Wall Street and downtown developers; and across the US pundits, lobbyists, flacks and apologists churning their accounts.

Beneficiaries of the 9-11 failure of duty and responsibility hope the 9-11 Commission investigating the disaster -- the reasons it was not prevented and how to prevent its recurrence -- will not be extended. That the warmaking, homeland protection, and creating enemies will continue to climb the charts.

They hope the public will continue to buy into the notion that the disaster could not have been prevented, but that it will likely be repeated unless people like them are trusted to protect the nation, that preventive war is necessary whereever the US is challenged.

They warn that because of worldwide envy of US success there's really only so much can be done to protect the nation unless the American people gives up more freedom, accepts more secrecy, supports overwhelming military action against those opposed to US principles and beliefs, and trusts those who have a vested interest in promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt.

An uncowed, clear-thinking person might wonder who is benefiting from terrorism, who wants it never to end, and who pays the burgeoning cost in money and lives.

Said a brave man, "I have a dream."

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
Unless your getting into that whole guilty by association thing (OBL family long since disowned him) your also going to have to add Bush and his family as list of business partners.



Heh, this is Iraq and WMD and the UN all over again.

I pointed out Kean's possible conflict of interest (and there's been one other commision member that is actually given testimony) in being the head of an investigation that is possibly going to be investigating a family member of his business partner.
The fact that he seems to be objective so far is actually a compliment on his part.
Sorry I didn't mention Bush's ties because I thought they were fairly well known.
That "disowning" of Osama Bin Laden isn't wholly convincing.

Geromino

Originally posted by dahamsta
You seem to have missed the last paragraph in bonkey's post there Geronimo. Here, I'll quote it for you, save you having to scroll up:

I saw it and ignored it. The real question is why should you care?

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I will accept the findings of a comission who was given the time it said it needed in order to reach a conclusion.

Anything less, and I will treat the findings of the comittion as - at best - probable or possible. Inconclusive, for lack of a better word.

My struggle is how much time is adequate for an investigation like this. Is it 3 years? Or 5 years? Or longer? The longer the investigation draws out, politics tends to offset the intesensity, intent, and motive of the investigation and the politics start to become a stomping ground for political agendas (See the three JFK investigations). In any investigative work, there will always be questions not completely answered, particularly in complex issues. However, it would depend on which questions are not answered. If they are minor questions that have little to no bearing on the outcome, then the conclusion will suffice. If they are major questions or questions that could change the result of the investigation, then it would not suffice. This now leads us to the documents in which the Commission is asking for from the Bush Adminastration. I understand their reluctance (that is, giving sensitive and top secret information to a commission that already has a short but undistinguishing history of leaking information to the press) in which the documents could get misrepresented or misquoted by those said leaks. Thus ruining any credibility of the commission and its finds (It will be JFK all over again).

With regards to investigating business ties. I am highly suspect of any investigation with business ties, unless it has to do with a financial crime (9/11 is not the case primarily although there is some reports of a possible price guaging on the future's market as a side bar issue). It quite frankly has no business in an investigation like this. One word comes to mind in this matter and that is McCarthyism.

However, Utility is right that the logical conclusion for ending the commission early is so that it does not become a campaign issue for the general election. I will have to disagree with the President on calling for an ending by Mid Year 2004. It has just started the investigation in 2002 and the miminum of three years is not up yet.

Geromino

Originally posted by Sand
All Bonkey is saying - and its a fair enough point - is that there is no good reason for placing a time limit on the 9/11 investigation. If a deadline is imposed it cannot lead to a more complete understanding of what happened on 9/11 and how and why, in my opinion anyway. It can help limit damage to Bushes re-election campaign however.

If the worst youre fearing is conspiracy theories then placing a deadline wont do anything to prevent them being thought up and besides standdown.net is already out there doing its bit for the lunatic fringe.

In any potential politically charged investigation, the longer the investigation goes, the more apt of politics entering into the fray and not the intended results, motives, or conclusions of the investigations. This is what happened in the JFK investigations in which three seperate commissions spanning over 15 years basically proved the same results but different groups did not want to hear nor acknowledge the findings of the commission.

As for conspiracy theories, they already have occured and are growing. Of course, this is the best theory out there.:D

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
My struggle is how much time is adequate for an investigation like this. Is it 3 years? Or 5 years?

The very way in which you phrase that question makes it apparent that you think cases should not actually be analysed on their own merit, but rather classified and then have a time-limit imposed on them based on that classification.

How much time is adequate is the figure that only those actually involved in the investigation can give. Like the initial US timetable for elections in Iraq, this may or may not be accepted by all as an honest answer, but thats where you should start.

In any investigative work, there will always be questions not completely answered, particularly in complex issues.

Of course. But if you say it will take 2 years to get as many answers as you can realistically get, then you should be given 2 years. To give you less or more - for whatever reason - those above you should be able to show why your figures are not acceptable.

With regards to investigating business ties. I am highly suspect of any investigation with business ties, unless it has to do with a financial crime (9/11 is not the case primarily although there is some reports of a possible price guaging on the future's market as a side bar issue). It quite frankly has no business in an investigation like this.

Why has it no business? You admit that there are reports which indicate the possibility of price gouging and market manipulation, but that these aren't worth investigating?

Explain why not? If some individual(s) or organisation(s) made X million (where X is a large number) from what seems like uncanny foresight of the disaster - which you are admitting there are at least reports indicating the possibility - you see this as a financial crime??? Foreknowledge of the actions which were to take place that day is incidental and investigating it has no place? Come on Geromino....that makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree on the price-gouging after the fact....there is nothing relevant to be investigated there...but the market manipulation? Come on...you can't seriously suggest that this shouldn't be checked out fully. Thats like saying that if someone put a lage bet down in a bookmakers that morning that the two Twin Towers would be destroyed by the end of the day, that it wouldn't be worth investigating because it would be a financial issue in a non-financial-centric crime.

However, Utility is right that the logical conclusion for ending the commission early is so that it does not become a campaign issue for the general election. I will have to disagree with the President on calling for an ending by Mid Year 2004.

And do you t feel this is a significant issue? Perhaps one worthy of media attention? After all, if that is the reason (and I would tend to agree that it is), then its a clear-cut case of the President using his powers to act against the best interests of his nation in order to influence the outcome of a Presidential Election.

If that isn't an abuse of power, I don't know what is.....
And yet, there's been barely a peep about it. The most you can say is that you "disagree" with your President.

I wonder...when the previous guy was being hounded left right and centre for his...ummm...sexual indiscretions, did you just disagree so mildly then? Or was his abuse of power - which was of a far lesser nature in terms of how it affected the country - somehow more unacceptable???

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
The very way in which you phrase that question makes it apparent that you think cases should not actually be analysed on their own merit, but rather classified and then have a time-limit imposed on them based on that classification.

How much time is adequate is the figure that only those actually involved in the investigation can give. Like the initial US timetable for elections in Iraq, this may or may not be accepted by all as an honest answer, but thats where you should start.

When dealing with potentially political investigations, my philosophy is that the quicker the investigation is done, the less likely a political agenda can be formulated and discredit any factual findings based on that merit. Putting a time limit with loose, but defined, standards is one way to limit that political delimna. However, leaving an open ended investigation where facts can be manipulated to the point which the investigation can have an unlimited life (the Clinton investigation is a prime example), then the merrits of the investigation becomes totally worthless. In contrast, having too short of an investigaion also leaves doubt with the merits of the investigation. What I am looking for is the balance between not going on too long and losing sight of the objective and going too short and making it a political mockery. I want a balance that is not defined by single, static, and pre-determined suppositions. That balance has yet to be determined.

Of course. But if you say it will take 2 years to get as many answers as you can realistically get, then you should be given 2 years. To give you less or more - for whatever reason - those above you should be able to show why your figures are not acceptable.

This goes with my statement above Bonkey!

Why has it no business? You admit that there are reports which indicate the possibility of price gouging and market manipulation, but that these aren't worth investigating?

Explain why not? If some individual(s) or organisation(s) made X million (where X is a large number) from what seems like uncanny foresight of the disaster - which you are admitting there are at least reports indicating the possibility - you see this as a financial crime??? Foreknowledge of the actions which were to take place that day is incidental and investigating it has no place? Come on Geromino....that makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree on the price-gouging after the fact....there is nothing relevant to be investigated there...but the market manipulation? Come on...you can't seriously suggest that this shouldn't be checked out fully. Thats like saying that if someone put a lage bet down in a bookmakers that morning that the two Twin Towers would be destroyed by the end of the day, that it wouldn't be worth investigating because it would be a financial issue in a non-financial-centric crime.

The only way a business dealing, partnership, or transaction has any legitimatcy with 9/11 is if there is before known, direct factual evidence of collusion, cooraboration, or criminal conspiracy. Anything less, it is McCarthyism at its worst. In respect to your question of market manipulation, this would have to be a seperate investigation since it deals with a possible financial crime. The 9/11 Commission is not set up to handle the thousands of financial documents, analyze them, and give a investigative inquiry into the matter. It is a seperate issue and there is already a mechanism in place to handle such inquiries.

And do you t feel this is a significant issue? Perhaps one worthy of media attention? After all, if that is the reason (and I would tend to agree that it is), then its a clear-cut case of the President using his powers to act against the best interests of his nation in order to influence the outcome of a Presidential Election.

If that isn't an abuse of power, I don't know what is.....
And yet, there's been barely a peep about it. The most you can say is that you "disagree" with your President.

I wonder...when the previous guy was being hounded left right and centre for his...ummm...sexual indiscretions, did you just disagree so mildly then? Or was his abuse of power - which was of a far lesser nature in terms of how it affected the country - somehow more unacceptable???

jc

I am undecided if it is a significant issue at this juncture. Personally, 9/11 was not preventable and would have occured whether Bush or Gore was in the White House. I am hoping the investigation will help in its findings that intelligence failures, systemic and beaurocratic, will be exposed and rectified. However, it is not an abuse of power by any means since the President feels, whether you agree or not is immaterial, that the commission has had enough time. However, I disagree with the President's decision on the matter for my stated reasons. As for Former President Clinton, it was more than his indiscretions, but also his financial dealings called White Water, while governor of Arkansas that prompted the initial probe and ended up being a political behemoth which I was against initially and hope this investigation does not follow the same path. The American public saw through the fascade and voted for President Clinton on other issues, which I disagreed more with President Clinton than I do with President Bush.

Which brings me to my next point, since you feel that it is an abuse of power, even though there is no legal foundation, then you are creating a single, yet convenient, excuse to fit your particular political philosophy and thus deny the report on its creditibilty, merits, and findings. I find this particularly interesting since it basically has nothing to do with you per se. It also seems to me that you already have a pre-conditioned expectation of what the commission should answer or give its answers in order to justify your political idealogy, yet you have yet to mention the two interim reports that has been issued by the commssion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Personally, 9/11 was not preventable and would have occured whether Bush or Gore was in the White House.

However, it is not an abuse of power by any means since the President feels, whether you agree or not is immaterial, that the commission has had enough time. [/b][/quote]

Hold on a sec Geromino. A few posts ago you were agreeing that the President more than likely set this date to avoid any embarrassment which might upset his electoral chances if he left the comission stick to its desired (and originally agreed?) timeframe.

Now you're saying that he feels teh comission has had enough time - thats a contradiction. Either he is cutting it short, or he is not. Either he is doing it because he believes they don't need more time, or he is doing it because he doesn't want to give them the time they need.

You're swapping from one foot to the other here, and the only possible reason I can see is that while you may not agree with the actions of your President you don't want to actually openly criticise him. Its that whole Honor! Duty! Country! thing again, isn't it?

Which brings me to my next point, since you feel that it is an abuse of power, even though there is no legal foundation, then you are creating a single, yet convenient, excuse to fit your particular political philosophy and thus deny the report on its creditibilty, merits, and findings.

Firstly, if I thought he had comitted a crime, I would have said "I think he is breaking the law". I didn't. I wrote that I think he is abusing his position" You can abuse your position without breaking the law.

For example, would you not agree that France abused its position on the UN council by threatening to veto the motion to invade Iraq, especially if - as Sand (and I think you also) has previously stated, they appear to have done so mostly to protect their own financial interests?

Similarly, if you follow any of the various emerging democracies and the comments made by any of the watchdog groups, you will often hear of the residing government abusing its position to ensure unfair access to media etc. despite not breaking any laws.

I find this particularly interesting since it basically has nothing to do with you per se.

You know...you're beginning to use this excuse frequently. Whats wrong? Run out of reasonable defences for your chosen leader, so you now need to go "its none of your business anyway"???? One has to wonder what you're actually doing on an Irish board, partaking in discussions about America, if your general attitude is that most of us (being non-American) have no right to even discuss the topics that make up in excess of 90% of those you are involved in.

On a different tack, one could ask what the methods of internal governance of Iraq has to do with you or the United States in general....but that didn't stop you, nor your government from using the brutality of Hussein to his own people as at least a partial reason for invasion.

It also seems to me that you already have a pre-conditioned expectation of what the commission should answer or give its answers in order to justify your political idealogy, yet you have yet to mention the two interim reports that has been issued by the commssion.

Geromino...would you please, please, please stop trying to dodge the issue. I was discussing one thing, and one thing only - that the President of the United States has told a comission that it cannot have the time it says it needs in order to complete an investigation into what is perhaps the most significant event to occur on American soil since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

I am not discussing the findings of the comission - past, present, nor future. I am discussing why someone would tell a comission that it can't have the time it says it needs to get the best answers it can, and why that decision is so quetly accepted considering how important the event under scrutiny is purported to be.

I posed questions about the reasons behind this, and you admitted it was most probably driven by electoral concerns. Now that I'm asking questions about whether or not you think it is acceptable for a President to do what you have agreed he has done, for the reasons you agreed he has probably done them for, you see the need to change tack completely and on one hand make this out to be some sort of attack on the comission, or some sort of discreditation of its findings, whilst on the other hand trying to question whether or not I can have any justification for even discussing this because I'm not an American.

I'm questioning the justness of the actions of your President, and also the relatively unquestioning acceptance of those actions by his subjects - you and your fellow countrymen.

You've admitted the decision was probably made at least partly because of the election timeframe. So - from where I'm sitting - either you see Bush trying to get himself re-elected as being more important than the comission on 9/11 being able to do its job fully, or you see such uses/abuses of power as perfectly acceptable from a head of state.

What amazes me is how we misunderstanding Europeans are so often told that we can't truly understand the profound effect that 9/11 has had on your (American) lives. How indelibly it has engraved itself on the American consciousness. And yet when your President says "nah....we don't need to let that comission run its course...." the people just sit quietly by and say nothing.

Something doesn't sit there.....which is what prompted the original final paragraph which you chose to ignore. But rather than telling me where my misunderstanding is, you would rather tell me i have no reason to even ask the question in the first place.

Why not? Do you want Europeans to continue to not understand and misunderstand America? Is educating us (or we eduacting ourselves) anathema to you for some reason?

Or is it just that you can't actually offer a credible explanation that wouldn't go against your relatively unquestioning approach to Duty! Honor! Country! ???

jc

P.S. The use of just/acceptable in teh above, in place of legal is deliberate.....lest that confusion continue to arise. The terms have seperate meanings.

Victor

If this was a simple case of a member of the public finding a body on the street and reporting it to the Garda, the procedure would be something like this.

The notified Garda reports the matter to his sergeant, it being a matter of a dead body, not say a relatively minor traffic offence, the sergeant would notify the duty inspector / superintendant. That officer would then instruct a team to investigate. That team would come back relatively quickly with an initial report (in conjunction perhaps with an on the scene pathologist). Now if it's a simple matter of someone having a heart attack and dying, it mostly likely goes to Pathology and Coroner's Court. If the victim has multiple stab wounds the a serious investigation is put in place. This investigation would continue until all available leads either lead to charges or those leads were exhausted.

If it is considered that those charges cover everyone involved then that is one natural conclusion. If a position comes where those leads were exhausted without a result, an interim report would be made and the file left open, awaiting further leads.

At no point would it be right for Bertie to say, "ah sure lads, all we know is someone died, the killer wasn't there when we arrived, no need to complete the investigation".

---

In short an investigation should continue so long as there are new leads, subject only to someone supervising the investigation as to whether those leads are contrived or not.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
My struggle is how much time is adequate for an investigation like this. Is it 3 years? Or 5 years? Or longer? The longer the investigation draws out, politics tends to offset the intesensity, intent, and motive of the investigation and the politics start to become a stomping ground for political agendas

Yea you're probably right. I'm just wondering when the prominent Republican appointed by Bush is going to start following the agenda set by his boss.

Victor

Originally posted by dahamsta
Isn't that the chap that bought an Irish passport and a nice big gaff in Meath?

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-72912179-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews-Features.asp

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Hold on a sec Geromino. A few posts ago you were agreeing that the President more than likely set this date to avoid any embarrassment which might upset his electoral chances if he left the comission stick to its desired (and originally agreed?) timeframe.

Now you're saying that he feels teh comission has had enough time - thats a contradiction. Either he is cutting it short, or he is not. Either he is doing it because he believes they don't need more time, or he is doing it because he doesn't want to give them the time they need.

You're swapping from one foot to the other here, and the only possible reason I can see is that while you may not agree with the actions of your President you don't want to actually openly criticise him. Its that whole Honor! Duty! Country! thing again, isn't it?

I think you and I are agreeing on the end result, that is to end the investigation before the general election, but you and I are disagreeing on how we reach that method. From your posts taken in general, I presume you believe you hold that President Bush has something to hide or the government has something to hide and that is the reason why the investigation is ending early. You further state that if he is not giving enough time for the investigation, then the report is automatically flawed and thus unrealiable completely. Although your premise is a very common argument politically speaking, it rarely provides accuracy in analysis of political decision making. What I was stating Bonkey is that President Bush may feel the investigation has had enough time given its two interim reports. I am reaching this presumption based on reports that the commission has 98% of the material it asked for. This is what I believe President Bush is making his conclusion. Nevertheless, the 2% is coming from agencies that have been slow to respond to the inquiry. However, I am believing that the investigation may not have enough time to analyze the documents to give a complete and accurate report. Already, there have been at least a half of dozen or so public meetings discussing the interim reports and material. Yet, I have also stated how does one determine how much time can one give to an investigation like this. This is where I am undecided on since it is impossible to reach any logical conclusion. What I am doing is waiting for the final report to come in before I make my final determination on the report in and of itself. It may be that only parts of the report may be in dispute, but not the report as a whole.

Firstly, if I thought he had comitted a crime, I would have said "I think he is breaking the law". I didn't. I wrote that I think he is abusing his position" You can abuse your position without breaking the law.

For example, would you not agree that France abused its position on the UN council by threatening to veto the motion to invade Iraq, especially if - as Sand (and I think you also) has previously stated, they appear to have done so mostly to protect their own financial interests?

Similarly, if you follow any of the various emerging democracies and the comments made by any of the watchdog groups, you will often hear of the residing government abusing its position to ensure unfair access to media etc. despite not breaking any laws.

Firstly, if you are stating that President Bush is abusing his power, that is going beyond the Constitutionality and thus breaking the law. However, if you feel that he made the wrong decision, then I may or may not agree with you depending on the circumstances.

With the anaology of France and its veto power, I would not say it is abusing its power since, and according to the UN charter, there is no foundation of morality how France or any of the permanent members can use or not use its veto. Nearly all of the watchdog groups you are speaking of are, quite frankly, special interests groups not in favor of the current government or process and either want the old regime back or a different regime similar to their political idealogy.

You know...you're beginning to use this excuse frequently. Whats wrong? Run out of reasonable defences for your chosen leader, so you now need to go "its none of your business anyway"???? One has to wonder what you're actually doing on an Irish board, partaking in discussions about America, if your general attitude is that most of us (being non-American) have no right to even discuss the topics that make up in excess of 90% of those you are involved in.

The same can be said of you Bonkey. However, what I was referring to is why you have taken a particular interest in the internal politics of my country. Is it to give you satisfaction of some sort that this is a backwards country and thus nothing it does is right, just, or politically justifiable in your own accord? I can understand the foreign policy issues since those decisions go beyond our borders, but internal politics rarely do.

On a different tack, one could ask what the methods of internal governance of Iraq has to do with you or the United States in general....but that didn't stop you, nor your government from using the brutality of Hussein to his own people as at least a partial reason for invasion.

As some have stated on this board, it was America's fault for putting Saddam in power. If you hold that premise true, don't you think we should be the ones to take care of the problem in the first place since it was our fault? However, given that the US is asked, and sometimes begged, to perform, acquire, or enact certain international actions beyond the current international agreements it currently has, the US has now become the de facto world's policeman and punch bag at the same time.

Geromino...would you please, please, please stop trying to dodge the issue. I was discussing one thing, and one thing only - that the President of the United States has told a comission that it cannot have the time it says it needs in order to complete an investigation into what is perhaps the most significant event to occur on American soil since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

I am not discussing the findings of the comission - past, present, nor future. I am discussing why someone would tell a comission that it can't have the time it says it needs to get the best answers it can, and why that decision is so quetly accepted considering how important the event under scrutiny is purported to be.

What I am trying to do Bonkey is for you to differentiate the findings of the commission and the proceedures of the commission. They are mutually exclusive at this point in time. You are holding that if the commssion does not have enough time, then the findings are automatically flawed. To me, that is flawed logic.

I posed questions about the reasons behind this, and you admitted it was most probably driven by electoral concerns. Now that I'm asking questions about whether or not you think it is acceptable for a President to do what you have agreed he has done, for the reasons you agreed he has probably done them for, you see the need to change tack completely and on one hand make this out to be some sort of attack on the comission, or some sort of discreditation of its findings, whilst on the other hand trying to question whether or not I can have any justification for even discussing this because I'm not an American.

I'm questioning the justness of the actions of your President, and also the relatively unquestioning acceptance of those actions by his subjects - you and your fellow countrymen.

You've admitted the decision was probably made at least partly because of the election timeframe. So - from where I'm sitting - either you see Bush trying to get himself re-elected as being more important than the comission on 9/11 being able to do its job fully, or you see such uses/abuses of power as perfectly acceptable from a head of state.

What amazes me is how we misunderstanding Europeans are so often told that we can't truly understand the profound effect that 9/11 has had on your (American) lives. How indelibly it has engraved itself on the American consciousness. And yet when your President says "nah....we don't need to let that comission run its course...." the people just sit quietly by and say nothing.

Something doesn't sit there.....which is what prompted the original final paragraph which you chose to ignore. But rather than telling me where my misunderstanding is, you would rather tell me i have no reason to even ask the question in the first place.

Why not? Do you want Europeans to continue to not understand and misunderstand America? Is educating us (or we eduacting ourselves) anathema to you for some reason?

Or is it just that you can't actually offer a credible explanation that wouldn't go against your relatively unquestioning approach to Duty! Honor! Country! ???

jc

P.S. The use of just/acceptable in teh above, in place of legal is deliberate.....lest that confusion continue to arise. The terms have seperate meanings.

There is some truth in the statement about not fully understanding because of cultural differences. Even when I lived in the Philippines, I could not fully understand to mean to be a Filipino. Nor could I completely understand to mean what it is to be Japanese, Chinese, or even Thai. When trying to understand a culture or particular sub-culture, the only way to learn is the hard way and not by someone who will tell you or would advise you or even offer a suggestion. In the previous discussion on the media, you flatly rejected the idea of at least me telling, advising, or suggesting you differently based on your political agenda. Thus, I have ignored this part of the discussion altogether.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
The same can be said of you Bonkey.

Huh? Exactly how can you say that I question other peoples rights or motives in discussing Irish-centric things because they're not Irish??? Or for any other nationality???

Please...enlighten me. How can this be said about me?????

However, what I was referring to is why you have taken a particular interest in the internal politics of my country.

1) Because the internal politics of a nation are the primary driving factor behind the external politics of a nation

2) Because the item in question is an issue directly affecting some of the most significant external "politics" (or implementations of foreign policy) that your nation - or any other for that matter - has ben involved in in the past quarter century.

3) Because you and your ilk constantly tell those who dare to do so that a large part of our "problem" is that we simply don't understand America, Americans, and the American Way. How can I possibly gain a better understanding if I don't question the current and past actions of your government? Are you suggesting that I instead limit my education to the reading of articles written by the media you yourself are so scathing of? Or should I - being non-American - just accept that I am of a lesser stature than you, and accept that I should no question or pass judgerment on The Great US, whilst sitting back and watching the US and its citizens pass judgement on the rest of the world instead.

4) Because, in cause you have missed it, the name of this forum is "Politics". If we had meant "Irish Politics", thats what we would have called it.

Is it to give you satisfaction of some sort that this is a backwards country and thus nothing it does is right, just, or politically justifiable in your own accord?

I have tried to politely point this out before, but you're obviously not getting it, so let me be blunt :

If I wanted to criticise America, I would criticise America. If I wanted to say I thought the US president, government, or people was/were wrong, I would say so.

Now go back and read the post I started this topic on. See where I wrote "I'm wondering...." and "I have to question"??? Well, in English (as opposed, perhaps, to American which I may be mistaken in assuming I understand) questions generally imply a lack of certainty, and a degree of inquisitiveness to determine the facts. At the very least, except when rhetorical, they imply a desire for someone to answer them.

There was a reason I phrased things as questions rather than simply putting my pre-formed opinion out there. Its beause I was actually asking questions rather than purely expressing an immoveable opinion. I

know that mightn't fit well with your world-view of American-hating critics who have nothing but a myopic vision of your great nation, and who love nothing better than to cast aspersions at it....but your vision of the world doesn't change reality.

I was asking for opinion because I hadn't fully formed mine. So unless you want to come straight out and call me a liar I'd suggest that you accept what I'm saying....because I'm pretty sure I understand my thought-processes better than you do.

Of course, your unwillingness / inability to actually address the questions asked is as enlightening to my search for information as any answer you could have offered.

I can understand the foreign policy issues since those decisions go beyond our borders, but internal politics rarely do.

So, let me get this straight....

You see the events of 9/11 and the ensuing aftermath as "internal politics" ????

We're talking about an attack on American soil by foreign nationals which instigated two regime-changing wars half-way across the globe, as well as countless changes in the day-to-day practices of how the US treats foreigners, with countless knock-on effects in terms of how our government(s) now do things in order to deal with the changing world the events of 9/11 have precipitated.

You call this "internal politics" and still have the temerity to accuse me of flawed logic???????? Thats brilliant.

As some have stated on this board, it was America's fault for putting Saddam in power. If you hold that premise true, don't you think we should be the ones to take care of the problem in the first place since it was our fault?

I fail to see what relevance this has to the questions I asked, nor the topic I was discussing. I've already asked you to stop trying to dodge the issue, but I guess you're just not going to give up. You'd rather tackle what you think is my agenda rather than what I'm asking.

Are the questions that hard?

What I am trying to do Bonkey is for you to differentiate the findings of the commission and the proceedures of the commission. They are mutually exclusive at this point in time. You are holding that if the commssion does not have enough time, then the findings are automatically flawed. To me, that is flawed logic.

Geromino...excplain to me why, if the comission is complaining that it won't have time to write up its report under the current deadline, that this does not automatically imply that the report must be...at the very least... incomplete?

If someone says to you "I won't have time to repair your car properly before you pick it up tomorrow", does this not automatically imply that the car is not fully repaired???

Therefore, if the comission are saying "we do not have time to complete our work", then it stands to reason that the work must be incomplete. And the comission have said this, and continue to say this when talking about Bush's new deadline.

When someone is producing something that they say is incomplete, how can it be viewed as anthing but incomplete? You call that flawed logic. Exactly where is the flaw?

Or is the flaw in assuming that "incomplete" is not as trustworthy, definitive, or certain as "complete"?

I dunno about you, but I look at the WMD "intelligence" concerning Iraq, and see the danger in assuming the trustworthiness of something that is known to be incomplete....but maybe you can show me where I'm wrong in that?

sovtek

Seeing that Bush reversed his stand on not delaying the deadline for the 9/11 commission.
Here's where the political agendas Germ mentioned start showing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13964-2004Feb4.html

"A senior Republican official said the White House acceded to the postponement after learning from commission sources that the report is likely to "have some criticism of the White House, but will not conclude that there was a failure by Bush himself.